Hey Check This Out

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:

Of course it's incredibly disrespectful to the victims and their families...but as we've seen, that's not always the primary thought on everyone's mind.

Originally posted by Don Rico:

Open your eyes people.

Originally posted by Don Rico:
FOX News believers are we?

Open your eyes people.

There is a LOT more to all this than you have made youreslaves willing to believe...

Originally posted by Double-J:
They actually did recover a bit of material from the wreckage,
Sorry. No way that much damage could be done by a plane as small (in comparison to a Boeing jet airliner) and have that much wreckage inside and out.

Originally posted by SC:
The current issue of "New York" magazine has a fairly lengthy article giving these conspiracy theories some play.

Don Cardi, I suggest you DON'T buy the issue. :p

Actor Charlie Sheen refuses to accept the official explanation behind the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001, and believes the US government covered up what really happened.

Conspiracy theorist Sheen claims New York City's Twin Towers fell as the result of a "controlled demolition."

"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box-cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 per cent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory.

It feels like from the people I talk to

and the research I've done

and around my circles

it feels like the worm is turning.

"Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers... It is up to us to reveal the truth.

we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims, we owe it to everyone's life who was drastically altered, horrifically, that day and forever.

Originally posted by Don Cardi:
[quote]Originally posted by SC:
[b] The current issue of "New York" magazine has a fairly lengthy article giving these conspiracy theories some play.

Don Cardi, I suggest you DON'T buy the issue. :p

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:



And where's the hijacked plane?

Originally posted by Sicilian Babe:
... Stand in front of the camera and look pretty. That's what you were hired for...

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
[quote]Originally posted by Sicilian Babe:
[b] ... Stand in front of the camera and look pretty. That's what you were hired for...

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:

Or Mike Farrell.

Mike Farrell: Art of Deception
By Jean Pearce
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 3, 2003

By now, Mike Farrell probably figures he’s got the nation fooled. For over 20 years, the Hollywood actor turned peace activist has flawlessly played the part of the pacifist patriot with America’s best interests at heart. Farrell is quite convincing when he’s in character, as he has been since he propelled himself to the forefront of the Iraq war protest movement. Without batting an eye, Farrell will tell you how much it would pain him to see Iraqi or American blood spilled in the unjust war on Iraq.

Farrell is counting on the fact that no one remembers another part he played one Friday night, 18 years ago in San Salvador. For 2 ½ hours, Farrell, who played a surgeon on M*A*S*H, assisted Dr. Alejandro Sanchez in a real-life operation to restore movement to the arm of Nidia Diaz, a guerilla leader of the Marxist Central American Worker’s Party. Just two months before, the group had claimed responsibility for the slaying of four U.S. Marines, two American businessmen and nine civilians. Diaz is still barred from entering the U.S. for her role in the murders.

"Apparently, it was the most important role in his life," Sandra "Sand" Brim of Medical Aid for El Salvador told the Associated Press at the time. The U.S.-based Medical Aid, which was founded by Farrell’s long-time friend and radical activist buddy, actor Ed Asner, flew in the Los Angeles doctor because there was no surgeon available with the skills to perform the delicate operation. Because he needed someone to assist him, Sanchez asked Farrell, who at the time was in Central America at the behest of Amnesty International, for help on the way to the hospital.

"I know this is going to look like a publicity stunt, but that’s too bad. It isn’t," Farrell told the Los Angeles Times after the operation.

If not a publicity stunt, than what was it? A good-hearted effort to put a Marxist terrorist with American blood on her hands back in the battlefield to prey upon the very civilians Farrell claimed to want to help?

By 1985, Farrell and a small handful of Hollywood actors had become a thorn in the side of the Reagan administration, which spent millions aiding the Nicaraguan Contras in their battle against the Cuban and Soviet-backed Marxist Sandinistas. Farrell and Asner’s group, Committee of Concern for Central America, even went so far as to invite Nicaragua’s Communist Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega, for a nine-day publicity tour of American cities, the purpose of which, The Washington Post reported, was to counter the Reagan administration’s "disinformation" effort against Nicaragua’s communist government. At the final event, a fundraiser for the Committee of Concern, the Post reported that Ortega raised his fist in the air and shouted "If the United States commits the error of invading us, we know we will struggle with you at our side," which elicited cheers from the audience.

This is the real Mike Farrell – Marxist sympathizer, militant anti-American, selective pacifist with a disdain for the American blood that flows through his own veins.

Like the other Hollywood radicals who spent years "helping" in Nicaragua and El Salvador in direct opposition to U.S. efforts to combat communism at America’s doorstep, Farrell would probably insist that they were merely trying to help Nicaraguan civilians who were suffering at the hands of the Contras the U.S. supported.

But in the1990s, after the people of Nicaragua deep-sixed Ortega’s violent government and voted out the communist Sandinistas, the Hollywood crowd scattered like roaches from the light. When Hurricane Mitch killed 11,000 and devastated Central America in 1998 Farrell and his Committee of Concern were nowhere to be found.

So what exactly was Farrell up to while thousands of Nicaraguan children died of starvation? What could possibly have been more important to the man who once offered himself to the media as Central America’s anti-Contra protector and spokesman?

Apparently, sparing convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal from the death penalty and setting him free took precedence. Farrell’s only public appearance of note in the months after the hurricane was a stint on 20/20 in which Farrell, who once co-chaired the New York-based Committee to Save Mumia Abu-Jamal, was summarily shellacked by ABC newsman Sam Donaldson.

Given his history, it would be easy to brush Farrell off if he weren’t so good at grabbing the limelight when he wants to make a point. Like lesser-known activists with Marxist credentials, Farrell seems to have the formula for using the media to reach the public down pat. He simply creates a protest group, signs up half of Hollywood, then uses their combined star power as leverage to weigh in on an issue. It’s what he did while stumping for the Sandinistas, and what he did again with the help of actor Martin Sheen when he launched Artists United to Win Without War in September.

With about $300,000, a couple of ads and a web site, Farrell and his friends set up a virtual march on Washington to protest the war that resulted in thousands of phone calls and faxes from 80,000 people who signed up online to harass Congress and the White House with anti-war messages.
Once again, Farrell had gotten away if not with murder, then with aiding and abetting it .

Originally posted by Double-J:
[quote]Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
[b]
Or Mike Farrell.

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
there are different kinds of 'peace'. Not all of them are necessarily a good.

Originally posted by Enzo Scifo:
[quote]Originally posted by Double-J:
[b] [quote]Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
[b]
Or Mike Farrell.

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
Don Cardi - I think that the crew/passengers list you posted was that of Flight 11, one of the two that crashed into the WTC. Only saying that because I noticed the name of producer David Angell.

Apple

Originally posted by Sicilian Babe:
What about all of the people who stood by helplessly as they watched the planes fly into the buildings? Were they all bought and paid for by the conspirators? Puh-leeze.

Originally posted by Don Rico:
FOX News believers are we?

Open your eyes people.

There is a LOT more to all this than you have made youreslaves willing to believe...

Originally posted by DonMichaelCorleone:
I guess the only question you would have to answer then is, who opened the drapes

Originally posted by Don Cardi:
[QUOTE]...Hey, who the hell are we to challenge what Charlie Sheen has said? After all he is an expert on planes and such....

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:

Originally posted by plawrence:


I certainly wouldn't be shocked or surprised to learn that there is a lot more to the story of the events of 9/11, and that our government was in some way involved in withholding or covering up all or part of the truth with respect to what really happened.

And I quite honestly don't see how or why a legitimate search for the truth - not far-fetched theories with which the "theorists" seek to generate publicity for themselves, but true searches for the truth by those who honestly believe that there is more to the story - in any way disrespects or dishonors the victims or their families.

If anything, in fact, the reverse is true. A real search for the truth honors the victims by refusing to let their memories fade away and get lost in the miasma of yet another government cover-up.

Originally posted by Don Cardi:
These crackpots are talking about a MAJOR conspiracy taking place

Originally posted by Don Cardi:
What's being presented by the originator of this topic and the kind of investigation and coverups that you are suggesting may have happened are two totally separate issues and in no way go hand in hand.

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
The geeks and crackpots like to have reasons to mistrust their government, especially when the opposing party is in power

Originally posted by Don Rico:
You arch-conservative types can slam Charlie Sheen all day long. Go ahead and ridicule him and the other celebrities who speak out and stand up for peace. Point your fingers and label it a "conspiracy theory" if you want. Get bent out of shape if you want.

Originally posted by J Geoff:
Queen Isabella: Thought the world was flat, and believed it with all her heart and soul and mind, and, had no reason whatsover to NOT believe it...!

Originally posted by plawrence:

What did I say in my first post?

"That the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attack, and rather than trying to prevent it they decided instead to "help it along" so they would have an excuse to embark on a war against Muslim extremism."

Like maybe help it along with a controled demolition of the buildings?

Is that so far-fetched? Is that such a crackpot of a theory?

Seems to me that if there are people who truly belive that's what happened, then it's worthy of discussion.

Originally posted by Don Rico:
You arch-conservative types can slam Charlie Sheen all day long. Go ahead and ridicule him and the other celebrities who speak out and stand up for peace. Point your fingers and label it a "conspiracy theory" if you want. Get bent out of shape if you want.

An open mind will seek out information, take the necessary grains of salt, and draw it's own conclusions.

Sometimes it does become necessary to question the "official version" of events, as promulgated by the powers that be and the vested interests they represent.

Are reactionary chest-pounding and herd-mentality posture necessary in order to avoid the legitimate questions being raised here?

Like Don Vito knew very well, the U.S. Government does NOT have yours or my best interests at heart.

Now certainly, you far-right-wing nuts have the inalienable right to keep the wool firmly pulled over your own eyes. Go back to sleep. Or should I say go back to watching FOX News. Oink!

As far as "reality" vs. "conspiracy" I can tell you this:

I would not rule ANYTHING out when it comes to the evil gang of criminals who now control the U.S. Government, and their desperate attempts to consolidate and increase their power.

Something to think about...

Originally posted by SC:
You mean the world ain't flat???

Originally posted by plawrence:
[QUOTE]...The Kennedy assassination and cover-up was engineered while the Democrats were in power and, if anything, i was even more outraged by it because it was my party in power who was responsible for the whole thing....

Originally posted by plawrence:
[QUOTE]..."But let's be sure we make one important distinction here:
Not everyone who mistrusts the government is a geek or a crackpot."

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
So you're saying that Kennedy WAS assasinated by his own government who then proceeded with the assistance of the Democratic party to cover it up?

(insert Twilight Zone theme here)

Apple

"That the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attack, and rather than trying to prevent it they decided instead to "help it along" so they would have an excuse to embark on a war against Muslim extremism."

Like maybe help it along with a controled demolition of the buildings?

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
So you're saying that Kennedy WAS assasinated by his own government who then proceeded with the assistance of the Democratic party to cover it up?

(insert Twilight Zone theme here)

Originally posted by plawrence:
"That the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attack, and rather than trying to prevent it they decided instead to "help it along" so they would have an excuse to embark on a war against Muslim extremism."

Like maybe help it along with a controled demolition of the buildings?

Originally posted by Don Cardi:
So that would mean that the government would have had to know that two planes were going to hit the WTC on the morning of September 11th 2001 and would have needed to time everything perfectly and plant explosives strategically within those building at the exact locations of parts of the structure that would make the building implode and crumble at the push of a button. You're sugggesting that the government would allow all of those people to get on those planes, allow those planes to crash into the WTC and allow not only all of those on board those planes to die, but also allow the people in those building to die, allow people to jump out of windows to their deaths, allow the fireman and Policemen to go into those building, wait for them to reach a certain point in those buildings and then set off bombs to kill everyone in those buildings by making them collapse the way they did?

The government would allow all of those people to get onto flight 93, fully knowing that the flight would be hijacked by terrorists, and allow those people to die so that they, the government, could create more hate for the muslim world?

The government, to make it look good, would claim that antoher airliner that had 63 people on board was hijacked, and that it flew into the pentagon? This flight 77 hitting the pentagon was made up by the governemnt?

So according to this theory that you want to entertain, there really was no flight 77 that flew into the pentagon. According to this theory that you want to allow to be heard, flight 77 never really hit the pentagon and therefore flight 77 and all those people on it, all the people who claimed to see it hit the pentagon, were part of this conspiracy?

Or is it that these people never even really existed or they convinced by the government to become a part of this conspiracy?

When I said MAJOR in my other post, I was trying to point out that it would have had to have been a MAJOR conspiracy on a GRAND scale because of how many thousands of people would have to be involved to cover this whole thing up. Not in the sense that some conspiracies are minor and others major. Of course all conspiracies are major. But my use of the world major was to point out the grand scale of how many people would have to be involved.

So answer me this Plaw ; If you seriously think the conspiracy theory presented by the originator of this topic could possibly hold any water, then

1) Explain to us where flight 77 really went or if there even really was a flight 77.

2) Explain to us how tens of thousands of people from high up in government, through the military and right on down to the average citizen could ALL be made a part of this conspiracy and made to be kept quiet.

Originally posted by plawrence:
[QUOTE]... it was LBJ who appointed the members of the Warren Commission - including Allen Dulles, Director of the CIA, who was certainly anything but an objective and disinterested investigator...

Originally posted by Double-J:
Evidence would be a great thing.

Originally posted by plawrence:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by plawrence:
[qbThat's a far cry from the government knowing the attacks were coming and deciding to help them along.

They didn't have to do anything to "make it look good".

It looked good enough. they had real planes flying into real buildings. What could look better than that?

How many people would have to be involved in a conspiracy of that nature?

Bush and Cheney, and a few generals maybe, the head guy of some "Black Ops" unit, a few demolition experts - maybe 10 or 20 people at the most.

Originally posted by plawrence:
[quote]Originally posted by Double-J:
[b]Evidence would be a great thing.

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
But plaw, enough of this JFK stuff. Don Cardi is right, while you go on & on about mistrust of the gov't which you HATE to have to profess to having (and the JFK issue was certainly a clever diversion)...you continue to avoid the question of what happened to Flight 777 and it's passengers & crew (not to mention the hijacker's)...if it didn't crash into the Pentagon.

Do you have a theory? Or is it just that you advocate 'honest' investigations, non-tainted evidence and mistrust of the government?

Originally posted by plawrence:
... will we ever be able to separate the fact from the fiction?

...there is always the possibility that the connection was manufactured by the CIA ...

... it's certainly a possibility, however slim a possibility it may be.

...we don't really know who to believe, do we? We certainly don't know which of the eyewitnesses may be part of the conspiracy.

.... I have no idea whatsoever what is fact and what is fantasy.

...do we really know for sure?

...[b]Zapruder Film Very possibly the least reliable piece of really important evidence of all.

(editor's note: figures that the one thing that documents the very moment of the shooting, in its entirety...would be considered the 'least reliable' piece of evidence)

...Frank Ragano...Can we be 100% certain that he's telling the truth? [/b]

Originally posted by plawrence:
[b]Lee Harvey Oswald/connections to Soviets/Cuba/OC

There is certainly some connection, but can we be or will we ever be able to separate the fact from the fiction?

Jack Ruby/connections to OC

That's one piece of evidence that I have confidence in. I believe that there is some connection.

But there is always the possibility that the connection was manufactured by the CIA in their effort to point the speculation away from them and onto the mafia, isin't there?

Magic Bullet

There are those who still believe in the "Magic Bullet Theory". I don't, you don't, but it's certainly a possibility, however slim a possibility it may be.

Eyewitnesses

So many different and conflicting versions, though. And we don't really know who to believe, do we? We certainly don't know which of the eyewitnesses may be part of the conspiracy.

Government Officials (Fletcher Prouty)

When it comes to anything having to do with the CIA and their involvement, I have no idea whatsoever what is fact and what is fantasy.

Medical Technicians/Doctors

Again, conflicting reports and observations all the way around. The doctors at Parkland and the doctors at Bethesda seemed to be looking at two different bodies, so different was what they said.

My personal belief is that the doctors at Bethesda who performed the autopsy were the ones who were scared into silence and told what to say and that the observations of the doctors at Parkland are much more reliable since it is far more likely that they viewed the body in an unaltered state - only minutes after the shooting before it could have been altered - and before the cover-up may have been in full swing, but do we really know for sure?

Zapruder Film

Very possibly the least reliable piece of really important evidence of all.

Surely you've heard the questions about the film's provenance and chain of custody...How it was immediately seized by the FBI, how frames might have been switched, how a different frame by frame version of the original was "accidentally" published in Life magazine which supposedly created the impression that the shots came from another direction (I'm a little fuzzy on the details here, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about).

The point is, how many different versions of the film may be floating around out there, and even if there is only one, how can we be certain of its authenticity?

Frank Ragano

Refresh my memory. He was Trafficante's attorney? Or was it Marcello?

Can we be 100% certain that he's telling the truth? [/b]

Originally posted by Double-J:
[QUOTE]...There is no evidence that there was a 9/11 conspiracy, especially in the instances we are discussing here (a missile/unmanned plane/truck filled with TNT hitting the pentagon, the WTC towers exploded from the inside).

Originally posted by Don Cardi:
again you avoid the theory that was originally presneted here, the one that I am making reference to. The theory that an airliner never hit the pentagon.

Your injecting the possibility of the governemnt having prior knowledge that the attacks were coming. I don't deny that possibility. But you keep going bakc to that.

THIS theory PRESENTED ORIGINALLY in this topic talks about an airliner NEVER really hitting the Pentagon! And on that claim by Sheen and his crackpot theorists, I presented my questions.

So I'll ask you again ;

If we are to consider a theory like this one which claims that an airliner never hit the pentagon, then someone needs to explain where flight 77 really went, what happened to the people on board that flight, if they were a apt of this conspiracy claim, or if they believe that that flight really existed or not.

Not talking about the possibility of holding back PRE-INTELLIGENCE Plaw, talking about what happened to flight 77 and it's people who these theorist claim never hit the Pentagon.

That's the issue at hand here.

Originally posted by plawrence:
[QUOTE]...The "issue at hand" here is not what you, Don Cardi, or what I, plawrence, or what Apple or Double-J or anyone else says it is in an attempt to control the direction of the discussion.

Originally posted by plawrence:
[QUOTE]...This is a message board. Someone starts a topic and then people post their opinion,s, ideas, thoughts, comments, etc., that apply to the original topic, and very often the original topic goes iff in any number of different, yet valid, directions..

Originally posted by plawrence:
[QUOTE]...A discussion of the WTC and 9/11 is fair game for this thread, which should not be limited merely to a discussion about "If it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon but a missle, then what happened to the aircraft and people who were aboard flight 77?"

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
Do you believe that it was Flight 777 that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01?

Yes or no.

I am certainly no believer in those extreme conspiracy theories that involve such ideas as "the airplanes weren't airplanes but holograms", or the like.

I too do not buy into these whacky, crackpot theories about phantom planes and holograms and missing or brainwashed passengers

Originally posted by Don Cardi:

The government, to make it look good, would claim that antoher airliner that had 63 people on board was hijacked, and that it flew into the pentagon? This flight 77 hitting the pentagon was made up by the governemnt?

So according to this theory that you want to entertain, there really was no flight 77 that flew into the pentagon. According to this theory that you want to allow to be heard, flight 77 never really hit the pentagon and therefore flight 77 and all those people on it, all the people who claimed to see it hit the pentagon, were part of this conspiracy?

Or is it that these people never even really existed or they convinced by the government to become a part of this conspiracy?

So answer me this Plaw ; If you seriously think the conspiracy theory presented by the originator of this topic could possibly hold any water, then

1) Explain to us where flight 77 really went or if there even really was a flight 77.

2) Explain to us how tens of thousands of people from high up in government, through the military and right on down to the average citizen could ALL be made a part of this conspiracy and made to be kept quiet.

Originally posted by plawrence:

Whoa....slow down here.

None of this baloney about missing planes and missing passengers and all of them being a part of the conspiracy etc. etc. is necessary here.

Where or when did I ever say that was a possibility?

That's a far cry from the government knowing the attacks were coming and deciding to help them along.

They didn't have to do anything to "make it look good".

It looked good enough. they had real planes flying into real buildings. What could look better than that?

Originally posted by plawrence:

The two videos raise an awful lot of interesting questions and issues, not the least of which are differing eyewitness accounts, how if the fire/explosion was hot enough to just about completely vaporize the plane they were able to identify body parts, how this guy who could barely fly a single engine Cessena was able to fly a Boeing 747 at 500+ MPH about 30 feet off the ground for the last several hundred yards, if the plane entered the building through the relatively narrow hole it created, why didn't the wings break off outside the building at the moment of impact, etc. etc.

"Hunt the Boeing" Answers

by Paul Boutin and Patrick Di Justo

[UPDATE: Agence France-Presse story is here. Patrick and I were also on Toronto's International Connection radio show earlier.]

Paul Boutin is a freelance technology writer and former engineer in San Francisco. Patrick Di Justo is an astrophysics educator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City who writes for Wired magazine and Wired News.

To be clear: We believe that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 because we know far too many friends and colleagues in Washington who saw the plane come in over the freeway - some right over their heads - and felt the earth shake as it disappeared into the Pentagon. And we think people who believe they can uncover the truth about anything by surfing the Web are deceiving themselves in a dangerous way.

But we couldn't help taking up the challenge anyway.

As lifelong propellerheads who firmly believe in asking questions, we found Hunt the Boeing an engaging puzzle, despite its tragic subject matter, but one full of obvious errors and misleading questions. Since many of our friends continue to ask us if we've seen the site, we decided to document our answers to it, which we wrote separately. As might be expected, Patrick focused on the math and science (you may remember his widely circulated napkin math on the WTC attack), while Paul picked apart the wording of the questions.

See the original site for photos that accompany the questions.

Question No 1

The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

Paul: The question and photos are misleading: Parts of the plane penetrated the ground floors of the second and third rings of the building. These photos show only their intact roofs. Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the plane’s engines.

More importantly, the question focuses on the plane’s size and weight, making it sound extraordinarily heavy, but leaves out the size and weight of the Pentagon – America’s largest office building with three times the floor space of the Empire State Building - as well as the difference in relative stiffness and energy absorption between a building and an airplane. Each side of the Pentagon contains over 100,000 tons of Potomac sand mixed into the steel-reinforced concrete under its limestome facade. There are nearly 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building. And in the wake of bombings in Oklahoma City and Saudi Arabia, that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes designed to prevent it from collapsing after an explosion.

By contrast, the plane is only 100 tons of custom alloys stretched thin enough to fly. It’s not like a giant bullet; more like a giant racing bike. Even so, the plane knocked down 10,000 tons of building material - 100 times its own weight - in the crash and subsequent collapse. Another 57,000 tons of the Pentagon were damaged badly enough to be torn down. The Brobdingnagian scale of the Pentagon makes the total area of damage seem small, but it would hold several Silicon Valley office buildings, or an airport terminal.

Patrick: Watch the videotapes of the planes hitting the World Trade Center. They were traveling at approximately 400 mph, and they hit an aluminum and glass building. An entire plane went in, and hardly anything came out the other side, 208 feet away.

Here we have a plane traveling at nearly 250 mph (just over 1/2 the velocity of the WTC planes, meaning just over 1/4 of their kinetic energy), hitting the ground (which would absorb much of that energy), and only then sliding at a much slower speed into a steel-and-kevlar-reinforced concrete and brick building. Obviously, it's not going to go very far. Still, parts of the plane penetrated into the C ring.

Question No 2

The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack. We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards high. Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

Paul: Again the question contains incorrect facts in its setup: As reported in the New York Times, the plane struck between the first and second floors of the building. The high-res version of the photo shows a two story high hole in side of the building. Don't look where the fire truck is directing its water, but towards the center of the photo – two floors out of four are knocked out of the outside wall.

Patrick: The plane hit the ground first, then slid into the building. If the landing wheels were not down and locked, the full height of the plane would extend upwards into the second floor of the building, which is what happened.

Question No 3

The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building. You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

Paul: : Yet another leading question ("you'll remember..."), but one looking in the wrong place anyway. At 250 mph, the plane did not stop at the outside of the building. Security camera photos and eyewitness accounts from many credible people, including AP reporter Dave Winslow, agree that the plane completely disappeared into the building. If you’ve seen photos of airline crashes after the fire is out, they often look more like landfill sites than anything recognizable as having been an airplane.

But since the question more literally asks for a photo showing airliner debris on the lawn, here's one. Here's another.

Patrick: The Pentagon burned (or at least smoldered) for several days. Was this photograph taken on September 11? Or was it taken after the wreckage was moved away?

Question No 4

The photograph in question 4 shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf. Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

Patrick: My father was a construction engineer. He would only put a crane onto a grass lawn in an extreme emergency, and only after getting indemnified against damages. No, the first thing he would do is to lay down a pathway of steel plates, then cover them with gravel, to prevent his equipment from getting bogged down in the soft earth. When you see in that picture is a roadway being built to bring the heavy equipment across the lawn.

Paul: You don’t have to be a construction worker to recognize a road being built over the lawn, to support the vehicles dismantling the damaged building and hauling away debris. I can’t find any news reports (or people who remember any) about Donald Rumsfeld personally ordering this work done. I suspect the statement is false, and was added to make the activity seem more suspicious.

Question No 5

The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

Patrick: I'm not certain the models are to scale, and they're certainly not in the correct orientation. Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.

Paul: If you’re going to doctor evidence, do it right: Eyewitness accounts say the plane hit from 45 degrees to the side. Adjust the silhouettes properly, and fix the parallax effect in the second photo. The plane fits the impact area pretty well: Don't look at the collapsed upper floors, but at the wider swatch knocked out of the ground floor. I would expect the wings, being weaker than the building, to collapse on the way in. But with no previous crashes of the sort to guide us, we can't possibly predict what should have happened. If there's anything we learned that day, it's that we are poor judges of what is and isn't possible.

Question No 6

The quotations in Question 6 correspond to statements made by Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher, at a press conference held by Assistant Defence Secretary, Victoria Clarke, on 12 September 2001, at the Pentagon.

When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."

"You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?"

"We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -"

Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

Paul: Quoting people verbatim to make them sound like they are dissembling is an old journalists’ trick, as any Doonesbury reader knows. I think Chief Plaugher answered the question pretty well: There’s a puddle (of melted metal, not jet fuel – he’s not directly answering the reporter’s idiotic question) that was the nose, and a few small pieces visible, but no large sections.

Patrick: Are any government officials telling any journalists anything these days?

Question No 7

The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

Paul: The answer is front and center in the photo, maybe to make us think it can’t be that obvious: The two-story high impact hole (also seen in the photo for Question No 2) is immediately to the right of the fireman, partly hidden by the spray of water from the fire truck. Look at the second high-res photo and you can't miss it. Are we supposed to think it’s a two-story archway of some sort? See pre-crash photos or the surviving sides for comparison.

Patrick: In enlargement #1, the impact hole fits in the rectangle formed from pixel(1232,1088) to pixel(1492, 1545).

After that, I didn’t bother to look at enlargement #2.

Originally posted by plawrence:
[QUOTE]...Yes. I believe that it was Flight 777 that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01 ...

Originally posted by :
Interesting when the tables are turned.

Apple

Originally posted by Don Cardi:

What you are talking about in your post is completely different than calling for an investigation to find out if the government blew up the pentagon, blew up the WTC, and convinced the crews, passengers and maybe even some families to join them in creating this false attack and becoming part of this major conspiracy.

So please don't insult our intelligence by mixing apples and oranges together under this topic.

What's being presented by the originator of this topic and the kind of investigation and coverups that you are suggesting may have happened are two totally seprate issues and in no way go hand in hand.

If you fell the need to discuss a coverup by our government of pre-intelligence, then do us and yourself a favor by starting another topic. Because your injecting those thoughts into this outrageous theory is both unfair and misleading.

Apples and Oranges.

Originally posted by plawrence:

Then what do you suggest that we call it?

Originally posted by plawrence:
The two videos raise an awful lot of interesting questions and issues......

Originally posted by Double-J:
Not really.

"Hunt the Boeing" Answers

by Paul Boutin and Patrick Di Justo

[UPDATE: Agence France-Presse story is here. Patrick and I were also on Toronto's International Connection radio show earlier.]

Paul Boutin is a freelance technology writer and former engineer in San Francisco. Patrick Di Justo is an astrophysics educator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City who writes for Wired magazine and Wired News.

To be clear: We believe that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 because.......

Originally posted by plawrence:
...The question was asked and answered...

Originally posted by plawrence:
[QUOTE]...For all I know they could be bigger crackpots than Charlie Sheen. Or almost as big. Or just plain old ordinary every day run-of-the-mill crackpots.

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
[quote]Originally posted by plawrence:
[b] [QUOTE]...For all I know they could be bigger crackpots than Charlie Sheen. Or almost as big. Or just plain old ordinary every day run-of-the-mill crackpots.

Originally posted by The Italian Stallionette:
I don't understand why PLaw is getting criticized for supposedly going off topic. I don't see it. If there is a rule during our discussions that we can't drift (although I don't think he did)somewhat from a topic, I'd like to know. Don't we "all" do that from time to time?

Originally posted by plawrence:

Originally posted by plawrence:

You don't make any comments about SC sticking to "the issue at hand" when he mentioned the New York Magazine article,

Originally posted by plawrence:
Your comments, I think, are getting sillier as we go along, Apple, and as you have done so often in the past you are just marching along to the beat of your own personal drummer while paying little or no attention or regard to what anyone else is saying.

But as the "If it's good enough for Bush it's good enough for me" gal, you managed to go pretty far along - in this thread, anyway - before lapsing into your usual tactics.

And now that the conversation with you has degenerated past the point of making any sense, I will bid you a fond au revoir.

Originally posted by Double-J:

Originally posted by Double-J:
[QUOTE]...Don't say "pot" too loud, Apple. Someone we know might come running! ...

Originally posted by Don Cardi:
The point that I was trying to make, with you Plaw, was that while the original premise of this topic was about a plane NOT hitting the pentagon, and my making a post questioning the validity of such a claim, your reply never addressed my questioning the validy of that SPECIFIC claim that a plane did not hit the pentagon.

But what I was looking for, and what you have avoided was a DIRECT answer to my questioning the validity of the claim that an AIRLINER did NOT hit the Pentagon. I posted asking that if there was a possibility of a plane not hitting the pentagon, then where do you think that plane with 63 lives went, or where did those 63 people go, or were they also a part of the grand conspiracy?

But instead you keep posting about the general possibility of the government holding back after recieving pre-intelligence. That is not in question by me. That is not what I am doubting or denying. I am questioning the claim that a plane did NOT hit the pentagon and what your thoughts are on THAT alone which would make you believe that there is a possibility of that!

And TIS, with all due respect, if you could please go back and read ALL of my posts, you would clearly see that I was not chastising Plaw for getting off topic per say, I was chastising his unwillingness to answer the direct question about the so called phantom plane that hit the pentagon and how it would be possible for a plane to dissapear and/or those 63 people to dissapear and be part of this ridiculous conspiracy theory that is obviously full of holes becaue no one has even bothered to answer or refute any of the points that I have brought out about this PENTAGON theory!

Instead Plaw decides to inject his own feelings of the government possibly conspiring to hold back pre-intelligence information. There is abslolutely nothing wrong with Plaw bringing up that point and posting it in this topic. And all I was looking for was a direct answer to my questions, and not looking to tell anyone that they can or cannot post other ideas under this tiopic.

Originally posted by plawrence:
I am certainly no believer in those extreme conspiracy theories that involve such ideas as "the airplanes weren't airplanes but holograms", or the like.

I too do not buy into these whacky, crackpot theories about phantom planes and holograms and missing or brainwashed passengers

Originally posted by Don Cardi:

The government, to make it look good, would claim that antoher airliner that had 63 people on board was hijacked, and that it flew into the pentagon? This flight 77 hitting the pentagon was made up by the governemnt?

So according to this theory that you want to entertain, there really was no flight 77 that flew into the pentagon. According to this theory that you want to allow to be heard, flight 77 never really hit the pentagon and therefore flight 77 and all those people on it, all the people who claimed to see it hit the pentagon, were part of this conspiracy?

Or is it that these people never even really existed or they convinced by the government to become a part of this conspiracy?

So answer me this Plaw ; If you seriously think the conspiracy theory presented by the originator of this topic could possibly hold any water, then

1) Explain to us where flight 77 really went or if there even really was a flight 77.

2) Explain to us how tens of thousands of people from high up in government, through the military and right on down to the average citizen could ALL be made a part of this conspiracy and made to be kept quiet.

Originally posted by plawrence:

Whoa....slow down here.

None of this baloney about missing planes and missing passengers and all of them being a part of the conspiracy etc. etc. is necessary here.

Where or when did I ever say that was a possibility?

That's a far cry from the government knowing the attacks were coming and deciding to help them along.

They didn't have to do anything to "make it look good".

It looked good enough. they had real planes flying into real buildings. What could look better than that?

Originally posted by plawrence:
And when someone tells me that I am insulting their intelligence with what I post and that I should do myelf and everyone else a favor by starting another topic if I wish to discuss our government's possible foreknowledge about 9/11 because that is not what "this" topic is about, then "Yes", I interpret that as unwarranted criticsm of what I posted.

Originally posted by The Italian Stallionette:
but that does not mean that there aren't valid questions regarding this topic that can't be asked or discussed. Because one idea is farfetched, doesn't mean that others are.

TIS

Originally posted by Double-J:
[quote]Originally posted by plawrence:
[b]
Then what do you suggest that we call it?

Originally posted by Double-J:
For some, Albert Einstein was a crackpot. He didn't even believe his own theories at first, and tried to prove them false before he would accept them.

Would you disbelieve relativity just because you could find a scientific "expert" who said it wasn't true?

In this case, I chose to quote these two guys because a.) it was a non-technical explanation and b.) one was in the field of astrophysics.

Either way, I think their points are valid, especially when you consider the people suggesting this theory in the first place are anti-American socialist-leftists who have taken a great deal of care to misinform and manipulate their argument to give in some air of legitimacy for those foolish enough to believe their trash.

Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
But so far in this entire thread, I've seen only ONE post that was undeniably an outright 'criticism' specifically directed at a fellow BB-member. (A typical characteristic of a lib who's been cornered)

Originally posted by plawrence:
All I am saying is that I am eminently unqualified to pass judgement on the plausibility of the statements you quote.

(By kind permission of:American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003)

“Hopefully the foreign press will be more receptive to our cause, and the word will get back home,” said Berg, who claims the American media has purposely ignored his lawsuit against Bush in order to protect the administration against any type of public backlash.

Independent investigators said both towers suspiciously fell “like a house of cards,” claiming that Rodriguez probably heard pre-arranged detonated bomb blasts, strategically placed and timed to make it appear that the jetliner was the cause of the collapse.

However, critics claim the government’s theory is impossible since much more was needed in order to bring the towers down so quickly. They claim it is more likely that explosive devices were placed in the towers and detonated when the jetliners made impact.

“Right after 9-11 occurred, I knew something was strange when I saw [Chief of Staff] Andy Card tell Bush about the second plane hitting the towers. There was absolutely no reaction on the president’s face, and it was then I understood he must have known about the plan all along.”

“It is time for a non-violent revolution by the millions of Americans who are tired of their rights being diminished by the Bush administration, tired of the lies of the Bush administration, tired of the lies about Iraq and tired and disgusted with the lies about 9-11,” said Berg.