Was 911 an inside job?

[robalan]

Your original statement:

"It's kind of sad how our culture has turned into a nation of conspiracy theorists"

I rejected it because it is not theory. There is nothing sad about being aware of it. What it sad is how ignorant everyone else is about how power works in the world, and it is not often for the good.

...
The Pharisees conspired against Jesus.
The Roman Senate conspired against Ceasar
Rommel Conspired against Hitler
The Bolshevicks conspired against the Czar.
Alexander VI conspired against the Colonna
John XII conspired against Otto I
The US conspired against Castro
....

It happens all the time. Perhaps you should read about Norman England. Motte and Bailey castels were monuments to the conspiracies of the Nobels against the Kings.

Right, but just because conspiracies have happened in the past (even frequently), it doesn't mean that every scenario and event in the world is a conspiracy. Anyway, talking about this isn't worth my time. Take care.

 

[Driver]

Now that is just plain stupid considering the number of live peaple who seen the airplanes fly into the building, The arabs were trained pilots. Remember enginers designed the (pacer) just like every other job engineers have there 10 % of moroons as well, they come from all schools and all walks of life. Most peaple are cowards and should not be expected to act particularly when they have there families with them. A bomb threat would keep most at bay, weather the bomb was present or not. i worked for the government there is no way anything on that scale could have been performed effectivly on the sly. too many hands in the kitty to keep anything secret.

On August 25, 2001, "Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force successfully auto-lands a pilot-less FedEx Boeing 727 six times at Holloman AFB, NM using a military GPS landing system, that will enable ground control to take control of a hijacked airplane and force land it".

Also, five Raytheon employees were on 3 of the 4 hijacked planes, and the wife of one of them who was on Flight 11 said her husband, who couldn't sleep, woke her up in the middle of the night, very distressed, the night before.

Also, it's odd that an Israeli commando was seated in the middle of the 4 hijackers on Flight 11. Source And many of the hijackers have turned up alive. The FBI admits they aren't sure about the identity of the hijackers. Source

 

[gwynedd1]

Right, but just because conspiracies have happened in the past (even frequently), it doesn't mean that every scenario and event in the world is a conspiracy. Anyway, talking about this isn't worth my time. Take care.

My point is you did not provide any meaningful information and instead broadly derided a group of people for no reason and with no substance. That is pretty arrogant. Please be more considerate next time. Thanks

 

[Driver]

.

 

[gwynedd1]

The evedence clearly shows two big airplanes fligh into two big buildings and then the two biuildings fall and go boom, to assume the airplanes had nothing to do with is moronic

You are incorrect.

According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, 1 and 2 World Trade Center were designed to survive an impact and resulting fires from a collision by the largest commercial aircraft at the time, a Boeing 707-340. [SIZE=-1] 1 [/SIZE] Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the 767-200s used on 9-11 were only slightly larger than 707s.

The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. [SIZE=-1] 2 [/SIZE] Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.
property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200 fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2 length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

it would take nearly a 1000 peaple to pull off a job that big with the government, thats a 1000 peaple voluntarily killing 3000 peaple for what. to support G Bush thats crazy, and then to have them keep quite for all this time, your assertations are impossible,

You are aware of the mafia? They have similair but less resourceful organizational abilities. Not everyone needed to know everything and not everyone needed to know the scope. A simple senario: You ask to borrow my neighbor's key to "steal a few things", the next day people wind up dead and I am in way over my head. 25 blackmailed and bribed people in the right places of authority are more than enough.

preplanting exposives in those buildings would have taken at least 3 to 6 weeks, and no one notices it, and says somthing, that is stupid, and it dont matter how many so called experts with an agenda you can line up, just how does one become an expert in nocking down buildings with airplanes any way, so far its only happened to the buildings in question how does that make someone an expert, Yes ive looked at the evidence and it is without merit, only fearmongers would buy into it, its stupid, odds are good when you fly a big airplane loaded with jet fuel into a building some of the things that happen may be unexpected, there will be secondary explosions from refreigerators and gas appiances around the building or from the airplaine that explode under pressure due to the fires, and the account of one firefighter on the 78 floor that there are only two small fires does not mean there are only two small fires in the building it means that the firefighter hasnt yet gotten above the 78 floor, the Dark black billowing smoke pouring out of the building means that the fire is very big indeed, the fact that the buildings popped out from the top down means that the building fell from the top down, the popping out as it was comes from the sidewalls being forced out as the weight above bares down on it, the building zipped from the region above the fire to the ground as i would expect as fires run uphill towards the oxigen, the secondary explosions reported from the first building were at the time of the second buildings impact, if you watch the films closely you can see material from the second plane strike flying to the second building. And (pull it), would be a referance to abondon the building to the fire, as the loss of life that day was already beyond measure. Trust me chasing after these conspiracy theories says more about your ignorance than you would find flattering.

Naturally you avoided building 7.

 

[applepowerpc]

You are aware of the mafia? They have similair but less resourceful organizational abilities. Not everyone needed to know everything and not everyone needed to know the scope. A simple senario: You ask to borrow my neighbor's key to "steal a few things", the next day people wind up dead and I am in way over my head. 25 blackmailed and bribed people in the right places of authority are more than enough.

True, but we have to convince the official version conspiracy theorists that the media was somehow in on the conspiracy. They were (mostly through strong FBI arm-twisting), but that's a much harder point to prove.

 

[gwynedd1]

True, but we have to convince the official version conspiracy theorists that the media was somehow in on the conspiracy. They were (mostly through strong FBI arm-twisting), but that's a much harder point to prove.

Most people do not know the scope of it either. This has been going on since WWI. JP Morgan was holding massive French and British debt, and loss to Germany in WWI would result in default. So to get the US into the war for the British JP Morgan and the British conspired. Since Morgan and the bankers owned Wilson the warning from the Germany embassy was suppresed by the justice department. It also when to the Zionist special interest as cited by the Balfour Declaration.
The big money was buying up the press then.

"The German ambassy in the USA published a warning to all important newspapers in the USA. Only one , the "Des Moines Register" published same april 23. It said: " NOTICE. TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies.: that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles: that in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the falg of Great Britain, or of any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk - Imperial German Embassy Washington D.C.April 22 1915."

 

[Driver]

You can see the pressure that the press is under in the story of CBS News anchoman Dan Rather. Why was Dan Rather pressured out as anchor at CBS? Who are his bosses?


According to http://www.rense.com/general25/ratherbush.htm

"CBS Evening News" anchorman Dan Rather accused the Bush administration Wednesday morning of issuing an unwarranted FBI terrorist alert to New York City yesterday primarily to distract from questions about its handling of pre-Sept. 11 intelligence information.

Appearing on the "Imus in the Morning" radio show, Rather said he "believed" his network's report a week ago that the White House received a CIA briefing before 9-11 on possible al-Qaeda hijackings prompted the administration to issue the alert for political damage control.

"I can believe that the president and the people around him were surprised and peeved, to say the least," Rather contended, "that the information got out last week with [CBS's] report that President Bush had been briefed about some things that, in retrospect after Sept. 11, would indicate that, well, maybe somebody should have done something."
...
Rather also defended Democrat calls for a 9-11 investigation into the Bush White House, saying:

"We're not interested in just looking in the rearview mirror so we can nail somebody, you know - 'What did you know and when did you know it?'

"But this is pretty important stuff," he insisted. "Given the stories about intelligence failures that we already have heard about, who can argue that we don't need some kind of commission ... led by professionals that goes into how the situation with al-Qaeda was handled before Sept. 11, what mistakes were made and what we can learn from that."

Rather insisted that curiosity about a possible Bush 9-11 cover-up had nothing to do with partisan politics.

"That's not playing partisan politics. There's already too much of that. That's trying to get information that can help us all in the future."

The CBS newsman also accused Attorney General John Ashcroft of taking advantage of insider information about terrorist warnings to fly on private jets, while the public was kept in the dark about the secret alert, telling Imus:

"If the attorney general is given information that convinces him, 'Hey, I don't want to be on any commercial airliners just now. I'm gonna take government planes everywhere.' If the attorney general was told that ... then it raises a question. Why wasn't the public alerted?"

​

Video of the collapse of WTC7 from CBS News. (listen to Dan Rather's commentary and his candid first reaction). You also probably remember his appearance on the David Letterman Show where he broke down. It seems he was caught up in the shock of the moment like everyone else, but then began to ask questions, and this is what got him into trouble with his CBS bosses.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/20/ap/entertainment/mainD8IC839G0.shtml

Dan Rather's final sign-off at CBS (which mentions 9/11): Yahoo Video

 

[Driver]

...your assertations are impossible, preplanting exposives in those buildings would have taken at least 3 to 6 weeks, and no one notices it....

Wasn't Marvin Bush, the president's brother, connected to the firm in charge of security of the WTC, and wasn't Marvin Bush in NYC on 9/11? There have also been reports of "power downs" the weekend before 9/11 for "cabling upgrades". These could have been opportunites for the explosives to be placed, if not sometime before.

Ben Fountain, who worked in the 47th floor of the south tower, says weeks before the attacks they had an "unusual" amount of evacuations from the WTC and says he thinks "they had an inkling something was going on."
And on September 6, 2001,a two-week heightened security alert at the WTC is lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs there were abruptly removed and officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against "aerial attacks" by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center.

 

[NumberOneSon]

A BYU Physics Professor, and many other professors, engineers, and other professionals, disagree that the planes and the resulting fires could have caused the collapses, and they are hardly moronic.

And how many of those “professors, engineers, and other professionals” are structural or civil engineers? The BYU Physics Professor (Jones) you mention “conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.”

“His (Prof. Jones) paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal.”
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

Here’s a letter from a BYU civil engineering professor who addresses Prof. Jones claims:

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Profossor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU
http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e

Here is a peer reviewed paper, supported by 22 civil engineers, as well as quotes and articles from civil and/or structural engineers that discuss why the planes and the resulting fires could have caused the collapses.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

And the planners failed miserably in the details.

Which is one of the reasons why I find the conspiracies surrounding 9/11 so far fetched.

Those Arabs could not even fly a Cessna, and yet they were able to overcome all the passengers (including military personnel with just box cutters) fly those big airliners into their targets without stalling or crashing somewhere else.

“Like other (real pilots) have said, the maneuvers required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.”

“Again, there is ample proof that all hijackers involved had at least private pilot licences, and those who hit their intended target had a commercial licence. If they were deemed to be barely average, it means that they were barely average by FAA standards, which are not so low… So not being able to shoot an ILS approach to within X degrees of precision, doesn’t necessarily mean that you can’t make uncoordinated turns and suicidal dives.”

“The hijacker probably did something different: he killed the pilots, he made sure the plane was nice and trimmed, he made sure the autopilot was still on, (just a switch, its operation can easily be learned on MS Flight Sim), he made sure the speed and altitude were stabilized (again, the autopilot will take care of that, with a little fiddling learned from basic school and Flight Sim), he produced a piece of paper from his pocket, were he had written down the coordinates of some waypoints (like the WTC or DC Airport); he inserted such coordinates in the Flight Management System (if you can send an SMS or navigate through your cell phone menu you can manage THE BASIC functions of an FMS, Flight management System), then he sat back and started praying, while his acolytes were keeping the passengers at bay.”

“It can be easily seen that both planes maneuvered hard to hit the targets. It means that the approach maneuvers were not really well thought (any real pilot would do better than that&#8230 So the planes were being flown by someone who knew how to bank a plane ( you just turn the control yoke, there is no FAA inspector on the jump seat taking note of how coordinated your turn is), but was no Chuck Yeager, just like all the instructors said about the hijackers.”

From http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Driver]

Clueless Super Pilot
Jetliner Aerobatics by Flight School Dropout Who Never Flew A Jet

None of the hijackers were good pilots. None had ever flown jets, let alone large commercial jetliners. Hani Hanjour, the person accused of flying Flight 77 into the Pentagon, was failing his courses at the Arizona flight school. According to an employee, "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course."

Rick Garza, a flight instructor at Sorbi's Flying Club, had this to say about the two alleged hijackers originally thought to have piloted Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaq al-Hamzi: "It was like Dumb and Dumber, I mean, they were clueless. It was clear they were never going to make it as pilots."

In the second week of August 2001, Hanjour had attempted to rent a small plane from an airport in Bowie, MD. Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner declined his request, after taking Hanjour on three test runs, noting he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172. Though Hanjour had attended a flight school in Scottsdale, AZ, for four months in 1996 and 1997, he never completed the coursework for a single-engine aircraft license.
[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]
It is doubtful that the best trained fighter pilots could have executed the maneuver that supposedly crashed a 757 into the Pentagon. It required making a tight 270-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level and at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated three rings of the building, while managing to avoid touching the lawn. And he had to do all of this while flying over 400 mph. Quite a feat for a flight school flunky who had never sat in the cockpit of a jet!

Source

Hani Hanjour: 9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand," said [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.

If the pilot was wrestling with the plane's controls then it would not fly straight, but if the plane was "electronically hijacked' his actions would be irrelevant as the plane would not be under his control.

Source

 

[NumberOneSon]

Hanjour and the others didn't have to be "Superpilots". They just had to be adequate. Here’s the other side of the debate:

“In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training,after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends, went back to Arizona and began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot's license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999.”
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-242.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html

"Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 52­57. Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004).” http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

“Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport.
"There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said".
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

“As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the (expletive deleted) pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.”

“It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.”

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

“That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.”

From: http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index1.html

In Christ,


Acts6:5

 

[Driver]

It's also odd that he would have been able to storm the cockpit, with all the military men onboard, and overcome the Captain, who was an ex-Navy pilot.

There is also no evidence from the official autopsy that any of the alleged hijackers were even on board: Source
..nor were they listed on the passenger manifests. Two have been reported alive: Source

 

[inhisdebt]

You are incorrect.

According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, 1 and 2 World Trade Center were designed to survive an impact and resulting fires from a collision by the largest commercial aircraft at the time, a Boeing 707-340. [SIZE=-1]1 [/SIZE]Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the 767-200s used on 9-11 were only slightly larger than 707s.

Engineers designred the pacer and the pinto, as well does that mean they met all the engineers expectations not hardly, it means someone spent a lot of time in school before going out into the world to be the idiot he was ment to be.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/docs/aircraftcomparison.gif

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/docs/aircraftcomparison.gif
The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. [SIZE=-1]2 [/SIZE]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/docs/aircraftcomparison.gifFlight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.
property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200 fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2 length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/docs/aircraftcomparison.gif Kenetic energy is not what dropped the buildings, it is what introduced the fire to the buildings and weakened some of its supports, Gravity is what dropped the building as the strength of the supports became to weak to bear the weight

You are aware of the mafia? They have similair but less resourceful organizational abilities. Not everyone needed to know everything and not everyone needed to know the scope. A simple senario: You ask to borrow my neighbor's key to "steal a few things", the next day people wind up dead and I am in way over my head. 25 blackmailed and bribed people in the right places of authority are more than enough.

I am familiar with the governments internal security program and was once a participant in it, however you fail to acknowledge that those programs as are all government programs are governed by the law. A person can not even speculate with another about the options of breaking the law without the risk of loosing ones job and destroying ones carreer, those kind of options are not discussed particulary given the nature of the government of that time, remember Mr Bush barely won the first election to begin with, there was very little support for him or his policies particularly in government, which had been controlled by the dems for 8 years and was in a delayed process of changing over due to all the haggling over who won the election several cabinate leval positions remained to be filled for several months after the president took office and then the demacrates fought the pres on his appointed positions, there is simply no way in the mist of all that that GWB was able to set up a conspiricy of that size and scale in the given time and climate.

Naturally you avoided building 7.

No other pictures show massive damage on the other side of the building, again your suppositions lack merit

 

[NumberOneSon]

It's also odd that he would have been able to storm the cockpit, with all the military men onboard, and overcome the Captain, who was an ex-Navy pilot.

It’s only odd when you filter these “oddities” through a post 9/11 worldview. You’ve got to think pre 9/11, driver.

First off, is there any evidence that they “stormed” the cockpit in the first place? Most airliners restrict passengers from visiting the cockpit while in flight, but it’s really up to the captain. Obviously none of the cockpit doors were locked shut, so it’s not as if the hijackers weren’t able to access the control room on their own…they just weren’t legally “permitted” to do so. And it’s not like they announced, “hey we’re going to storm the cockpit! Try to stop us”. Who on the plane would have noticed or cared that a couple guys were walking toward the front of the plane; all the other passengers were busy ordering drinks, reading their papers, trying to sleep, listening to the in-flight radio…pretty much minding their own business. In a pre 9/11 world, the initial actions of those men would have gone unnoticed.

Second, once the hijackers entered the control room, the pilots had their backs to them while handling the controls. It would probably take 4-5 seconds for the hijackers to reach the pilots. Unless the hijackers announced their presence with a flashbang grenade, the men could have easily reached the pilots before they, let alone passengers, even knew the men were there.

Third, even if we assume the pilots knew that there were men about to breach the cabin and were not taken by surprise, the pilots would have had no clue that the hijackers intended to kill them and perform a suicide mission with their plane. And that’s because, prior to 9/11, every in-flight hijacking in aviation history had involved hijackers keeping pilots alive in order to fly the aircraft. So the pilot’s first instinct, after getting over the shock of seeing strange men in a restricted area, would have been to keep the plane flying and give in to the hijackers’ demands for the sake of their passengers and crew. That’s how they are taught. Pilot’s aren’t trained to fight back.

Fourth, I myself am a military man. I am a former Marine, a ground-and-pound infantryman. Had I been on Flight 77, Flight 11, or Flight 175 that day, I know, personally, my first instinct would not have been to live out any Wesley Snipe’s Passenger 57 fantasies and tried to be play the hero. I would have realized I was involved in a hostage situation some 20,000 feet in the air, and I would have obeyed the hijackers requests in order to preserve my life and the lives of my family. In a pre-9/11 world, that would have been my mindset. Now had I been on Flight 93, and had I learned of the other downed planes, then I would have reacted as the other passengers did and tried to do something about it. But such was not the case with Flight 77.

Fifth, it boggles my mind that you think the Captain’s military training was somehow relevant to the situation. He was a 52-year old ex-Navy pilot. This wasn’t a former Green Beret or Navy Seal or Marine Recon Ranger with extensive hand to hand combat experience….he was a just an ex-pilot, for Pete’s sake. Sorry to burst your bubble, but a knife wielding ideologue could easily overpower a 52 year old Navy pilot with very little difficulty, especially if the pilot didn’t see it coming.. You seem to have the impression that military personnel on the planes would instinctually know how to handle a hostage situation, but standard servicemen are not trained for those kinds of things. Had I been piloting the plane, I wouldn’t have been able to stop them, and I have prior mixed Martial Arts training and boxing experience.

So far, none of the things you thought were odd are strange at all in my opinion. Nobody on those flights, neither the pilots nor the passengers, would have been prepared to deal with the situation they were about to find themselves in.

There is also no evidence from the official autopsy that any of the alleged hijackers were even on board:Source

Here's an article dealing with the "autopsy" issue: http://www.911myths.com/html/autopsy_list.html

“The bodies were identified through DNA samples, and only the passengers relatives came forward to provide them. Obviously, this means the list of people identified by this process will contain the passengers only, no hijackers, and there's nothing mysterious about that at all.”

..nor were they listed on the passenger manifests. Two have been reported alive: Source

Here is a list of articles that deal with the “still alive” myths. Just click on each name for more info:
Abdulaziz Al Omari, Ahmed Al-Nami, Khalid Al Mihdhar, Mohammed Atta, Said al-Ghamdi, Salem Al-Hamzi, Wail Al-Shehri and Waleed Al-Shehri.

On a side note, the "ex-Navy pilot." link you first listed in your post also tried to buttress their view by saying:
"Doesn't it seem odd that a person like Capt. Burlingame (the ex-Navy Pilot) would be flying with a openly gay co-pilot?". I almost fell out of my chair when I read that. If that is the kind of "oddity" which passes as "evidence" in conspiratoral circles these days, then heck, anything will.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Driver]

Fifth, it boggles my mind that you think the Captain’s military training was somehow relevant to the situation. He was a 52-year old ex-Navy pilot. This wasn’t a former Green Beret or Navy Seal or Marine Recon Ranger with extensive hand to hand combat experience….he was a just an ex-pilot, for Pete’s sake.

He is reported to have graduated from the Navy's "Top Gun" fighter pilot school and those who knew him, thought he would have fought off the hijackers (see previous link).

The pilot of Flight 77 was Chic Burlingame, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy who flew F-4s for the U.S. Navy in Vietnam. According to Col. Donn de Grand Pr‚, would-be hijackers had no chance of seizing control of the plane from this experienced veteran. Such a pilot could have easily disabled any would-be hijackers by simply rolling the plane.

Yet, according to Ted Olson, the U.S. Solicitor General, whose wife was on Flight 77, the flight crew had surrendered to the hijackers. (According to Olson, his wife Barbara called from the plane and asked what she should tell the pilots.)

According to the official story, Khalid Almihdhar was the hijacker to have piloted Flight 77. But when reports in Arab newspapers indicated that he was still alive after 9/11, the story was changed to make Hani Hanjour the pilot.

Source

​

“The bodies were identified through DNA samples, and only the passengers relatives came forward to provide them. Obviously, this means the list of people identified by this process will contain the passengers only, no hijackers, and there's nothing mysterious about that at all.”

Here is a list of articles that deal with the “still alive” myths. Just click on each name for more info:
Abdulaziz Al Omari, Ahmed Al-Nami, Khalid Al Mihdhar, Mohammed Atta, Said al-Ghamdi, Salem Al-Hamzi, Wail Al-Shehri and Waleed Al-Shehri.

I understand that the autopsy results were based on the passenger manifests and none of the hijackers names were listed. I guess it would help if those alleged hijackers of Flight 77, especally those that have turned up alive, and their families would come forward with some DNA samples. And that an independent body would verifiy the autopsy results. But according to Dr. Olmsted, "From photos of all of those that perished on that flight, it is clear that none are even 'Arab looking' This seems to rule out Arabs sneaking aboard under assumed names." Source

The list of victims at the Pentagon is also interesting. It seems that the brunt of the fatalilties were accountants and the Office of Naval Intelligence. It so happens that the day before, Rumsfeld had announced that $2.3 Trillion was missing. Fatalities at the Pentagon

Why did the alleged hijacker, Hani Hanjour, make that special maneuver to hit that particular side of the Pentagon in order to miss Rumsfeld, as described by Air Traffic Controller Danielle O'Brien?

Video Clip


Also, why did they not shoot it down? Is that the order Cheney gave from the White House, not to shoot it down?

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's testimony before the 911 Commission:

Mineta: “During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??”

You Tube
​

 

[gwynedd1]

No other pictures show massive damage on the other side of the building, again your suppositions lack merit

I do not know which part about designed for an impact from a commercial jet you do not understand. It will include fuel, impact , fires and gravity. It was either a flawed design where the engineering did not meet its goal or something else brought them down. END OF STORY. Now why is it that these bulding were not studied for these design flaws? How many other building are also flawed?

As to Bush, who said it is only Bush? An interlocking cartel has owned this country since WWI. Kuhn Lobe, Rockefeller, JP Morgan, and Vanderbuilt. JP Morgan was paid off as soon as the US entered the war. Britain and France were lent 1 billion , several 1oo million of which bailed Morgan out of French and British debt immediatly after. The Lustiania was bait. Our government is a puppet state.

 

[icedtea]

We'll know the truth only after we meet Jesus face to face.

 

[inhisdebt]

I do not know which part about designed for an impact from a commercial jet you do not understand. It will include fuel, impact , fires and gravity. It was either a flawed design where the engineering did not meet its goal or something else brought them down. END OF STORY. Now why is it that these bulding were not studied for these design flaws? How many other building are also flawed?

Well you see thats a broad spectrum what were the design goals, and if they did include the total survival of the building or just long enough to get the residents out, did they account for advances in fuel technoligy, how long was it supposed to survive a fire of that magnitude and would it really be all that unusual for a building not to meet an engineers expectations, i mean really look at the big dig, engineers designed it too but its falling apart at the seams without any outside help. What about after an explosion in the basement, like from the first attack, or the fact that it was a dead on purposefull attack rather than an accident, or did the age of the building add to its strength.

As to Bush, who said it is only Bush? An interlocking cartel has owned this country since WWI. Kuhn Lobe, Rockefeller, JP Morgan, and Vanderbuilt. JP Morgan was paid off as soon as the US entered the war. Britain and France were lent 1 billion , several 1oo million of which bailed Morgan out of French and British debt immediatly after. The Lustiania was bait. Our government is a puppet state.

Yes, we all know money makes things happen in this world but support GW Bush at that time would have been like a fart in the car, it would not have been well recieved, particularly in something illegal, your suppositions simply lack merit, evidence and reason.

 

[Micahyah]

And those who understand among the people shall teach many; yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by exile, and spoil, for days.
(Dan 11:33)

Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation
The Lone Star Iconoclast, Monday, August 21, 2006

Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’

FT. SAM HOUSTON, Texas — Forty-one-year-old Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell is a hero. Having served over 19 years in the United States Army, Buswell has seen a lot of terrain. On April 15, 2004, he was injured in a rocket attack while serving a tour in Iraq. For this, SFC Buswell was given a Purple Heart. And until recently, Buswell was an Intelligence Analyst stationed at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas.

But if one were to ask Buswell’s Commanding Officer what he thinks of the Sergeant, the response would likely sound a little bit more like, "No comment."

Such were the words given to The Iconoclast by Lieutenant Colonel Jane Crichton after inquiring why SFC Buswell is the focus of an investigation initiated by Colonel Luke S. Green, Chief of Staff at Fifth Army in Ft. Sam Houston.

According to unnamed military sources contacted by The Iconoclast, SFC Buswell "used his Government issued email account to send messages disloyal to the United States …" Because of these statements, SFC Buswell could soon find himself dishonorably discharged, court marshaled, or worse.

It all started as a simple response to a common, unsolicited mass email, sent to 38 individuals at Ft. Sam Houston on Aug. 2, 2006. The message, as well as Buswell’s response, is among documents obtained by The Iconoclast. The sender of the first message is identified as "Anderson, Larry Mr JMC". It reads:

Quote:This is being sent more as assurance for what happens when a plane hits a nuclear site more so than in response to that German website alleging a government conspiracy related to the 9/11 Pentagon plane crash (though the website does present an interesting perspective) – LarrySubject: F-4 vs. Concrete Wall

Take a look at this clip [not included] and you’ll get a good feel for what happens to an airplane when it hits a concrete wall. Many of you have seen the produced (but not factual), Michael Moore-esque website that asks the question; "If it’s true that a Boeing airliner hit the Pentagon, what happened to all the parts of it? Why do we not find more pieces of it?

Where did all that mass GO???" (Therefore, the paranoid loony liberal reasoning, 9-11 must have been a US gov’t conspiracy!) Well, for those who question what happened to "all the mass of that airplane".......watch this clip.

It’s the old Air Force engineering tests of the concrete barrier that surrounds nuclear reactor domes —tests to see if it will indeed survive an aerial attack. With the hi-speed cameras rolling, they accelerated an F-4 Phantom to 500mph and.........

Recall: "What happens when an ‘Unstoppable Force’ meets an ‘Immovable Object’???" (Remember, as you watch in slow motion as the F-4 turns to vapor, the Phantom was one of the toughest airplanes ever built).

SFC Buswell responded later that day, saying:

Quote:Subject: F-4 vs. Concrete Wall Hello,

I receive many unsolicited e-mails daily, this one I chose to respond to. The below mentioned premise that an F4 Phantom fighter jet hitting that hardened concrete barrier is akin to the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon is like oil and water; they don’t mix, and they serve to muddy the issue. The issue is 911 was filled with errors in the ‘official report’ and ‘official story’ of that day, and, what happened that day. We all know and saw 2 planes hitting the WTC buildings, we didn’t see the 757 hit the Pentagon, nor did we see the plane crash in Shanksville PA. Both the PA and Pentagon ‘crashes’ don’t have clues and tell-tale signs of a jumbo-jet impacting those zones!

The Pentagon would have huge wing impacts in the side of the building; it didn’t. Shanksville PA would have had debris, and a large debris field; it didn’t.

Getting back to the F4...The Pentagon isn’t a nuclear hardened structure, so I can’t follow your weak logic that since an F4 vaporized itself in a test impact on a nuclear hardened structure that the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon should have exhibited the same characteristics!

I say Occums razor is the best way to deduce this ‘day of infamy’; if you weigh all options, do some simple studying you will see 911 was clearly not executed by some arabs in caves with cell phones and 3 day old newspapers! I mean how are Arabs benefiting from pulling off 911? They have more war, more death and dismal conditions, so, how did 911 benefit them? Answer: It didn’t. So, who benefited from 9-11? The answer is sad, but simple; The Military Industial [sic] Complex.

It’s not a paranoid conspiracy to think there are conspiracies out there...and, it’s not Liberal Lunacy either, nor is it Conservative Kookiness! People, fellow citizens we’ve been had! We must demand a new independent investigation into 911 and look at all options of that day, and all plausabilities [sic], even the most incredulous theories must be examined.

Upon returning to his office the next day, Buswell discovered the locks had been changed, his security clearance was revoked, and an investigation had been launched. Buswell’s commanding officer, Colonel Luke Green, drafted a letter assigning Major Edwin Escobar to the investigation. According to sources, Colonel Green has asserted that SFC Buswell failed to obey Army regulations when he used his government issued email account to send what have been termed as messages disloyal to the United States with the intent of stirring up disloyalty, in a manner that brings discredit upon the United States Army.

It has been reported that Colonel Green also wrote that SFC Buswell claims to have information proving a conspiracy on the part of the United States Military Industrial Complex to attack targets within the United States, e.g., The Pentagon. Officials have suggested that the email response sent by SFC Buswell may be in violation of CFR 2635.705(a ), DoD-R 5500.7, and Joint Ethics Regulation paragraph 2-301b. These rules SFC Buswell is said to have perhaps violated regulate how soldiers utilize government resources, how they use their off-duty time, and how they use their official time.

The Iconoclast attempted to establish a dialogue with Colonel Green and Major Escobar, but calls were not returned as of press time. SFC Buswell declined to comment on the investigation, but noted that he spoke with his parents about the matter for a period of two days before he was ordered to not disclose any further information.

"My son spoke with me about [the investigation]," said Winthrop Buswell, SFC Buswell’s father. "There was an unsolicited email. My son, without divulging anything, without usurping anything, without doing anything to discredit anyone in any way, simply responded to that saying ‘Yes, there are what if’s. And maybe there is something that is being covered up.’ That’s all that I know. He responded to it, but it was unsolicited. I think – of course, I’m dad, being very much in love with his son and wanting to praise him – because he is a low man on the totem pole, of course he’s of pretty high rank but not quite an officer, that maybe … Maybe an investigation might be the scapegoat for whomever."

"That is so ridiculous," said Winthrop Buswell. "[To say he is disloyal to the United States] is totally ridiculous. And the discourtesy was, ah, very apparent at that particular time. … I’ve always thought the American way is this: to disagree is important. To dissent is important. And my son simply said, without any fanfare, ‘Look, let’s take a look at the whole picture. If you want to take a look at that, maybe there are a few paragraphs that a Michael Moore might want to emphasize.’ That is all that my son has said. Never, however, to at all disparage the country and the patriotism that is so necessary for all of us. But, patriotism, as suggested by FOX News’ [Bill O’Reilly], is following the line of George W. Bush and cohorts completely! All my son is saying is, ‘Hey, maybe there’s a what if.’ Never, though, did he get sidetracked from the fact that [he loves his] country."

"What disturbed him more than anything else, I think, was the fact that the Iraqi citizens suffered so much and are suffering so much now," said Winthrop Buswell. "The time that he was injured, there were several Iraqis burning to death in front of him. He tried to put out the fire. It was a traumatic experience for him. … He spoke about that a number of times, and how terrible that was to see the citizenry being killed and suffering so much."

"One of his heroes is Abraham Lincoln," Winthrop Buswell continued. "And Abraham Lincoln said many things, but one of the things he said - and I’m paraphrasing - was, ‘I may disagree with the fellow who’s speaking, but I will stand and defend his right to speak.’ That’s my son’s position. He does look at the what if’s. But that doesn’t take away from his dedication and his patriotism. I don’t know a fellow who gets more chills running up and down his spine when he sees the flag flying."

"As a boy, [Donald was] always a very curious fellow," he added. "Very daring, but never risking anything or stepping over the line. He loved motorcycles, but was always very cautious about it, always wearing proper clothing, always wearing a helmet. Also, he was very active in little model racing cars. He was in Cub Scouts. I remember walking to the gymnasium with him and having wonderful conversations with him years ago. His mother and I went through a divorce, and that is never easy for anyone. My son was also very close to his grandfather on his mother’s side, and also his grandfather and grandmother on my side. Donald loves railroading, and my father has the best job that anyone could ever have. He’s a locomotive engineer, and my son related to that. My son also has a strong belief in a power greater than ourselves."

"But one of the things that stands out … is his love and his caring," said Winthrop, choking back tears. "He loves children. He’s just the greatest guy, as far as I am concerned. He walks into a room with a big smile on his face. … He’s like my dad – he makes you feel like, you know … I … I care for you. Ah, he’s … He’s my son …"

The Iconoclast will continue reporting on this story as new details become available.