Another explanation for why the Pentagon's missile defense system failed.

[Senior citizen]

In "The New Pearl Harbor," Griffin asks why whatever crashed into the Pentagon wasn't shot down by the White House or Pentagon missile defense systems. The suggestion is that the missile defense systems were somehow disabled to permit the attack. But I think there might be a (slightly) less sinister explanation.

Suppose you're a defense contractor and you get a multi-million dollar contract to create and install missile defense systems for the White House and the Pentagon. Well, you figure that nobody is going to attack the White House or the Pentagon with a missile, so you design and install something that looks good, fake the test results, and pocket most of the money. Sort of a "Potempkin" missile defense system. After all, what's the worst that can happen? Suppose the White House or the Pentagon is attacked by missiles and the system you installed doesn't work. You might get a small fine and a bigger contract to build a better missile defense system. So what? That's more money and more business for you. Nobody but you ever got to test the darned things, and they look good and have an outstanding test record on paper.

So, maybe they were ordered to stand down or disabled on 9/11, or maybe they never really worked in the first place. Only the families of those killed in the Pentagon care, and they should have known when they took the job that they were expendable--and that includes civilians who work for the Defense Department. I wonder if the contractor who built those missile defense systems just happens to have made a lot of money on the Iraq war.....

[DRoseDARs]

1. Aren't they supposed to be using military-issue aa guns...

Ones proven in combat? Or did they really seek contracted work despite already having existing hardware?

[The Traveler]

2. Equally likely is that airliners

Carry transponders which after the USS Vincenes' shoot down of an Iranian airliner automatic targeting systems look for and take into account. Pardon the horrible syntax there ... what I'm trying to say is the system may have recognized the incoming as an airliner and therefore did not go hot.

[Senior citizen]

4. What airliner?

According to "The New Pearl Harbor," there is absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever than an airliner crashed into the Pentagon. The author also calls into question the resulting fire, which was supposedly hot enough to vaporize an entire aircraft, yet left pieces of flesh intact enough so that passengers could be identified. In an October 12th interview in the Pentagon, Sec. Defense Rumsfeld referred to, "the missile (used) to damage this building." Eyewitness accounts and the resulting damage are much more consistent with a missile than with an airliner, as an airliner wouldn't have the maneuverability necessary, and would have left a larger hole and had much less penetration. Of course if whatever it was that fired that missile was military, it would certainly have had the proper transponder to ensure that the system wouldn't go hot.

[The Traveler]

6. Hmmm ... heard stuff like that

But am unsure as to the reliability of the evidence you present. Haven't done my research, so I'd best shut up on the matter until I do.

[MercutioATC]

7. No proof?

This site described the damage to the Pentagon and how it's consistent with a 757 crash:

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

These sites detail witness statements (notice the "child's hand" and oxygen bottle marked "for airline use"):

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/pentagon_eyewitness_accounts.htm

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/ffdd.html

...and a site that shows some of the debris found. Note "Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine, which is what people expect a 757 engine should look like. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan, as shown in the small overview figure at the top left of the drawing. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what happened to the turbofan -- but the compressor disk and the combustor case do look like 757 parts."

http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm

[Abe Linkman]

8. You mainly cite unreliable accounts & bogus evidence. NO PROOF.

Eyewitness accounts aren't reliable and the physical evidence you cite is the equivalent of citing a wire & claiming it proves that a 757 crashed at the Pentagon -- merely because that piece of wire COULD have come from a 757.

Just as the author said, the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon is NOT consistent with a large airliner crashing there. If you want to be taken seriously and not just as a disruptor, then you are going to have to rebut the findings which support the notion that no airliner crashed at the Pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

10. There's more physical proof of an airliner than anything else...

Show me an F-16 part. Show me a missile part.

I can show you a wheel, landing gear strut and piece of fuselage. I can cite reports of an oxygen bottle and a child's hand (not to mention DNA).

THAT'S physical evidence.

A missile and fighter were used? Great! Show me some physical evidence.

Actually, even the eyewitness reports overwhelmingly mention an airliner.

If you want to post tripe like "NO PROOF", you're going to have to start rebutting the evidence with something more clever than claiming it was all "planted".

[Abe Linkman]

13. It's "things" & claims. That's all. Maybe a child would believe it.

Within a matter of a few minutes after the Pentagon was hit, photos were taken. If an airliner had crashed at the Pentagon, it would be visible in those first photographs.

ALL airplanes have wheels and oxygen bottles.

IF there was physical evidence of a 757 at the Pentagon, then maybe the claim of finding a child's hand there might be relevant.

Using selective eyewitness reports is laughable. Why don't you cite the ones that claimed they saw a small commuter jet or those that heard a missile?

Can you cite anyone here who knows anything more about 9-11 than the Official Conspiracy Theory -- who believes your story?

[MercutioATC]

14. Maybe a rational person would, too.

Yes, within ten minutes pictures were taken. Tell me, Abe, which missile did the piece of fuselage with the red lettering come from?

All airplanes DO have wheels. Many have oxygen bottles. However, the oxygen bottle in question had "For Airline Use" stenciled on the side and the wheel was the same size and had the same design as a 757 wheel. It was much too large to have come from a small jet like a fighter.

Yes, there were a couple of witnesses who said they saw a smaller plane. There are many more who said they saw a large passenger jet. The eyewitnesses overwhelmingly stated that they saw a large jet.

Can I cite anybody who "believes my story"? Well, Bolo, LARED and I seem to be in agreement on many of the issues. There are others who don't post here as often who also agree. I'd say that all three of us (LARED, Bolo and myself) "know...more about 9-11 than the Official Conspiracy Theory".

[Abe Linkman]

15. You said "maybe a rational person" would agree, but none do. n/t

n/t

[MercutioATC]

16. Is that yet ANOTHER unfounded generalization?

...one designed to draw attention away from the issue, especially when those pesky little facts raise their ugly heads?

Abe, you're entitled to your opinion, but at least deal with the issues, especially in discussions YOU begin.

BTW, I'm also interested in seeing you follow up on your statement that other people claiming to be ATCs from the Cleveland area post here. I asked you for a link to their posts or a username, but you declined to answer. You asked if I knew them...I'd be happy to let you know if you'll just back up your statement with some proof.

[Blue Member]

30. Child's Hand

"a child's hand" SHOW ME.....

[MercutioATC]

31. Here ya go...

"U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tony Rose.
“I picked up a child's hand. That was it. Just a child's hand and that's when I got angry. To wonder why someone could do this. You can come after me. I'm a soldier. I have sworn to protect and defend, but that wasn't right,”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/earlyshow/main521568.shtml
It's hard to erase what he saw. A child's hand. A foot ripped off above the ankle. And, oddly, eyeglasses without a scratch.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911pentagon.htm"

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/ffdd.html


BTW, you've linked to Dave VonKleist's site before. You're both from Missouri, not too far from each other. You're not VonKleist, are you?

[DulceDecorum]

44. Aah yes, US Army Sgt. Major Tony Rose.

the proud owner of short and curly HAIR.



The visitors were given red, white and blue yarmulkes inscribed with the words "God Bless America."
Donning his skullcap, army Sgt. Major Tony Rose of Columbia, N.C., who helped rescue colleagues from the Pentagon, said that "when the terrorists brought terrorism to our shores, I don't think they knew how mad it was going to make us." http://www.jewishsf.com/bk020215/i46.shtml

Aired September 4, 2002 - 13:38 ET
PHILLIPS: Hello.
Sergeant Major Rose, let's begin with you. Take me back to that moment when the Pentagon was hit. Your training kicked in, didn't it?
ROSE: Immediately. In fact, it seemed like I was on the floor for a long time, but it was only the matter of seconds before we were getting up and looking for wounded and started getting people out of the building.
PHILLIPS: Describe what it was like inside, and how close were you to the actual impact?
ROSE: We were on the second floor, about 150 feet from the impact. The fuselage of the aircraft actually came directly under our desk. As the aircraft blew, it blew a hole through our floor, and all of the petroleum smoke started pouring into our office as (UNINTELLIGIBLE) were trying to ventilate the building.
PHILLIPS: So what did you do? What was the first thing you did? I mean, you obviously didn't run out of there; you actually, you thought quite the opposite: You had to not leave one man or woman behind. What was your -- the second that happened, what did you do?
ROSE: I started getting everybody together that we could see that was mobile and get them out of the building. Of course, we started going back into the fire in the offices to ensure that there were not wounded or other people incapable of coming out.
PHILLIPS: Sergeant Major Rose, when you looked in thier eyes, these individuals that were frightened, because obviously, you knew what you had to do: You had to help get them out there. What were their eyes telling you? What were they saying to you? Could they even speak? ROSE: I will never forget them. Even though people who were scared and it was chaotic and so much was happening around them, there was a determination in their eyes that, I am going to get out, I am going to take care of others, even those, we were all scared to death of what was going on at the time.
PHILLIPS: Did they reach for you?
ROSE: Some did. And others we had to reach for.
<snip>
PHILLIPS: Sergeant Major Rose, how many times did you go in and out of the Pentagon?
ROSE: Went back to the building five times that day.
PHILLIPS: Wow! How many people did you pull out?
ROSE: Pulled out nine people.
PHILLIPS: Why did you keep going back in with flames?
ROSE: Because I was alive and well and healthy and knew that there were other people in there that needed our help, and we were trained to help.
PHILLIPS: Colonel Anderson, what about you? How many people were able to get out?
ROSE: I think along with the sergeant that was assisting me, Staff Sargent Chris Braymond (ph), we pulled out a total of four. And then the last time that we made an attempt to go back in the building, we were prevented from going back in. The firemen basically saved our lives.
PHILLIPS: Sergeant Major Rose, I know that you feel lucky to be alive. Are you angry, those, in any way?
ROSE: I realize, it is a blessing to be alive, and I thank God for that. For a while, there was some guilt associated with why didn't I die that day. But later as we took a look at the map of where people had died, I had an assurance to know that there was no one in the sector where I was that died. We had gotten them out. Maybe that is why I was there that day?
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/04/lt.17.html

As for U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tony Rose,
the guy who claimed to have picked up a child's hand
I have but one word to say to him.
HAIR.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&...
EVERY LAST SINGLE PERSON WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE PENTAGON EMERGED WITH THEIR HAIR INTACT.
Rose himself claims to have been slithering on a floor covered with burning jet fuel which was presumably floating atop of the water put out by the sprinklers. This floor was later found to be completely undamaged by the plane, to the point that it was simply resurfaced and put back into operation.
The man is fireproof.
The T-Shirt he placed over his face was capable of filtering out toxins and lung-searing super-heated smoke.
And he finished the day with all the hair he had when he got up that morning.
Rose is alleged to have rescued NINE people from this inferno.
Even the firefighters there did no such thing. Those professionals have stated that the area was almost empty and those few in the vicinity vacated under their own steam.
It takes less effort to believe in the presence of WMDs in Iraq than it does to give credence to this maudlin tale.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=8105&mesg_id=8169&page=

Tony Orlando's 10th Anniversary Salute to Veterans:
Presented the "Yellow Ribbon Medal of Freedom" to Sergeant Major Tony Rose for his heroic deeds in saving lives at the Pentagon - he re-entered the burning bldg. 5 times;
http://www.vetscor.org/branson/

FIVE TIMES.

It's a story he's told at least a hundred times, though he'd rather talk about the heroes both living and dead he spent time with before and after the terrorist attacks.
Heroes like Sgt. Major Tony Rose or Col. Phil McNair, two men who, while pulling victims and survivors from the collapsed Pentagon, would not stop until ordered to leave at gunpoint.
http://new.in-forum.com/specials/911/article.cfm?id=18687
STORY is the correct term to use in this particular case.
Not bad for a guy in his age and condition.

Rose was 46, a compact man of 5-foot-6 and 160 pounds, an Army lifer from the blackwater swamps of coastal North Carolina. He had enlisted his first week out of high school, in June 1972, which made him a rarity -- an active-duty soldier whose career dated to the fighting in Vietnam.
Rose hadn't seen the war. He'd trained as a paratrooper but HAD BROKEN HIS NECK AND BACK IN AN ACCIDENT, so the Army had moved him into supply work, and eventually career counseling. Now he was the service's top career counselor and its top retention NCO, tracking why his colleagues left the service and drumming up incentives for the good ones to stay.
http://www.hamptonroads.com/pilotonline/special/911/pentagon.html

Is there a YOUNG HEALTHY STRONG firefighter in the ENTIRE NATION
who can rival the feat
performed by this ex-paraplegic
middle-aged
untrained
civilian with no gear?
Damn those human firefighters!!
We should replace them all with men made of the sterner stuff
that is to be found within Sargent Major Tony Rose
and the hijacker passports.

Rose started in, found his path blocked by debris, grabbed chunks of concrete and broken furniture and passed it to a man behind him, who passed it down a quickly forming line. A pile grew in the road. Some of the pieces were so hot that Rose needed to douse them with a fire extinguisher before he could touch them.
http://www.hamptonroads.com/pilotonline/special/911/pentagon3.html
Fire Extinguishers
All-purpose (ABC) fire extinguishers can be found in fire cabinets located throughout the building along radial and ring corridors. These fire extinguisher cabinets are labeled as such and posted with "EMERGENCY NUMBER CALL 697-5555" signs. The alarm should be sounded prior to evacuation to fight a minor fire.
http://www.dtic.mil/ref/html/Welcome/emergencies.html
The average home fire extinguisher weighs about 2.5 to 5 pounds, and costs about $10. Know that an extinguisher lasts only about eight to 10 seconds.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/Hazelton/GMA021007Firesafety_hazelton.html
Whatta guy!!
He must have yoyo'd between the cabinets and the glory hole.



Anger is among the emotions Rose felt in the hours and days that would follow. "When I picked up a child's hand I got very mad. You can come after us as soldiers, but not after innocent children. I was very angry," said Rose.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/12_IBSpentagon.html
I wonder how he feels about those little Iraqi children being sodomized by his fellow soldiers over in Abu Ghraib.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/14/193750/666
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/
I guess he can't hear the screaming,
besides those are little Arab bastards anyway.
Not at all like the little hero
whose hand survived whereas the black boxes did not.

[MercutioATC]

48. You were making sense until you started the rant about Abu Ghraib.

What does Abu Gharib have to do with this?

Anyway, it seems you have an issue with Rose's relatively unburned state. I've seen many reports of ordinary people who enter burning houses to save people, pets, etc. and emerge relatively unscathed. This actually supports the ASCE conclusion that the initial damage was caused by a mix of jet fuel and small debris moving at high velocity FOLLOWED by fires from the unburned jet fuel. Rose was at the Pentagon, pulling people from the crash site before the firefighters got there...before the fires had spread and grown in intensity to the point where that area of the Pentagon was impossible to enter.

Your contrast of the condition of the child's hand and the condition of the black boxes is laughable. The child's hand was a PART of an entire child, who obviously did NOT "survive". Doesn't that pretty closely describe the condition of the black boxes, damaged but not completely destroyed?

The fire extinguishers you describe are household fire extinguishers. They're about 12-16 inches tall and 4-7 inches in diameter. Find me any office building that uses these fire extinguishers.

Again, without being there you assume you know the minute-by-minute conditions at the scene. I've yet to see any report that says that rescues didn't take place.

[DulceDecorum]

51. Thanks to the "testimony" of one Tony Rose

Soldiers that he helps recruit and retain
are sodomizing children in Abu Ghraib.

Sargent Major Tony Rose is a bold faced liar.
And anyone who believes him is a fool.

Heroes like Sgt. Major Tony Rose or Col. Phil McNair, two men who, while pulling victims and survivors from the collapsed Pentagon, would not stop until ordered to leave at gunpoint.
http://new.in-forum.com/specials/911/article.cfm?id=18687

Where were the three stooges?
http://www.sun-gazette.com/stories/VAL114.html

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told first responders, "There are really no words, no words at all, that can express the gratitude that we in the Department of Defense feel for the very work our first responders did on that historic day.
"You came here and you went into the blazing building anyway; you risked your lives to help us, and you saved many lives in the process," he said. Wolfowitz added first responders did "great things that day" in response to the attack.
http://www.dod.gov/news/Oct2003/n10182003_200310183.html
Yeah sure,
that is why you were pointing guns at your own men.

Q: Mr. Secretary?
Rumsfeld: Yes, Bob?
Q: The causality figure you referred to I assume is the 800 number that was provided by the Arlington County Fire Department.
Rumsfeld: It is.
Q: And you say it's considerably high. We've heard from the military --
Rumsfeld: I said I hope and pray that it is.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t09122001_t0912sd.html

The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.
And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

I guess that Mr. MercutioATC will claim that none of this has anything to do with the lies of Sargent major Tony Rose. We do hope that he retains his inflammability. He is going to need it in his next life.

MercutioATC says:
The fire extinguishers you describe are household fire extinguishers. They're about 12-16 inches tall and 4-7 inches in diameter. Find me any office building that uses these fire extinguishers.

ANSWER:
The Pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

60. Nice find. I stand corrected.

(assuming that's a pic from the Pentagon)

In reference to Rose, I still can't deduce what issue you have with his testimony, other than he works for the same military that was administering Abu Ghraib when prisoners were being tortured (which doesn't seem to make a hell of a lot of sense).

[LARED]

61. Now there's something the CT crowd never does

Allowing and admitting to an error. (asumming it really is a Pentagon image).

Congrats.

The inability to allow this type of discourse into one's cognitive process has something to due with a favorite hobby horse of Abe's called cognitive dissonance - something that greatly affects the CT crowd.

[DulceDecorum]

67. Since we are seldom actually PROVEN to be wrong.

Look closely at what
the proponents of the OFficial Story have to say regarding the photographic proof:
"(asumming it really is a Pentagon image). "

MercutioATC,
and LARED,
assume no more.
This photo
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=304
appears on this page.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=16

But please,
feel free to sneer at the Smithsonian
And the conspiracy-theorist photographers at PENREN,
(aka the Pentagon Renovation program)
all you want.

[LARED]

12. Please provide any findings

that support the notion that no airliner crashed at the Pentagon.

You keep talking as if they exist.

So, do any finding exist? If yes, please share them with us.

[saltara]

11. the evidence is weak

with regard to the missiles/pods on planes claim and some researchers (who DO believe in MIHOP) are stating the following and asking:

"Bogus 9/11 Truth Sites muddying the waters with easily disproved phony claims - a Cointelpro effort to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement?"

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

"The New Pearl Harbor" has some great things going for it, but what you have cited may be its weakest claim, leading others to discredit its strong points.

[DulceDecorum]

17. Oilempire doesn't count

They are a fricking PUBLIC RELATIONS disinfomercial.

That is why they CANNOT reveal their identity.
Anyone who tries to sell oilempire.us crap here is either gullible or ....

[MercutioATC]

18. Right! And the Star is vastly superior to the National Enquirer.

I thought all discrimination went out the window when people started linking to Dick Eastman's rants...

(Yes, I know it was Abe who did that. I've just never seen you disagree with Eastman (or Abe)).

[Abe Linkman]

19. Dick Eastman's arguments are too tightly woven for you to handle.

But, a few selected alleged eyewitnesses are a whole different matter.
Oh, and some wires & a few nuts and bolts: Solid proof that the flight that didn't fly (77), DID. Furthermore, it was a miniature 757, which explains why the photo image released by the Gov't doesn't show a plane any larger than a small jet. And, the reason why there's no evidence of it seen in any of the photos taken at the Pentagon moments after the fires started, is because it was a miniature plane, and balsa burns real quick.

[MercutioATC]

20. Abe, are you gonna make me post my Eastman rebuttal AGAIN???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x14613#14853

Eastman knows nothing about....well....anything as far as I can tell. His rants are so full of factual errors that they don't bear reading (unless accuracy isn't your goal).

[Abe Linkman]

22. I thought maybe you'd had enough time to actually try & rebut it.

Obviously, and not surprisingly, I was wrong. But, not surprised. All you can do is all you've ever done: post some funky "report" that proves nothing, disproves nothing, and is deserving of nothing.

[MercutioATC]

24. Eastman couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag.

When Eastman's not posting innacurate statements, he's contradicting himself.

Read my rebuttal again. Show me a single mention of the ASCE report you are so unhappy with. WHY do you insist on trying to change the direction of the discussion?

Let's just deal with Eastman and my rebuttal for now. Go ahead, rebut the rebuttal. Point by point, show me how I'm mistaken.

[Abe Linkman]

25. You can't rebut Eastman, or anyone else, for that matter.

Frankly, and with all due respect, I think you're in way over your head.
Your fine compensation, courtesy of the taxpayers, seems to have given you an exaggerated sense of your mental net worth.

Have you ever tried to convince "lar lar" (pants on fire) or bellyfloppin of anything? Try it and if you succeed, do write and let us know about it. In the meantime, stick with your claimed area of expertise (looking at a CRT in a windowless room, deep in the heart of close to where some very funny things happened on 9/11).

[MercutioATC]

27. So you don't believe Eastman either?

If you did you'd be able to tell me, point by point, where my rebuttal of his theory(ies)is wrong.

Instead, you're refusing to address either Eastman's comments or mine, preferring to hurl inane insults. That's something I'd expect from somebody who is trying to sell an idea, but has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

You say I'm wrong. Just tell me how, Abe.

Don't feel too bad if you can't. Eastman ducked my questions, too.

[Abe Linkman]

28. I'd say your facts are wrong, but you don't have any relevant facts.

All you have is one propaganda report & the selected eyewitness claims of a few people whose accounts we know aren't credible, because the evidence doesn't support what they are alleged to have said.

You don't even believe evidence provided by the U.S. Gov't, so why should anyone take YOU seriously?

[MercutioATC]

29. You didn't read the rebuttal, did you?

I'll make it easy. I'll post the entire text:

MercutioATC (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-16-04 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #90

98. After reading Eastman's theory, a few things come to mind:


1) Did I miss a bio, or is all we know about Eastman's training is that he's an "M.A., M.S." Masters of WHAT? Could be Literature and Horticulture.

2) "Comment: The man being interviewed by CNN above was also a CNN reporter. No one else reports having seen in the hole pieces of aircraft"

This simply isn't true:

"Lt. Cmdr. David Tarantino, U.S. Navy
I stepped into the open breezeway between C and B rings to get some fresh air. I saw these two holes where the aircraft had come through. You could see an aircraft tire that had come through three rings of the Pentagon, and there were charts and other stuff that was obviously from the aircraft."

"Tom Hovis, [e-mail] a Fairfax, Assoc. Member, reports: The nosewheel I understand is in the grass near the second ring."

"Todd Tiahrt, Kansas District 4 representative, U.S. House of Representatives wrote:
The next day we came to the Pentagon. The Pentagon has five outer rings labeled A through E, with E being the outer ring. In the C and B rings the plane had punched a hole you could a drive a truck around in, and I saw an airplane tire. It made it very real."

"Carlton Burkhammer was bussed to the Pentagon with other firefighters from Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Station 14. Within the building he spotted lime-green pieces from the interior of the plane"

"“I picked up a child's hand. That was it. Just a child's hand and that's when I got angry. To wonder why someone could do this. You can come after me. I'm a soldier. I have sworn to protect and defend, but that wasn't right,”

3) Eastman believes that the debris that could be associated with a 757 was planted "An early picture shows an agent in white shirt carrying a piece of "debris" that looks very much like the "planted" piece of false evidence" and yet admits that "The first photographer to capture this specimen did not arrive at the scene until 10 minutes after the crash.". I have doubts that people had run around and finished "planting" evidence 10 minutes after the crash. Most of the pieces that could be identified as coming from a particular plane were larger (engine parts, wheel, cockpit seat). With dozens (if not hundreds) of onlookers, it seems unlikely that this evidence could have been planted without detection.

4) His scenario detailing how AAL77 got to Reagan Airport is flawed. Eastman states "With its engines off so that its silence was remarked by Riskus and other witnesses, Flight 77 approached the Pentagon's west wall at an angle much closer to 90 degrees than the 45-degree approach of the killer jet." A 757 is not a sailplane. With its engines "off" it would never have made it to Reagan. In the next paragraph, he states "At a speed between a third and two-thirds that of sound and leveling from its necessarily accelerating dive, Flight 77 was over Reagan National Airport before the sound of the killer jet's crash reached the Capitol Building or Washington Monument" Which is it? Were the engines "off" of was the 757 traveling at 300-400 knots? You can't have it both ways. At 300-400 feet, 400 knots would represent the engines at full throttle, not turned "off".

5) Eastman's statement "Any of the three runways of Reagan could have been used by Flight 77, which, by the way, did not have to land immediately for a successful getaway -- it could have disguised itself as a plane taking off as well as one landing in those critical few seconds of its disappearing act and its "blending in" operation." shows his complete lack of knowledge of ATC procedures. A 757 does NOT land at a busy airport without everybody knowing its identity. There is no "blending in" and his thought that "it could have disguised itself as a plane taking off as well as one landing" simply makes no sense.

6) In Eastman's profile of the equipment on the the supposed F-16 involved, He lists "a voice-activated maneuvering system allowing the pilot to "point" the aircraft in unusual flight attitudes." How, exactly, does a voice-actuated system allow a pilot to maneuver the plane more efficiently and, if the plane was in fact using remote guidance, why would voice commands be used at all?

7) He states "But the famous fragment
was discovered by photographers lying on the south lawn, far to the port side (left side of plane, right side of this picture) of the attack plane as it crossed the lawn in its approach to its target. Since the piece can neither have bored through the crashing fuselage to get so far to the port side nor could it have flown against an explosion radiating out in all directions, even assuming it did pop off under stresses from the compression of the plane during the first split second of the crash, we must conclude that the piece
did not come from the crash at all. The piece thus had to have been
carried to the spot and planted by an accomplice some time before the
moment, a full ten minutes after the crash". If we know that debris was found on the highway (beyond the south lawn) then Eastman is completely wrong about this particular fragment not being to be where it was without being planted. He also says "The wind, as the photos of smoke show, was blowing from the southwest -- against alleged flight path of this light piece of sheet aluminum." A wind would have to be very strong to have any effect on the trajectory of blast debris. The wind in question would have made no difference.

The other issues I have with Eastman (his spelling, his weird Geocities web page (look at the picture of "ol Dick Eastman" on the upper left)

http://www.geocities.com/oldickeastman/Dick_Eastman_pag...

notwithstanding, all I see in his report is a mix of lay opinions with incorrect facts liberally mixed in. There is NO input from anybody with technical qualifications.

Yeah, Abe, it's a "report". I could rant on a webpage and use it as a cite, too. That wouldn't make either page worth the bandwidth it took to download it.





Where in this rebuttal do I cite any report or rely on "the selected eyewitness claims of a few people"? I simply pointed out where Eastman made gross misrepresentations and contradicted himself. No ASCE report here, Abe.

Eastman's basic premises are flawed, as is his explanation of the Pentagon crash. That's not propaganda. That's fact.

[DulceDecorum]

75. For once, we agree.

MercutioATC says:
This simply isn't true:

"Lt. Cmdr. David Tarantino, U.S. Navy
I stepped into the open breezeway between C and B rings to get some fresh air. I saw these two holes where the aircraft had come through. You could see an aircraft tire that had come through three rings of the Pentagon, and there were charts and other stuff that was obviously from the aircraft."
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0802/083002nj2.htm

CHARTS?
the Pentagon gets paper from the same guys who make the indestructible hijacker passports?

Álvarez said she and her fellow workers sorted through debris from collapsed Pentagon walls and pieces of the hijacked airplane. They found the box cutters used by the hijackers to commandeer the plane, IDENTIFICATION PAPERS, MONEY, jewelry, and body parts.
http://www.cathstan.org/news/09-05-02/3.shtml

Tarantino's tale is so very amusing, that I intend to dedicate and entire post or two to holding him accountable for trying to outdo Baron Munchhausen. Shucks, I might even do a whole thread.
Thanks for bringing this up MercutioATC.

"Carlton Burkhammer was bussed to the Pentagon with other firefighters from Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Station 14. Within the building he spotted lime-green pieces from the interior of the plane"
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/ffdd.html

Burkhammer spotted lime-green pieces from the interior of the plane. “You could tell where the plane had gone because of the destruction of the steel and concrete beams,” he says. He could see evidence of the Pentagon’s renovations: exposed I-beams read MAY 2000.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699/

Hmmmmmmm.
LIME-GREEN did you say?
We are told that Flight 77 took place aboard N644AA.
N644AA is a Boeing 757 which was manufactured in 1991.
When that particular Boeing 757 was built,
the primer used was a DARK GREEN.
Go see for yourself.

In July of 2000, after much research, Boeing Materials Technology (BMT) qualified Dexter Aerospace's 10P20-44 low-VOC primer system to the BMS 10-79 specification. The "-44" primer system has been in use for several years at Boeing paint hangars as an exterior decorative primer (as qualified to BMS 10-72 Exterior Decorative paint System).
Comparison Between Low-VOC and Conventional BMS 10-79 Primer:
There are several differences between the new, low-VOC "-44" primer and the conventional (higher VOC) 515x349 primer from PRC-DeSoto: ....
The low-VOC primer is glossier than the conventional primer, and it is more of a yellow green (as compared to the darker green color of the conventional 10-79 primer).
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/environmental/BMS10-79.html

Now we could spend a great deal of time trying to find out HOW and WHY the paint was gone and only the primer remained on the aircraft parts that Carlton Burkhammer claims to have seen.
You will recall that he says there were plenty of corpses lying around.

The Pentagon’s thick walls rendered the firefighters’ radios useless. But it turned out not to matter: Burkhammer and the other recon men didn’t find any survivors to radio about. “You’d see bodies. You’d roll ‘em over and they’d be dead,” Burkhammer says. He spotted people entangled in the wreckage, but they had all succumbed to the initial blast or the ensuing fire.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699/

But somehow the search dogs' feet remained unharmed by the heat
and their little nosies stayed cold.

The Pentagon was still burning. The area was engulfed with smoke and heat. Burkhammer and his colleagues were suited up in full “flash gear” to handle the fire, complete with breathing equipment and search tools. They peered out from behind steamy plastic face shields and used helmet lights to see.
<snip>
After a frustrating hour, the recon teams stumbled back out of the building. Lugging the heavy gear through the heat and smoke had taken a toll. One man was sent to the hospital for dehydration. “We were spent,” says Burkhammer. And they were dejected. “We did not find any live people,” he says. Even the search dogs seemed to feel the loss. “You can see it on the dog’s face. The dogs are almost as depressed as the guys are,” Burkhammer says.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699/

So now we have a conundrum.
The heat was sufficient to remove all traces of paint from the aircraft wreckage.
the heat was not enough to burn the bodies beyond recognition.
The heat was sufficient to dehydrate a fully suited up rescue worker.
The heat was not enough to harm the wickle doggies wet nose.
And here is another puzzle.

Sgt. Maj. Tony Rose is looking forward because looking backward is too painful. He worked in Room 2C643; the plane plowed into the Pentagon directly beneath him. Wetting his T-shirt so he could breathe, he made his way in the blackness to a fire door as it was closing. He used his voice as a beacon to help others out. He left the building but quickly ran back into the first floor to free those trapped, including seven sailors. Using a fire extinguisher to fight the flames, he went into the building five more times to look for survivors–and then for body parts. It's hard to erase what he saw. A child's hand. A foot ripped off above the ankle. And, oddly, eyeglasses without a scratch.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911pentagon.htm

Hmmmmm.
His head is swathed in a wet t-shirt and he uses his voice as a beacon.
He uses a fire extinguisher to fight the flames despite the fact that they do not carry even one full minute's worth of foam. This 44 year old owner of one broken neck and one broken back -- now healed -- saves seven sailors.

But let's go back to the primer.

The "-44" primer system has been in use for several years at Boeing paint hangars as an EXTERIOR decorative primer (as qualified to BMS 10-72 Exterior Decorative paint System).
<snip>
As required in BAC 5882, Application of Urethane Compatible Primer, the low-VOC BMS 10-79 primer must be mixed in full kits. Whether using a gallon kit or a quart kit of the low-VOC primer, the full contents (base, activator, thinner) must be entirely mixed. Previously, for small paint jobs, it was permissable to dip into gallon kits (unmixed), take the amount required of each component, and then mix those components to obtain the desired volume of primer for the paint job. No longer can you do this. The reason for this requirement is that the new primer is very sensitive to the 3:1:1 base:activator:thinner mix ratio. As little as 10% excess activator has caused adhesion failures.
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/environmental/BMS10-79.html

Sounds to me like
there might just have been a few of those ADHESION FAILURES
lying around some Boeing hangar
before September 11
that might just not be lying around there now.

Members of Congress have been shuttled to the site to inspect the damage. Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) made the trip on Thursday. She saw remnants of the airplane.
''There was a seat from a plane, there was part of the tail and then THERE WAS A PART OF GREEN METAL, I could not tell what it was, A PART OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE PLANE,'' she said. ''It smelled like it was still burning.''
http://www.suntimes.com/terror/stories/cst-nws-pent16.html

Either that,
or some other plane
-- WITH 21st Century LOW VOC PAINT --
left its bits inside the Pentagon.

[DulceDecorum]

43. MercutioATC, do you DARE

say that oilempire.us is in any way legitimate?

[MercutioATC]

49. I really haven't checked it out. I'm away for the next week, but I'll

let you know when I get back.

[Abe Linkman]

50. So, we won't have any posts from DU's biggest bushco 9/11 supporter?

We'll keep reminding you of your promise, just in case you were hoping we'd forget about it while you're "away for the next week."

[MercutioATC]

59. No need to remind me. I'm back.

I'm flattered that you value my opinion so much.

Having visited www.oilempire.us , it seems to me to be nothing more than another CT site. No, I don't feel it's a reliable source of information (but probably not for the same reasons DD does).

[MrSammo1]

88. The biggest tell

The physical evidence points to no passenger jet. The hole is too small and there are no wing and vertical stabilizer marks on the wall. Everything else is hearsay!

[RH]

89. Hearsay? Look again.

There were marks on the wall from wings. Above the entrance to corridor four the end of a wing tip took out, for instance, the top half of one the 40mm thick blast resistant windows. Do you have another way to explain that?

This was all convered in detail on this forum in 2002, with nine "Post your Pentagon crash QUESTIONS here!!!" threads. Where were you?

With due regard to hearsay it would be interesting to know from whom in particular you would hope to solicit a sworn affidavit. The simple fact remains that not one of the hundreds of people on scene at the Pentagon to see for themselves has since subscribed to any doubt at all that Flight 77 hit the building.

[tngledwebb]

91. Note to newbies, and others

Some posters state rather vehemently and all too often that their side of the story was soundly proved in previous threads. Refer to those threads please. They are extremely interesting and sometimes entertaining despite the very serious nature of the issues. And though there is very little PROOF, there is a great preponderance of evidence on one side and a lot of shallow analysis on the other. DU reports, you decide.

[MercutioATC]

90. You seem to have missed this report:

You know, the one where trained civil engineers actually went to the site and examined it?

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

Hope it helps.

[MercutioATC]

93. Then where did the wheel, strut, and fuselage piece come from?

They were passenger jet debris. You claim "The physical evidence points to no passenger jet." and yet passenger jet parts were found.

Where did they come from?

[stickdog]

95. But I thought the TRANSPONDERS were OFF making the the hijacked planes

INVISIBLE!

;>)

[mikedaul]

3. sam sites

I previously asked what effect something like a SAM would have on a large airplane coming straight at a building. The answer seemed to be not very much. Is there proof that there were SAM's (or something similar) installed at the whitehouse and pentagon pre-911? I always assumed there was such a thing, but who knows. I also had the thought that these installations do exist but were not used so as not to expose their locations to potential future *major* attacks, from say someplace like China.

[Senior citizen]

5. Is there proof that the White House still exists?

I don't think anybody except insiders can get close enough to it lately to be able to tell for sure. Given the way the entire neighborhood is barricaded and fenced off, I'd be more likely to believe in the existence of a defense system than in the existence of what it is supposed to defend.

[Zynx]

26. SAM against airliner=worthless

At least for stopping something coming in like that. SAM's are designed to destroy small aircraft and damage big ones enough to make them crash.

Something coming in at 500 miles an hour has so much inertial mass and speed that it will either close the distance to target before the SAM can even be targeted and launched, or it will simply shrug off every shot fired at it and keep on coming.

The White House has people armed with Stingers, no idea what the Pentagon has. These won't do jack to an airliner on a suicide attack.

[DulceDecorum]

52. But... but....

several eyewitnesses had to time to talk and run and hide and see people in the windows and read the writing on the side of the aircraft travelling at 500 miles per hour.

Were they LYING?

[DulceDecorum]

45. A SAM and an aircraft coming at a building

Well, I do not know if the SAM would have stopped the plane,
but I do recall the Israelis getting very bent
over something found lying in the grass
sometime after an an Arkia took off out of Mombasa airport.

I'm sorry, I'm not used to such events, I must say. Just a little adjust of the microphone here. I was asked to describe what happened today. I'll do this briefly. The Mombasa flight is a regular Arkia flight. We run it every week. The flight to Mombasa and our landing there, all the organization, organizing everything to, for the return flight, everything was perfectly normal, standard, routine.
Immediately after we took off from Mombasa at a very low altitude, we felt a little blow to the plane. The initial association on the basis of my experience was that maybe there was some not very large bird that had collided with the plane. And immediately after that, we saw there were two smoke trails following us and they vanished a little bit later, after a couple of seconds. We carried out all the checks, all the records checks to check that the plane's systems were working. We didn't find anything that wasn't standard and we announced to Mombasa air control that we were continuing as normal, and that's what we did.
Subsequently, we established contact with the Arkia control center at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel. Using radio communication, we informed them, we informed them of what had happened, of the incident, and they came back to us about half an hour later with the report by then as to what had happened on the ground in Mombasa.
And it turned out subsequently, well, we, some of us, in fact, in the crew did think that perhaps we had been shot at, but we weren't sure at first. So having heard about the tragic incident that had occurred in the hotel in Mombasa, we did think that it was likely to be connected.
The plane, as I've said, all of its systems reacted perfectly normally in a totally satisfactory fashion and since the passengers had also heard and some of them also had seen these white trails, we talked to them. We reassured them according to the cabin crew's report. No one was particularly bothered or upset in the cabin. Everyone understood. They took it in their stride. Everyone was very relaxed during the flight, as far as we were concerned. The whole flight until we landed back in Tel Aviv was absolutely routine.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/28/bn.05.html

Later Thursday, a previously unknown group calling itself the Army of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack. In a faxed statement, the group said it had sent two groups of attackers to Kenya to "make the world hear once again the voice of Palestinian refugees, and to cast light on Zionist terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza."
It was not immediately possible to verify the veracity of the claim.
The plane, a Boeing 757, had initially prepared for an emergency landing in Nairobi, but then decided to continue to Israel when it became clear there was no serious damage. It landed safely at Ben Gurion airport. For part of the way the plane was escorted by an F-15 fighter jet from the Israel Air Force
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=235705&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

About five minutes before the hotel attack, two missiles streaked past an Israeli-owned jet as it left Mombasa's international airport. The aircraft, owned by the Arkia charter company, landed safely about four hours later in Tel Aviv. None of the 261 passengers and 10 crew members was hurt.
Police said the missiles - believed to be Soviet-made SA-7s - were fired from a white all-terrain vehicle about two kilometers from the airport. Three or four Arab-looking men were seen leaving the area in the van, police said. Investigators found two missile casings near the airport, but have made no arrests.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=235961&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

So I guess that
a SAM would have put a serious crimp in a Boeing 757
aimed at a Washington DC landmark.

[AZCat]

53. Interesting question...

I posted here about the kinetic energy of a Boeing 767, so for reference see that post.

A Boeing 757-300 has about 2.3 GJ of kinetic energy at 400 kts (205 m/s) and 110,000 kg.

A SA-7 has about 792 KJ of kinetic energy at 1,127 kts (580 m/s) and 4.71 kg. It has a HE warhead weighing 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs). If we use TNT to approximate the explosive energy of the warhead, this gives the missile an additional 5.3 MJ of energy, for a total of about 6.1 MJ.

Now to calculate the deflection of an incoming plane, we need to simplify the problem considerably. I will consider a two-dimensional inelastic collision. The maximum deflection is created if the missile hits the plane at a 90-degree angle.

So we have two bodies for our calculation.

Body 1 (the plane):
m1 = 110,000 kg
v1 = 205 m/s

Body 2 (the missile):
m2 = 4.71 kg
v2 = 580 m/s

Calculations:
Linear momentum is conserved, so we can calculate the components in the x and y directions. Theta is the angle of deflection of the plane after impact.

m1*v1 = MV*cos(theta) (x component)
m2*v2 = MV*sin(theta) (y component)

M = m1+m2

tan(theta) = (m2*v2)/(m1*v1) = (4.71*580)/(110,000*205) = 121*10-6
theta = 6.95*10-3 degrees

From this, we can see that while a missile might damage a plane enough to prevent it from landing safely or cause it to break up, it won't do much to change the direction of the plane immediately after impact.

[mikedaul]

54. math

thanks AZCat - very good info!

[Sterling]

55. You guys act like these things are fired from 100 yards away.

You guys need to stop basing your opinions on Bruce Willis movies. I assure you these things could very easily prevent an airliner from reaching a sensitive target like the buildings in DC.

There are various types of "SAMS" any of which could be effective in this situation.

Especially since the WH was hit on 9-11 1994 by a small aircraft there have been several options of "SAM" capabilities available for defending DC.

It is more likely one of the "drills" going on that day delayed response time and caused just enough confusion to let whatever hit DC through.

[AZCat]

56. What matters is the range from the target

The White House is protected by a series of concentric rings, and the farthest out ones are designed to stop this sort of threat. The radius of the ring is what determines if the plane can reach the target, because it will lose control after being hit by a SAM, but it takes a while for it to deviate from it's pre-impact path.

I didn't base it on a Bruce Willis movie either- check the math yourself and feel free to question my methods, but don't produce a straw man like that to rebut my conclusion.

[Sterling]

62. Sorry I don't buy it.

You have avoided the simple question of why were none of the assets available used. Given what they knew at the time those planes were headed to very specific high value targets. Almost any alternate crash site would have been preferable to the obvious targets in DC.


They had the capability and did not use it.

[MercutioATC]

63. Was AA equipment active at the Pentagon on 9/11?

Completely unconfirmed, but I read someplace that AA sites in Washington weren't active any more (well, until after 9/11, that is).

[Sterling]

64. We all need to understand this.

The US Airforce can and always has been able to take down any aircraft in US airspace. The exception was demonstrated in 94 when a small plane hit the WH on 9-11 I believe it was. These however were not small low flying aircraft these were planes that were known to be hostile while a great distance from their eventual high value targets in DC.

After the 94 incident AA mesures were improved to take this situation into account. So in fact DC was better defended after 94 than it had been previously.

[AZCat]

66. Once again you are off target

My original post did not speculate at all about why the airliner wasn't shot at, it had ONLY to do with the physics of a collision between an airliner and a SAM (a SA-7).

I don't know why the airliner wasn't shot at, and that is why I didn't speculate about it. I don't know what assets were available and I don't know where they were placed. If I did perhaps I could give better estimates of their effectiveness, but that is all I wanted to post about-- nothing else.

[Abe Linkman]

68. Maybe it wasn't shot at, because it wasn't a threat.

If you're talking about FL 77 -- it wasn't shot at, because it wasn't a threat to anyone or any building. And that's assuming that the airliner you're referring to was actually FL 77. As you may know, DD long ago provided compelling evidence that FL 77 wasn't even scheduled to fly on 9/11.

[AZCat]

69. Let's assume a hypothetical plane...

I was just interested in the question of what happens to a plane that is hit by a SAM. I am not speculating about a specific plane (read FL 77) nor a specific date (read September 11, 2001).

I picked a similar plane to FL 77 (a Boeing 757) because in DulceDecorum's post #45, this was stated:
"So I guess that
a SAM would have put a serious crimp in a Boeing 757
aimed at a Washington DC landmark."

I thought it would be interesting to talk about what actually happens when a SAM hits a Boeing 757, not whether or not the actual events on 9/11 involved a 757 or an idle air-defense system. I apologize if I have misled anyone about the purpose of my post.

[MercutioATC]

70. You didn't "mislead" anybody, AZCat.

I understood your posts.

[AZCat]

71. Thanks, MercutioATC.

It was beginning to feel a bit surreal. I don't know how you keep it up all the time- I had to take a break during summer vacation!

[MercutioATC]

72. Get used to the feeling. ;)

I just can't get over how pissed the FAA is gonna be when they find out I'm not really an air traffic controller...

:crazy:

[AZCat]

73. Will they manage it like the Bobs managed Milton?

from IMDB:

Bob Slydell: Milton Waddams.
Dom Portwood: Who's he?
Bob Porter: You know, squirrely looking guy, mumbles a lot.
Dom Portwood: Oh, yeah.
Bob Slydell: Yeah, we can't actually find a record of him being a current employee here.
Bob Porter: I looked into it more deeply and I found that apparently what happened is that he was laid off five years ago and no one ever told him, but through some kind of glitch in the payroll department, he still gets a paycheck.
Bob Slydell: So we just went a ahead and fixed the glitch.
Bill Lumbergh: Great.
Dom Portwood: So um, Milton has been let go?
Bob Slydell: Well just a second there, professor. We uh, we fixed the *glitch*. So he won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it will just work itself out naturally.
Bob Porter: We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem solved from your end.

I love that movie! :)

[MercutioATC]

74. Great movie :)

They haven't stopped my paychecks yet (which is a damn good thing, because I'm kinda used to getting them)...

[DulceDecorum]

76. Aw shucks

Half the original pilots had dubious FAA airman credentials in the first place. Hou wouldn't be the first faker the FAA has caught in the ACT.

Not that you ATCs have any respect whatsoever for the pilots
as you, MercutioATC so recently demonstrated
when you left your cellphone on.
http://www.smartregs.com/data/sf9121.htm

[MercutioATC]

77. Oh, please. I work with these guys 5 days a week...

I have plenty of respect for pilots.

Ask any of them if they're offended that I left my phone on or if they feel I put the plane in danger.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

As for my post, your sarcasm detector seems to be broken. Do you honestly think I could control planes (or even get into the facility) if I was "faking"?

[DulceDecorum]

82. Re: (or even get into the facility)

BOSTON (AP) -- Federal authorities are investigating whether a man who toured the control tower at Logan International Airport three days before last week's terrorists attacks was one of the hijackers, the Federal Aviation Administration said Monday.
The man, who showed a pilot's license and said he had family in Afghanistan, entered the tower unescorted, several hours after four men who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent asked a controller how to gain access to the tower, The Boston Globe reported in Monday's editions.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/17_APlogan.html

September 17, 2002
Those indicted include A UNITED AIRLINES PILOT, construction workers, security personnel, ramp agents, cleaning crews, transportation workers, and an extensive number of food service workers. All of the employees indicted had access to restricted areas and some had the ability to escort up to 6 people into restricted areas. .....
As a cautionary note, the names listed on the indictments and arrest warrants are the names provided on the Airport Security Applications, and in some instances may not be the real name of the defendant. We do not know the true identity of all of these individuals.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/co/091702Frame1Source1.htm

But I will concede that a sanitation engineer (janitor)
might have difficulty putting planes in danger.

[MercutioATC]

83. One was before 9/11 and the other said nothing about ATC facilities.

Airport restricted areas aren't necessarily ATC facilities.

To get into my facility, I need to pass through a guarded gate where they check my ID and make sure I have an FAA-issued parking pass on my car. Then, I have to use the electronic security button on my badge to actually enter the building.

[RH]

78. According to what

was any plane headed towards a high value target?

Seriously. Where is there any hard evidence of this? The notion is entirely conjectural.

[Abe Linkman]

57. You aren't saying that the Gov't can do nothing, are you?

Surely, the Gov't has security measures in place (and had them in place on 9/11) to protect buildings like the Pentagon, WH, Capital, CIA etc.

You may well be right that a single SAM, fired at short range from the intended target of a plane wouldn't do much to change its direction, but
do you really believe that is ALL the Gov't had available?

I don't think so. Besides, if it IS, then surely they would simply fire
multiple SAMs from various positions.

[AZCat]

58. I am not saying that

I was just interested in the initial deviation of the plane after impact. My post above (as a response to a similar question) notes that the WH probably has a defensive ring with a large enough radius to disable a plane at a distance where it would crash before hitting the WH.

You are correct- they may have other weapons systems at their disposal. We know Israel has directed energy weapons (provided by us) and I would be surprised if there wasn't something else like that guarding the WH besides SAM systems.

Also, a SA-7 isn't very big. There are much larger SAMs.

[Sterling]

65. Even diverting it off target as a loast resort would be preferable.

To letting it hit the highest valued targets in our government.

[RH]

79. With hindsight, maybe,

but then you have yet to explain how anybody was supposed to know what the alleged targets were before they were hit.

You have also yet to prove that there was any intention to hit the supposed targets.

In the mean time I am convinced that the collision of Flight 77 with the Pentagon was not an intended event.

[tngledwebb]

80. Taxpayers have been paying a lot of money

for the most powerful military in the history of the world. The military ought to be able to tell when a plane is heading for the Pentagon, or maybe just getting real close to downtown D.C., esp. after two planes hit the WTC, and they would have precise plans to divert or destroy, well before a plane hits any D.C target. But this particular oversight was fully explained in the official report.

[RH]

81. Tell how?

Are we seriously supposed to be talking here as if the US Military provides some kind of value for money? Maybe you missed a few of the background news reports, the missing three trillion dollars etc.

As best I can gather Flight 77 flew high over the Pentagon before circling around behind Pentagon City. Only during the last mile or two when it straightened out was there thus any circumstantial evidence of where exactly it may be going.

Two miles at 400 mph gives a time span of 18 seconds and you also need to consider that the Pentagon was an unlikely target in that the approach route was all but the worst possible. With the Pentagon located on low ground beyond the Arlington Heights the plane had to dip dangerously to hit the object, hitting lamp poles and tree tops as it did so. The trajectory is problematic. If it was deliberate then why so? There would thus be more than a slight possibility of never proceeding beyond the Navy Annex. It flew literally within a few feet of the roof of that building and the Sheraton Hotel.

It is fair enough to suppose that the B757 should not have been there to start off with, that something should have been done, in which case it is only fair to point out that something was done; a C130 had attempted to intercept and for all we know it did.

As to where the B757 was headed for, it was also directly in line with the Capitol Dome on the other side of the Potomac.

My bet is that the plane intended to buzz very low over the roof of the Pentagon but lost control before it got there.

[tngledwebb]

84. Haven't figured all the angles yet,

but it would appear that you subscribe to the incompetence-writ-large-theory (plus AQ terror gang having a hell of a lucky day, maybe a few lucky years eluding CIA, etc.) Who should be accountable, who do you want removed from office, fired, court-martialed, impeached? Be specific, if you don't mind. BTW, have you seen F/911? What shocked or disgusted you most?

[RH]

85. I am really not so curious

about 'F/911', with not the slightest sign apparent of it coming up with anything not already discussed on this forum two years ago.

I am in London, UK, with a limited access to the details of US responsibilities, etc. The common view from here is very much that the whole caboodle is sick, the USA at worst being accountable per se, consumately, or at best the unfortunate victim of Global sycophancy, blissfully unaware of the true contempt for the shallowness of Hollywood-American culture in general.

The European response is more sophisticated. Nobody here thinks in terms of a civilised government enjoying the sort of power routinely attributed in the USA to the Bush regime. When they want to blame "the government" I really don't know what they think they're on about. A multi-departmental federal government with one single mind, means and motive? If only. That's for the birds, a convenient theme for a child's adventure story perhaps, but not to be taken too seriously.

[tngledwebb]

86. Thanks for answering F9/11 query

recently posted elsewhere. I have been abroad many times and am well aware of UK/European views re USA. I would beg to differ a bit with your interpretations of those views. But I would strongly suggest seeing F9/11 ASAP, it is a very powerful film. Will you be voting via overseas ballot for Kerry?

[RH]

87. I am

a UK citizen with some German blood.

Used to be a Green Party supporter but I don't pretend to vote for governmental elections nowadays. Being active with local politics this is because of practical considerations; by supporting any one party I make an enemy of two or three others, not a good deal all told.

The prospect of a cock a hoop Bush crowd with nothing to stop them is none the less a terror to beware of, I gladly grant that.

With due regard to international relations beware that what people will say to your face or in public is not the same as the version they betray in private. The English are like that. White man speak with forked tongue.

[Abe Linkman]

9. No defense contractor would be THAT stupid. n/t

n/t

[Senior citizen]

21. No President could be THIS stupid.

But he is.

I worked for a short while as a civilian at a Navy base and I noticed many irregularities (improper repairs, switching labels on rotors, etc.) that could have caused airplane crashes and cost lives. But when I spoke out, nothing was done except to try to shut me up. In thinking it through further, I realized that it was then peacetime, and without a lot of military plane crashes (there was at least one a week in those days, often one a day) there wouldn't be a demand for more aircraft defense contracts. What didn't make sense from a national security standpoint, made perfect sense from a military-industrial-complex standpoint of putting profits before people.

If the penalty for a defense contractor was full restitution of all taxpayer money plus a fine, instead of just a small fine, and they were debarred from getting future government contracts, it would be stupidity for them to defraud the government. As things stand now, there are huge profits and miniscule penalties, so fraud is financially rewarding.

Apparently you don't think that the defense establishment is helping the President find new ways to harm us every day. I do.

[Abe Linkman]

23. Wrong. (about this, too)

"Apparently you don't think that the defense establishment is helping the President find new ways to harm us every day."

That YOU think otherwise is your proud right as a fine patriotic, intelligent, and highly informed American.

[Senior citizen]

32. Well that's what he said he was doing,

and since he's bringing in defense contractors to write his defense budget for him, I assume they're helping him achieve his goals in every way they can.

[Abe Linkman]

33. And they're selling blank ammunition, too.

What're you smokin', boy?

[Senior citizen]

47. Well, I do recall some scandals about faked missile test results,

and I know there have been other complaints of weapons that didn't work right. The point I'm trying to make is that defense contractors can do virtually whatever they want--I seem to remember some TV footage of smart missiles with pinpoint accuracy that later turned out to be a bunch of baloney. So the missiles didn't and couldn't do what the contractors and the Pentagon claimed they could do, but I never heard of anybody being penalized in any way or denied future contracts.

I'm smoking additive-free tobacco that I buy in bulk and roll with a machine, old man. It doesn't get me high, but having a cigarette in hand seems to calm me down at times. And as mellowed as I've gotten in my old age, I still get riled at the stuff that goes on these days. We paid for all those jet planes and fighter pilots to protect this country, and when we needed them they simply weren't there. And we paid for back-up systems that didn't work either. LIHOP or MIHOP, those fraudulent charges and cost overruns on the no-bid contracts in Iraq aren't the first time we've been robbed by defense contractors by a long shot. I don't think they're selling blanks, but at this point I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them if there's money to be made in it.

Did you see the documentary, "The Corporation?" Defense contractors are corporations, and by law their first legal obligation is to make money, without regard to any consequences to others. Just as non-defense corporations have to continue to make faulty equipment that they know kills kids, if correcting the problem would cut into shareholder profits, defense corporations are obligated by law to provide faulty equipment to our military if correcting the problems would cut into shareholder profits. That's the law.

[Abe Linkman]

34. If they were inoperative, it makes no sense to say they failed. n/t

n/t

[tngledwebb]

35. unlikely, though

possible, but 9/11 report answered this fully. ( See page 476, appendix C.) Thing is..if there was a stand-down order, for any reason, they aren't going to tell us, yet, not in our lifetime anyway. Contractors selling crap to the Pentagon? Somebody ought to be be fired for that, how 'bout the fellow who runs the place, that would be the sexy Mr. Donald 'Known-Unknowns' Rumsfeld, I believe. That's why we needed that no stone-unturned, independent, wide-ranging, well-funded investigation in the first place, no stalling, no limits. You think that's what we got? BTW, If anyone looking at Pentagon crash photos can show me where and how Flt 77 hit, I would be grateful.

[Abe Linkman]

36. You asked about FL 77 & here's your answer.

The reason you can't see where and how FL 77 crashed is because it was a miniature 757, made of balsa wood, and that sucker just splintered off into little tiny pieces of balsa slivers whenever it hit the side of that reinforced building.

According to mr. murky (who claims to be with ATC -- in, guess where? that's right, OHIO - close to some "funny" things that happened on 9/11) -- but I digress. According to mr. murky aka Mercutio, an engine and a wheel were found at the Pentagon. Further investigation shows that these parts are the exact same size as similar parts in other miniature 757 model boxes available at Hobby Lobby Shops everywhere.

I hope that clears up everything for you. I felt your pain for a long time, until it was brought to my attention that the plane that crashed at the Pentagon was actually a miniature. Then, it all started making sense.

[MercutioATC]

37. Misrepresenting evidence again, Abe? You realize nobody believes it.

The wheel found was the same size and pattern as a 757 wheel. Don't believe me, check it out for yourself.

You're the only one claiming that anything other than a full-sized 757 crashed at the Pentagon here. I never made any such statement.

Just show me debris from a missile or a fighter...you claim they were responsible. Were they made of balsa wood?

[Abe Linkman]

38. I know it wasn't a miniature F-16. Parking lot video proves it, too.

That wheel you keep referring to is NOT from a 757.

You're the only one here claiming a 757 crashed at the Pentagon, and if that's your position, you have the burden of proving it, and so far, you have failed to do so, for the very simple reason that you are wrong but for some mysterious reason, you won't admit it. Why is that?

I don't claim to know exactly what hit the Pentagon, but whatever it was, the video proves it couldn't have been a 757.

The only 757 that could have crashed there is a miniature one. Is that your position?

[MercutioATC]

39. You're still insisting the wheel was planted, aren't you?

...along with the large piece of fuselage sheet metal, the landing gear strut, the oxygen bottle, the child's hand and the DNA.

You've said very clearly that a small jet and missile were what hit the Pentagon. I'm just asking you to show me some debris (or even a REPORT of some debris).

Your claim that 757 debris was planted notwithstanding, at least I have 757 debris. You have no debris from either a missile or a small plane. How do you explain this?

[Abe Linkman]

40. I'm still insisting that you got nothing, murky. Nada. Just juvenile BS.

Your ability to make an argument is so limited that you should stick to the truth and not try to ride bolo's Spinning Wheel.

Why does the Gov't video NOT show a plane large enough to be a 757, murky? Answer THAT question. Don't come back here with more BS about how the image is fuzzy. We already know it's less than clear (and WE know why, too). Fuzziness has NOTHING to do with the size of the plane that fits in the image. Trying to reason with you is like trying to reason with a small, fidgety child.

[MercutioATC]

41. Abe, I've already said that I can't tell what's in that video.

If you have something better than a single frame of a blurry video to base your theory on, show me.

[Abe Linkman]

42. I can tell what ISN'T in that video: a 757.

Have you ever even tried to make a logical argument for any of your positions? I've yet to see one. All I see are juvenile-like claims of things you can't support with evidence OR logic.

I'm quickly getting to the point of tiring of trying to reason with you.
That is something that they obviously don't teach you at ATC school (assuming you even work in ATC)... and it's obviously something you didn't learn in high school or on your own.

If you ever learn how to THINK and can communicate an argument based on logic, I'll be glad to look at it. Otherwise, mr. murky, have fun trying to amuse your fellow bushco apologists. Maybe they don't find you as boring (and banal) as I do.

[MercutioATC]

46. If you can't see logic in my posts, you're right. It's hopeless.

I'm not the one disregarding the majority of the evidence and making wild claims. I've explained every position I've supported and answered every queston put to me. I don't claim evidence that could be contrary to my positions has been "planted". I don't cite authors who clearly have many of their facts wrong and refuse to answer criticisms of those facts. I don't question the motivations of other posters. I don't resort to personal attacks when I'm faced with questions I can't answer (well, only that once).

If you ever learn how to peek your head out of your little conspiracy world and communicate an argument based on logic, I'll be glad to look at it. Otherwise, Abe, have fun trying to amuse your fellow paranoid CTists. Maybe they don't mind your evasions and convoluted logic as much as I do.

[vincent_vega_lives]

92. WTF missile defense system???

Show me the details on that one. thats a laugh. The only "missile defence system" is MANPADS. And that requires a dude with mk1 eyeball to be scanning for a target, and that is only after said dude is sent up on the roof after getting the Stinger SAM out of storage, and spining it up.

Why do you think thoes Avenger ADA trucks were stationed around the DC area after 9-11-01?

Missile defense system my ass.

[WoodrowFan]

94. it didn't fail, it never existed

just another urban myth, like alligators in the sewers in New York.