A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

by **Starman** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:56 am

It took several months of dogged reading and pondering before I understood the 911 attacks were a carefully staged and planned inside job, DESPITE my tentative awareness of the PTB's collusion in creating opportunistic wars and conflicts. The atrocity of such horrific treason that occurred on 911 has been an immense wake-up call, encouraging my research and reading and thoughts about how power and wealth REALLY work in the world -- as I'm sure it has been for uncountable numbers of people. And too, I share the heavy feeling of horror and outrage at realizing how despicably evil the murdering thugs are who can countenance the killing of many thousands of innocents without even a second thought -- in the mold of Kissinger and Brezinski -- just to further their Globalist, wealth and power agenda. But here's my real point -- In all the discussion I've seen and read about the Pentagon attack most peculiarly hitting the area just reinforced and still lightly populated, I've NEVER seen any information about how widely known, in the public record, was the location of the recent renevation and facts about how that part of the Pentagon was still not operational or fully staffed. That is -- how likely would it have been for any terrorist hijackers to NOT know the area of the Pentagon struck would be mostly uninhabited? I personally lean toward the remote-piloted substitute-aircraft theory of what actually hit the Pentagon, so the question above is only of limited theoretical relevance w/r/t how the alleged hijackers could have been so misinformed. As far as sheer coincidence, the 'hijackers' just 'happening' to hit the Pentagon at its least-vulnerable point, is yet one MORE of many dozens of inexplicable one-in-a-hundred-or-thousand etc. 'chance' events that, when taken all-together, are simply so improbable as to be damn-all impossible. In a related vein -- It would seem that many of the intricate 'explanations' for how individual failures and errors and oversights could have occurred might have been primarily intended to convince skeptical military officials and technicians that the 911 attacks were the result of terrible mistakes and failures (for which no-one was personally responsible!) -- instead of what they really were. For the majority of citizens and military, the prospect of 911 being an inside job was so unthinkable that they'd readily buy even the most halfass explanation -- anything would be preferable to considering their leaders and high officials could commit such an awful, horrendous betrayal. Contrary to the pathetic myth of patriotic 'courage' and bravery, many of the biggest, loudest 'Rah-Rah!' true-blue America Firsters are moral cowards (and intellectually lazy to-boot. 'Course, that's hardly 'news' to most of the folks reading this site.) Starman

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:02 am

A few observations: People like Sander Hicks and John Judge view the targeting of the Pentagon at the one side out of 5 where it was vacant- and had been vacated for some time before the attack- as lending support for the idea that 9-11 was a MIHOP deal. I'd need to have some more facts before endorsing that idea. For instance, I don't know if there was a sound practical reason for the airliner (yes, I think it was Flight 77 that hit the building) to do a hot-rod fighter pilot high-speed 270 (or more) degree descent down to ground level before ramming perpendicularly into the side of the building, rather than simply dive-bombing directly onto the roof. I talked to a guy who flies cargo jets that size for FedEx a couple of times about the 9-11 Pentagon attack, and asked him if there was any particular need for a jet to do that in order to be certain of hitting its target, rather than risking having some sort of instability from a more direct dive-bomb kamikaze approach, like for instance being pulled off-course by the steep descent, or going into a tailspin. He mumbled something, and sort of demurred...but he gave me the impression that there wasn't necessarily any reason for a jet like that to NOT simply perform a direct crash landing on top of the roof of the building. I think he was hesitating to give me a definite opinion for some reason- maybe because he simply didn't know for sure, because that isn't how responsible people pilot airplanes. Or maybe my question surprised him, and he'd never thought of it before... Anyway, I'm still searching for more detailed answers to that question from someone with professional experience flying big jets- looking for a second opinion, or as many opinions as I can get. There's probably a professional pilot's forum where that question has been raised already, in fact. But I haven't looked yet. Anyway, on a question like that one, a face-to-face conversation is more trustworthy. Because if it was possible to simply directly point the plane at a target like the roof of the Pentagon and be assured of hitting it in normal weather conditions, I don't know of any good reason why a legitimate Islamic fanatic suicide hijacker wouldn't do that. Not as elegant, but likely much more damaging than ramming the wall. Or, maybe not...maybe they were convinced that a side hit would be the most effective...I didn't order the operation. I also tend to agree that the hijackers scouting intelligence should have been good enough to know that the southwest side of the Pentagon had been off-line for maintenance and vacant for an extended period of time. But then, I never understood why a suicidally fanatic Muslim pilot hijacker wouldn't have opened up radio communication in the last few minutes before impact, once he had a dead-bang bead on his target, and gone to his apotheosis yelling "Allahu Akbar", or something along that line...you know, leave no doubt about his motivation, who, where, what, and why: "Al Qaeda, beottches! How ya like us now! Real enough for ya? Allahoo Akbarrr...." Boom. I can't believe that suicidal religous fanatic hijackers wouldn't have planned that out as a finishing touch for their grand exit. The Final Call. Maybe they all just forgot. I've heard the speculation advanced so confidently by people like Dick Cheney, that the Flight 77 hijackers only settled on hitting the Pentagon as a last-minute snap decision, an alternate target hurriedly picked out due to the pilot's inability to locate the White House, the originally intended first choice. And I heard the opinion expressed by one of the ground controllers at Chantilly, Va., that the reason the pilot couldn't find the White House was because the sun got in his eyes. Although how she could have known that for sure, I can't imagine. Check out the flight path of Flight 77, is all I can say. ( If you do look that up, try to glean from as many sources as you can- because I've seen more than one direction for Flight 77's final flight depicted by various media sources I've perused. They can't all be right. You want to find the correct, accurate representation of the route, especially the path it took as it neared D.C. Weirdest innaccuracy I've noted- as originally run, the aerial overhead photo of the damaged Pentagon in the on-line version of Jane's Defense Weekly is oriented quite incorrectly- at least in terms of the normal conventions of cartography. Viewers looking at aerial photos reproduced for publication generally assume that aerial photos are oriented with north at the top and south at the bottom, unless a different compass plot is otherwise designated. The Jane's photo includes no specific directional details, and the layout of the photo makes it appear as if the plane had blazed in from a northerly direction and rammed the northeast wall, instead of the southwest wall. I don't know if they've ever gotten around to correcting the orientation of that photo. [ Edit- <a href="http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/misc/pentagon_after.shtml">www.janes.com/security/in...fter.shtml</a> ...hmm, I guess not. RDR. ] ) I'm skeptical of the idea that the primary orginally planned target was any other building than the Pentagon, personally. It seems to me that the mile-high altitude the plane maintained even as it loomed on the outskirts of downtown D.C. argues against the theory that the jetliner's originally planned target was located anywhere in the city center where Pennsylvania Ave. meets Constitution Ave., a building like the White House or the Capitol. Anywhere within the roughly 1 square mile area between the White House and Capitol is an exceedingly "target-rich environment." But even at their point of closest approach to the city, the pilot still kept the plane at mile-high altitude, and the jet never did cross the Potomac and enter the airspace over that square mile of downtown, near-Northwest D.C. The vicinity of National Airport, across the river in Virginia, was about as close as they got. Also- as a spur-of-the-moment second choice, dropping into a top-speed spiral descent from 5000 ft. to a treetop level, under-the-radar altitude that just happened to end up on a clean runway-type approach directly head-on into one side of the Pentagon strikes me as overly dramatic, not to mention suspiciously well-performed. Just my $.02... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/27/05 2:25 am

by **banned** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:33 am

...to talk to <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":("> . Anyway, Pentagon. Here is what has always stood out for me in the Pentagon "story." They had just strengthened the wall on the side that was hit. Rummy was in a meeting on the other side of the building. This is the fucking PENTAGON but WHATEVER hit it, plane, missile, or giant frisbee from outer space, should ANYTHING be able to hit the Pentagon while the SoD is having a meeting? I mean, the place is defenseless? I simply didn't buy it. I don't think what hit it is as salient as the fact that IF something hit it, it had to be ALLOWED to hit it, and hit it the one place it would do the least damage. By the way, has anyone seen that show "E Ring"? Being from the San Francisco area I thought that was a kind of genital piercing, but no, I stumbled on it a few weeks ago and it's this propaganda show about the Pentagon! Dennis Hopper as the gruff CO with the heart of gold! Ben Bratt saving Rwandans single handedly! (with the help of some blonde babe who looked familiar but I couldn't remember which show she used to be on.) Utter hogwash, but not just harmless stuff. A large percentage of Murkans believe this is how the Pentagon ACTUALLY FUNCTIONS. Ben Bratt says "We gotta help those Rwandans!" And so they call in a missile strike on the bad guys' stronghold. In someone else's sovereign nation, gang. The audience is supposed to cheer, that we can pinpoint any place on the globe, oh, a curry shop in Lahore or some guy's barn in Namibia, and obliterate it in an inferno of fire, and that is a Good Thing! Ben Bratt and Hopper, who gives his money to charity, light up Cohibas and high five to all! Sinisterly dreadful stuff. Check it out.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:51 am

"...I've NEVER seen any information about how widely known, in the public record, was the location of the recent renevation and facts about how that part of the Pentagon was still not operational or fully staffed. That is -- how likely would it have been for any terrorist hijackers to NOT know the area of the Pentagon struck would be mostly uninhabited?..." Let's put it this way: if they were paying even a modest amount of attention, they would have found out easily enough. A renovation program on the world's largest office building isn't an overnight project. It isn't even merely a 1-year project. And it's most certainly newsworthy enough to be covered by local and regional media, including television news broadcasts in the DC area. Repeatedly. <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=pentagon+renovation+2000&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt">search.yahoo.com/search?p...fl=0&x=wrt</a> No big secret, I hope you'll agree. As if that isn't enough, at least one of the identified Al Qaeda plotters was living in Falls Church, Virginia, just a few miles down the road from the Pentagon, as the crow flies. "...I personally lean toward the remote-piloted substitute-aircraft theory of what actually hit the Pentagon, so the question above is only of limited theoretical relevance w/r/t how the alleged hijackers could have been so misinformed..." Why are you still endorsing a theory that's had so many holes shot in it? I can't even find anyone to argue the facts of the case with me. Belligerent counterattacks hurling accusations at those who have so eloquently shredded the "no-plane" hypothesis into confetti- now, that I can find. Guilt-by-association hysterics- no problem, I can find plenty of that, too. What I haven't found are adherents to the "remote-piloted substitute-aircraft theory" taking up the challenge to provide detailed responses to specific queries on the subject, such as the set of questions I've laid out in previous messages on this thread. Nor is anyone willing to go toe-to-toe against the more comprehensive skeptical counterpoint provided by the websites I linked on the matter. Honestly, how many more threads along this line do you think you can afford to abandon? You're going to wear out your retrenching tool like that. I yield the floor. Take as much time and as many column inches as you need. Or, well... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/27/05 2:59 am

by **banned** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:58 am

...do you think that if you figure out what happened (or your best guess) it will convince people it was MIHOP? My experience has been, people have to decide that BushCo is capable of such infamy. Then they believe it's MIHOP, and are open to the evidence. I have never known anyone persuaded in the least by any detail of any evidence for it being MIHOP. I'm not saying these analyses are valueless, only that I think it's grabbing the dog by the wrong end if your goal is to persuade people it was all a put up job to justify their seizure of power.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:45 am

"...do you think that if you figure out what happened (or your best guess) it will convince people it was MIHOP?" I'm not out to "convince" anyone. Especially in light of the fact that I'm not convinced of the MIHOP hypothesis, myself. I'm also not directing my comments at a collective mass mind, as implied by your usage of the term "people." I'm not an ad man, or con man. I'm not out to sell LIHOP, or MIHOP, to "people." I'm not even seeking agreement. I'd just as soon be cooly and rationally disabused of any ignorant preconceptions, weak logic, and emotional biases to which I might possibly be unwittingly clinging, by the impeccability of my adversaries in debate. Sometimes when I write in venues like this, if I can't find a productive debate, I'm content to debate myself. Out loud and in public...Calvinball. Although that can get boring...like playing chess with oneself, surprises are few and far between. Still, setting up chess problems and working them out can be instructive. To the extent that I'm seeking anything from others, it's intelligent discourse with individual minds, capable of thinking for themselves. In terms of the collective body politic of this nation, it's long been obvious to me that America is still in the "consciousness-raising" stage. We're still in the process of getting our stories together. If people of good will manage to accomplish that, potentially we're unstoppable. I'm a good-doing boy, I just want to help out. I do agree with you that a broader contextual understanding- or at least a visceral apprehension- of the untrustworthy character of the Bush dynasty and their Machiavellian allies is pretty much a prerequisite for deeply and thoughtfully weighing the possible validity of scenarios as profoundly troubling as 9-11 LIHOP/MIHOP. Although that realization alone isn't sufficient...As Thomas Pynchon once said, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." It's perhaps most important to learn how to think. Granted, everyone is an individual with a viewpoint that is to some extent unique. But "thinking for oneself" isn't to be confused with pride, narcissism, rigidity, or obduracy. There are rules to follow, sound principles of higher intelligence. Not dogmas, principles. Honesty, humility, humor...heart. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/27/05 5:48 am

by **slimmouse** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:41 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>slimmouse- have you formulated replies to any of my questions yet?<hr></blockquote> In a word, NOPE. Im not even going to make an educated guess, since that would only make it worse. I guess that makes it a stalemate then, except that your attempted explainations would look good in a debating forum. Right. But I DO know a LIE when I see one ( or is that two ) The ASCE video is a lie, as is the National Geographic video. I know stonewalling too when I see it. Refusing to release info under the FOIA is stonewalling. Of course, its fine to talk about the "technical possibility" of the Piloted suicide bomber attack on the building. But its not reasonable to discuss a no plane theory ? Who's kidding who here ? Like I said, I really dont care either way, since both arguments dont hold much water with me. Call it my "sixth sense" if you like. But, even in the absence of my ability to prove no plane theory conclusively either way, do you expect me to sit here telling you something I simply dont believe to be true ? Next news, you'll be telling me that either LIHOP or most likely MIHOP arent stone dead certainties either given the weight of evidence. Whats that ? You did ?

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:22 am

"Of course, its fine to talk about the "technical possibility" of the Piloted suicide bomber attack on the building. But its not reasonable to discuss a no plane theory ?" slimmouse, you aren't "discussing" no-plane theories- least of all, in regard to the "technical possibility." As a matter of fact, you've just explicitly declined to discuss them. So, to the extent that "it's not reasonable to discuss a no-plane theory" on this board, don't blame me. Look in the mirror. Direct your wounded howls of outrage there. "Who's kidding who here ?" I think I'll leave that for the lurkers to decide.

by **Qutb** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:35 am

RDR said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Where is Thierry-Meyssan now? Is he on a book tour?<hr></blockquote> He's running <a href="http://www.voltairenet.org/fr" target="top">this</a> site. It's a fairly good site overall, though they're still linking to that silly "Pentagate" flash animation. They have some articles in English. Of course, I don't particularly trust Meyssan, who appears to be something of a con man. I didn't know that he claimed to have worked for French intel, that's certainly interesting. Slimmouse said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Who's kidding who here?<hr></blockquote> I think those who believe that the available evidence allows them to claim that "mihop" is an absolute certainty, are kidding themselves. <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml" target="top">Here's</a> a rather good article from the paleo-conservative The New American, on "9/11 Conspiracy Fact and Fiction" (just ignore the ads for the John Birch Society and the right-wing slant): <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Of the four coordinated events — the two attacks on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the attack on the Pentagon, and the crash in rural Pennsylvania — almost every significant official finding presented as fact has been subjected to challenge by a host of critics. The government has invited (even incited, it can be argued) suspicion by refusing to release evidence even to congressional committees and continuing the pattern of secrecy and coverup that we have seen in past administrations concerning such events as the 1991 Ruby Ridge shootout, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 1996 downing of TWA Flight 800. However, many of those disputing the official version of the 9/11 attacks have chosen, oddly enough, to challenge some of the government's most solid evidence and to do so with flimsy evidence of their own, often accompanied with sensational, irrational conjecture. Some of the most popularly disseminated 9/11 scenarios assert, for instance, that the Pentagon and the Twin Towers were not hit by the hijacked commercial airliners, but by missiles and/or military planes. A mushrooming array of books, videos, and Internet websites devoted to 9/11 presents an ever-multiplying and ever more wild assortment of theories and scenarios concerning virtually every aspect of the attacks. Some of them have gotten almost into the X-Files realm, proposing explanations so outlandish that one might expect to find out that the 9/11 terror attacks were really launched by aliens from outer space. In fact, as we will point out, at least one 9/11 conspiracy theorist argues that some influential human beings directing world events are actually extra-terrestrial shape-shifters. All of this, of course, is being used to discredit as a "conspiracy theory wacko" anyone who challenges any part of the government's official line on the September 11 attacks, as well as anyone who questions the government's incremental police-state response to 9/11 in the name of "homeland security." (...) Many of the organizations and websites "investigating" the 9/11 attacks promote and/or sell the Meyssan books. Dave vonKleist, narrator and producer of the video 911 In Plane Site, one of the most popular "exposés" of the September 11 events, explains in his video that it was Meyssan's 9/11 website, "Hunt the Boeing," that got him started investigating the matter. Mr. vonKleist strangely refers repeatedly to Meyssan's books and website as information "released by the French," as though it were released by the French government or the French people collectively. In reality, Meyssan represents only a small fringe on the far left of French politics, and his 9/11 materials have been denounced as disinformation and hucksterism by political and media representatives spanning the spectrum of French political thought, including many of those who strongly oppose U.S. policies in response to the 9/11 terror attacks. According to vonKleist, when he first saw "Hunt the Boeing," he had only "one goal in mind: to prove the French wrong." However, as he looked into Meyssan's evidence, he says, he became convinced that "the French" were right after all. (...) Demolition charges. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did. So why use planes? It seems they were a diversionary tactic — a grand spectacle." So writes Randy Lavello in an article on www.prisonplanet.com, one of the Internet sites of shortwave radio broadcaster and video producer Alex Jones. "The World Trade Center was not destroyed by terrorists. It was a controlled demolition, an inside job!" says "Geronimo Jones" in an article on the Internet site letsroll911.org. "The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished," he claims. This is also a major theme of the vonKleist video, 911 In Plane Site, which, like a number of other video productions, attempts to liken the World Trade Center collapses to the 1995 attack on Oklahoma City's Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Some of these 9/11 productions even cite Gen. Partin as an authority to back their theories about the Twin Towers. General Partin exposed the evidence that the OKC blast included internal demolition charges, in addition to the Ryder truck bomb. But Partin says the OKC and WTC incidents are completely different. The Murrah building was only nine stories tall and made of heavy steel-reinforced concrete. And, since the Ryder truck was outside the building, the damage it caused was primarily from the shock wave of pressurized air. The Twin Towers, on the other hand, were 110 stories tall, supported by steel columns, and the planes — which served as missiles — dumped large quantities of high-energy, hot fuel. "The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense," Partin told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely impacted the support columns. When they could no longer support the upper stories and the top started coming down, the dynamic loading caused a very rapid collapse, or 'pancaking,' that would have very nearly approached free-fall rate. No demolition charges were needed to accomplish this." Edward Peik, vice president of Alpine Environmental, Inc. of Chelmsford, Mass., agrees. Peik, a civil engineer, with 40 years of engineering experience in government and industry, grew up in New York City and is familiar with the structure of the Twin Towers. "I was at home watching all of this unfold on TV" on 9/11, he told The New American. "My first reaction was, 'My God, they've got to get everybody out of there right away, because it's going to come down fast!' I called my son Ron, who is also an engineer. We were both beside ourselves because we knew that they wouldn't stay up very long. As soon as fire hits steel, it loses strength fast and those towers had relatively lightweight steel beams spanning large distances. The building was supported by the steel outer walls. When the upper part of the building started coming down, the floors below could not support the weight crashing down on them. It was a vertical domino effect." The opinions of Partin, Peik, and several other structural experts we consulted agree with the official consensus that the WTC towers collapsed as a result of the severe damage caused by the planes and the ensuing fires, not as a result of controlled demolition. General Partin says that he was contacted by vonKleist, who wanted him to support his position, which Partin was not willing to do. (...) It is very difficult to reestablish believability once we have discredited ourselves by promoting information that turns out to be misinformation — or even worse, intentional disinformation. But what is even more tragic is that every time we err in this regard we not only affect our own personal credibility, but the credibility of all of our colleagues in the freedom fight who have labored long and hard to overcome the smears and ridicule of our opponents. Opinion polls repeatedly have shown that most Americans view the major media as biased and untrustworthy. Similarly, polls show that Americans tend to be suspicious of government. This is healthy skepticism, based on experience and common sense: we have learned firsthand that government officials and the media frequently lie. However, this same skepticism must also be applied to alternative information sources, whether they be talk radio, the Internet, newsletters, magazines, or word of mouth. One of our first guidelines should be based on the old adage, "Consider the source." What is the track record of the source? Have they been reliable in the past? Do they have a well-earned reputation for truth and getting the facts straight? Or have they been known to sensationalize, censor, ignore, color, crop, or even falsify the facts to advance a hidden agenda? [hint: Greg Szymanski, David Icke, Henry Makow] This publication's agenda is expressed on the front cover of every issue: "That freedom shall not perish." And we recognize that freedom is not possible without a rigorous, continuous search for, and absolute fidelity to, the truth. We are committed to that purpose, and we think it is a worthy goal to which all Americans constantly should recommit themselves.<hr></blockquote> Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **slimmouse** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:51 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>As a matter of fact, you've just explicitly declined to discuss them.<hr></blockquote> Indeed. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. I dont pretend to know what happened in certain areas, so its pointless pontificating about them. But that plane could just as easily be buried in 200 feet of water IMO. In fact thats a far more likely scenario from what Ive seen of the pentagon. For there is certainly no common sense explaination for either the intel stonewalling, or the nose cone acting like a du tipped missile, or the feat of avianautics involved in pulling off the "pilot theory", or the official video of the incident that we have been shown. I havent seen anything convincing in a Single rebuttal there . Nor have I see it from you, or any of the links Ive seen posted by you or anyone else. And please remember, I didnt say that 9/11 was 19 arabs with boxcutters, or that a plane flew into the pentagon. I didnt use any half assed cock and bull "proof" such as given by the Bushco to justify genocide. And youre saying that MY argument needs to be foolproof ? And with the greatest respect, I find it far easier to believe that a straw might stick in a palm tree than an eggshell might smash right thru it. Thats a no brainer too if you ask me, and as such is a pretty poor analogy. These are supposed to be intelligent people were talking about here dammit. Didnt one of the Whitehouse bigwigs once say that "A government with nothing to hide should behave that way?" So, heres what Im saying. I dont trust the liars that told me that Iraq had WMD, and I see a thousand flaws in their official stories of 9/11, including "a plane hit the pentagon". I tell approximately 125 new people a week that. I then tell them to check it all out for themselves and make up their own minds. Hell, I even tell them to come here and discuss the matter ! That is of course, once theyve got the colour back in their cheeks and gotten over the personal ramifications of who really did 9/11.

by **slimmouse** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:58 am

As soon as fire hits steel, it loses strength fast and those towers had relatively lightweight steel beams spanning large distances. Very large distances indeed. Right across a few blocks to WTC 7 <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> I really am gobsmacked lol.

by **michael meiring** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:00 am

robertdreed Quote, In an earlier post, I mentioned people "straining at gnats, and swallowing camels." Here's what I mean by that- the same people who seize on every perceived discrepancy surrounding the offical story of Flight 77 don't offer to explain the holes in their own pet theories- for instance: Where did Flight 77 go, if it didn't hit the Pentagon? What secret airfield did it land at? are you talking about the NIST whitewash there, lol. You seem to be unable to grasp the simplest of analogies, its not for people to speculate, theorise what happened contrary to the official conspiracy theory. Only to stick to the official hogwash put out by these crackpots and wackos, and point out the obvious fantasy of such statements. If the official statement should read, the defendent was seen going into the building with a carving knife, and somebody was murdered and the body was riddled with bullet holes and no knife marks, its not for the defence team to conspiracy theory and second guess what happened, only to refute the wild and outlandish fabricated claims. There are so many debunkers installed by the very people to carry out 9/11 at the head or top of the 'truthseekers' movement. Their job is to sidetrack everyone with this kind of hogwash, and they seem to be doing an excellent job too. Where are all the bodies? where are the blcak boxes? wheres the wreckage? wheres the plane wreckage with the plane numbers on? wheres the black boxes? wheres all the cctv pictures that they confiscated? why dont we give the shill eyewitnesses a polygraph test with all the rest of these pathological liars? why do we have to wait unti 2120 or whatever? go figure. Now according to your logic you want me to theorise what happened to all 4 black boxes, to add my conspiracy theory of where the bodies went, where the plane went etc etc etc, thats not how it works in a court of law. Those two words, REASONABLE DOUBT, i suggest you spend 3 minutes educating yourself on that as you dont seem to have the most basic fundamental understanding of that point. New york under attack, bush reads his little goat story to the end, and what is it, no response from the flight, oh well never mind the transponders turned off, better not scramble anything eh? The whole official conspiracy theory reg 9/11 is full of saddam's got WMD's and we got the forged documents to prove it type WHOPPERS.

by **nomo** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The whole official conspiracy theory reg 9/11 is full of saddam's got WMD's and we got the forged documents to prove it type WHOPPERS.<hr></blockquote> Absolutely no doubt about that. But I would suggest exposing those lies rather than substituting them with outlandish theories that cannot be proven. I started the CD thread because I am extremely uncomfortable with people positing that as a viable explanation of the towers' destruction. 14 pages of debate later, I'm convinced that CD is disinfo, of the worst kind, and so is the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory. Keep your eye on the ball. Yes, planes did indeed fly into the Pentagon and the WTC, and the WTC did come down because of that. More relevant questions are, how was that allowed to happen, who knew in advance, who profited. There's plenty of damning evidence floating around without resorting to this lizards/shapeshifters/Illuminati (or the equivalent thereof) nonsense. -- When all else fails... panic.

by **michael meiring** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:12 pm

nomo, Quote, ''''Absolutely no doubt about that. But I would suggest exposing those lies rather than substituting them with outlandish theories that cannot be proven.'' Excellent, some sense at last. Expose no 1. 19 saudis hijacked the planes. Ding a ling a ling, alarm bell ring, Robert mueller has already stated while heading the FBI at a news conference that we do not know who was on those planes because of the likelihood of ID theft. Ding a ling a ling, alarm bell ring, 9 of the ready made 19 saudi patsie hijackers have turned up alive and well. Speaking of your outlandish theories that cannot be proven, there is no proof that jet fuel brought the towers down, ding a ling a ling, alarm bell ring, the evidence to back up that outlandish theory was carted away as fast as possible. ding a ling a ling alarm bell ring, how is it possible to get guiliani to take a polygraph test along with bushco etc? ding a ling a ling, alarm bell ring, attas passport jetisoned out of top pocket and landed unsinged, unburnt dozens of blocks away ready for convienient framing/discovery. Ding a ling a ling, no cctv coverage of any alleged saudi hijacker at airports ready to board planes, departure gates, car parks, check in. Ding a ling a ling, alarm bells ring. Did all this the 'saudis did it brigade' bring us the same ''saddam had WMD'' lies? Ding a ling a ling, alarm bells ring, the only time in history a black box has never been recovered, not just one here but 4. I mean come on. As you correctly mention, its for nobody to theorise where they went, only to focus on what we are led to believe, thats how 'justice' and law is expected to work, not to theorise that lizards have taken them to the moon or whatever. Ding a ling a ling, alarm bell exploding, no offficialy prepared hijcakers name appears on the flight name list. That will do for starters, my alarm bell needs new batteries, its been going off reading the official saudis dun it conspiracy theory.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:15 pm

I'm still waiting for the "no-planers" to argue facts, instead of spinning hypothetical analogies, mischaracterizing the views of their opponents with false dichotomies, and persisting in their transparent evasions. Anyone attempting to honestly and competently construct a historical narrative needs to expect the inevitability of challenges to the version of events that they present, and to be prepared to defend their claims with as much logical coherence and evidential support as they can pull together. If the researcher is unable marshal sufficient facts to defend their claims, the wisest and most honorable course is to withdraw them. However, the no-planers seem to hold the position that the more preposterous a given claim appears on its face, the less evidence required to back it up. It really doesn't work that way. No amount of high moral dudgeon, polemical rhetoric, or thundering condemnations of villainy and treachery is capable of adding a single iota of credibility to a set of allegations that lacks a logically consistent framework, or to a narrative of events woven of fantasy and supposition rather than a foundation of facts. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/27/05 12:20 pm

A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

question:

targeting the Pentagon

I got here late and there is no one...

Re: targeting the Pentagon

rdr, seriously...

wu wei

Re: slimmouse...

LOL

Re: Thierry Meyssan

Re: LOL

Re: Thierry Meyssan

pet theories

Re: pet theories

ding a ling a ling, alarm bell ring.

slimmouse, meiring...

Who is online