  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Troy Jollimore on Martin Amis’ ‘The Second Plane’Posted on Apr 24, 2008
The second plane, as no one needs to be told, was the one that hit the World Trade Center’s second tower. And it was the one which, as Martin Amis found himself writing within a few days of the event, utterly annihilated the hope that what was happening that September morning might have been nothing more than a terrible, tragic accident: “That was the defining moment. Until then, America thought she was witnessing nothing more serious than the worst aviation disaster in history; now she had a sense of the fantastic vehemence ranged against her. ... That second plane looked eagerly alive, and galvanized with malice, and wholly alien. For those thousands in the South Tower, the second plane meant the end of everything. For us, its glint was the worldflash of a coming future.”
The Second Plane: September 11: Terror and Boredom
By Martin Amis Knopf, 224 pages
Amis, of course, is best known as the author of such novels as “The Information,” “Money” and “London Fields.” His most frequent fictional mode is a species of carefully observed, somewhat brutal and frequently hilarious social satire. But his new book, “The Second Plane: September 11: Terror and Boredom,” is a pure product of the “coming future” he speaks of here, a book fully shaped by the single event that many take to have defined our era. “The Second Plane” collects 14 of Amis’ recent short works: essays, reviews, a pair of short stories. Granted its unifying theme, the book is still something of a hodgepodge; it was clearly not conceived as a cohesive work. But the pieces’ very lack of unity feels somehow appropriate to the subject. Here are 14 attempts, each one almost self-confessedly a failure, to respond in an adequate way to what cannot adequately be responded to. “The Second Plane” affords an interesting opportunity: to watch an intelligent person trying, over time, to think through the unthinkable turn his reality has taken. “I have cut nothing,” Amis remarks in his author’s note, “briefly tempting though it was, at times, to cover my tracks.” These tracks, and the evolution of the author’s desires to cover them, are perhaps the most interesting aspect of the book. Amis’ views on some matters remain fairly constant: He is reliably critical both of the Bush presidency and of the Iraq war, for example. But his thoughts on the book’s deepest question—what are the obligations that violence, and in particular mass slaughter, thrusts upon us as inhabitants of the world in which it occurs?—undergo a quite noticeable transformation over the six years the book’s writings represent. The opening piece, “The Second Plane,” was published a mere week after September 11. Here we find Amis shocked and bewildered, but interestingly open-minded and up to the challenge of thinking about the terrorist act in all its aspects and implications, up to and including a consideration of why the terrorists did it: “It will also be horribly difficult and painful for Americans to absorb the fact that they are hated, and hated intelligibly. How many of them know, for example, that their government has destroyed at least 5 percent of the Iraqi population? How many of them then transfer that figure to America (and come up with fourteen million)? Various national characteristics—self-reliance, a fiercer patriotism than any in Western Europe, an assiduous geographical incuriosity—have created a deficit of empathy for the sufferings of people far away. ... Unless Pakistan can actually deliver bin Laden, the American retaliation is almost sure to become elephantine. Then terror from above will replenish the source of all terror from below: unhealed wounds.” Of all the possible cuts that must have tempted Amis, the one that was most difficult to resist was surely that word intelligibly. For the idea that America was intelligibly hated—the idea that any aspect of the terrorists’ sentiments and actions could be considered even minimally intelligible or rational or comprehensible—is precisely what he would come to want to deny. This is nowhere more evident than in the author’s note: “The first piece—published on September 18, 2001—has a slightly hallucinatory quality (it is fevered by shock and by rumor), and also indulges in what Paul Berman, the author of Terror and Liberalism, has called ‘rationalist naïveté’—a reflexive search for the morally intelligible, which always leads to the chimera of ‘moral equivalence.’ ” By Sept. 18 many people, particularly in the United States, had decided that understanding the terrorists’ motives, not to mention the American foreign policy decisions that had helped form the background for the attacks, was precisely the last thing they wanted to do. (Amis, apparently, took somewhat longer to come around to this point of view, but eventually he did.) This refusal to reflect, to investigate, to learn, still seems regrettable, but the reaction is perhaps not impossible to understand. In the shadow of an atrocity of this magnitude, any attempt at explanation might be seen as amounting to the suggestion that the victims “had it coming.” One wants to retort that this worry is ungrounded: It is acknowledged by all reasonable parties that no one could possibly have had this coming, whatever damage American foreign policy might have done. Still, the worry persists, particularly in light of the knowledge that not all of the concerned parties are reasonable, that there are those who will take any proffered explanation of the terrorists’ actions as amounting to a justification. The temptation, in the light of this, is to insist on regarding the attacks as an incomprehensible event, something so alien to our sense of morality that any attempt to penetrate its baffling surface is doomed to failure, and indeed risks pulling us into the moral void that lies at its core. The perpetrators are not to be regarded as rational agents, and certainly not as political actors, but as the exact opposite, members of a “death cult” that rejects reason altogether: “Thanatism derives its real energy, its fever and its magic, from something far more radical. And here we approach a pathology that may in the end be unassimilable to the non-believing mind. I mean the rejection of reason—the rejection of the sequitur, of cause and effect, of two plus two. ... To transcend reason is of course to transcend the confines of moral law; it is to enter the illimitable world of insanity and death.”
1
2
3
NEXT PAGE >>>
Previous item: Snipes Slapped with 3-Year Prison Sentence Next item: Jeff Madrick on 'High Wire,' Peter Gosselin's Look at the Economic Meltdown Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. |
Washington’s Overrated ‘Old Hands’
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By niloroth, May 23 at 10:49 am #
nyc 9/11 initiative? And what are you going to do when they come to the same conclusion that the NIST did with regards to the collapse of the towers? Probably bitch about that as well.
Who is going to support the 9/11 denial side? Jones won’t submit any of his “evidence” to independent review. Gage won’t debate anyone, and griffin won’t even respond to Ryan Mackey’s destruction of ‘debunking 9/11 debunking’. And you expect these people to go into court and be cross examined on the stand? Yeah right. That would endanger their book deals and website advertising and merchandising revenue. Please, they are cowards. If they truly believed what they say, they would have been there at the Mousaaoui trial to support him. But they weren’t. Which makes them liars, or cowards. I tend to think both, but thats just me.
Report thisBy Maani, May 23 at 8:33 am #
Cyrena:
“Moreover, it is the rest of what you’ve put here, that forms the basis of my own (at least one of them) academic projects. It is actually the on-going project that at its foundation, examines how we have devolved, (not unlike OTHER regimes of history) into a totalitarian state. As one of my favorite professors says...9/11 changed EVERYTHING!”
“Ditto” right back atcha. And your addition of the 2000 election debacle is a good call as well.
Re the “post-9/11 world,” and your comments re the growing proto-totalitarianism in the U.S., again I am in full agreement. Although I am guessing you have read some or all of these, three superb books that speak to this issue are: Crossing the Rubicon (Michael Ruppert), The End of America (Naomi Wolf) and The Shock Doctrine (Naomi Klein). There are, of course, many others.
As well, for anyone (I am speaking generally now) seriously interested in why (as you correctly noted) the 9/11 Commission Report was actually the “death knell” for the “official story,” two must-reads are the one you mentioned, “The Commission” (Shenon) - which explains how the commission was formed, the many conflicts of interest of the commissioners and staff, and how executive director Philip Zelikow (a Bush crony) did everything he could to sabotage any REAL investigation - and “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” (Griffin), which focuses more on the content of the Report itself.
And any serious “student” of this issue would be remiss in not reading the document that “started it all”: PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” which can be found in its entirety here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/Rebuildin gAmericasDefenses.pdf
It is also instructive to read the two Patriot Acts:
Patriot Act I:
http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
Patriot Act II:
http://www.loyalnine.com/DSEA2003_text_Patriot_Act_2
And finally, there is the soon-to-be-passed Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act, which is very short - but truly frightening:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
If you read it carefully, you will realize that it may soon become a crime to recite the second paragaph of the Declaration of Independence.
Peace.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 22 at 8:24 pm #
Ah HA!! This gives some very clear evidence to my last comment in the post below, regarding Niloroth’s motivations. He writes this:
• “…once these things fall off the front page i have no more interest in them, since it is less likely you will actually infect anyone else with your stupidity….”
I had suggested that Niloroth was either in serious denial, or that he was petrified that more and more Americans were learning the truth.
I think he proves the latter right here, which is what I’ve long ago suspected anyway. He is determined to undermine anyone who questions the most horrific TREASON perpetrated in the 21st Century. Scared shitless that the truth will be exposed. He is all about subverting and covering up but unsophisticated in how to manage it. So, he concentrates on demonizing anyone who DOES expose these questions, by calling us stupid or ignorant or whatever. But, it’s CLEAR that he is only interested in doing that, to as wide an audience as he can, and NOT about actually uncovering and/or addressing all of these many questions.
He’s said it himself. Once they are off the front page, he is NO LONGER INTERESTED, because his only INTEREST…COMMITMENT is to subverting the truth, and preventing anyone from discovering it. If HE thinks that people aren’t paying any attention, (his first mistake) then he doesn’t care, and moves on to whatever ‘audience’ it is that he THINKS he can overwhelm with the lies, by calling everybody else stupid. That is his only purpose on this or any other public forum. That is attacking the truth anywhere it might seep out, and affect public opinion.
Big job…kind of like holding ones finger in a hole in a leaky dike, while the water pours out from all other sides.
Have fun Nilo.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 22 at 8:07 pm #
“As an aside, I’m really pleased that you and I have found something on which we are in virtually total agreement...LOL. And not coincidentally, it is the very thing that directly LED to everything that followed (the phony “post-9/11 world"), including the Iraq War, the Department of Homeland Security, the two Patriot Acts, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, color-coded terror alerts, illegal spying on American citizens, and the the evisceration of habeus corpus and posse comitatus, among many other outrages. ..”
Maani..
Ditto on all of this. I’m pleased as well. Moreover, it is the rest of what you’ve put here, that forms the basis of my own (at least one of them) academic projects. It is actually the on-going project that at its foundation, examines how we have devolved, (not unlike OTHER regimes of history) into a totalitarian state. As one of my favorite professors says, (and I think I’ve mentioned him before, Richard Falk) 9/11 changed EVERYTHING!
In nearly all authoritarian states, the components of ‘national security’ and ALWAYS, ALWAYS, *TERROR* are involved. The fall of the US republic, as we knew it, or as it was envisioned, has been accomplished, and the kick-off was first (in my opinion) The Coup of the 2000 Election. Cheney had already dictated long before that…”Just get the Oval Office. Whatever it takes, and whatever needs to be done…JUST GET THE OVAL OFFICE.”
The Coup d’etat was 9/11, and set the stage for all of the rest. Like most folks, I’ve had to observe as best I can from the information as it becomes available, in trying to come to some sort of informed consensus of the hows and the whys, and the lack of consensus on that; namely the distinction between the blowback theories, the LIHOP and the MIHOP have made it difficult to get to the truth of the whole thing, because of course the truth is the first thing that has to be undermined in a totalitarian arrangement.
Still, with the advent of technology and the research and communications assistance that it provides, we keep learning more, and can connect the dots more absolutely. So, while I was not certain in my own mind at the beginning, of exactly HOW this was accomplished, (and I’m still not) I do at least have a far, far better understanding of WHY. And the why has to be resolved before the ‘how’ can be absolutely verified. (If it can ever be, since much of the physical evidence has been destroyed).
I’m honestly not sure that all of the scientific expertise on the matter is helpful at anything more than ruling out all of the official lies. In other words, I don’t know how much any ADDITIONAL help can be provided by all of detailed information about architecture and engineering and even some of the stuff that I’ve seen on-line in reference to the aviation or aerodynamics details. I read a really long piece yesterday that was intended to prove whether or not ground speed could have affected the alleged behavior of the alleged aircraft at the Pentagon. It was an excellent piece for the study of aerodynamics, but taken alone, none of that information is really helpful to understanding what happened, because it doesn’t address the WHY.
So, I only said that to say that we have to know and understand the WHY, in order to put it into context with the HOW. Now that’s just my own working theory, and in that, I loosely connect the ‘why’ to the strategic, and the “how”, to the tactical. Even that though, is a loose connection for the moment.
What you’ve put forth here, (which is the WAY that 9/11 ‘changed EVERYTHING) is are the tactical results of the why.
I hope something comes from the group that is attempting to organize in NYC.
As for Niloroth...one of two explanations..He’s either in the strongest form of denial and delusion that exists, or he’s in a sheer panic that so many Americans have figured this out. Not sure which.
Report thisBy Maani, May 22 at 7:19 pm #
Patrick:
“A new hearing needs to be established under the new government, with all the advocates on both sides represented.”
Dream on! LOL. The chance that either Hillary OR Obama would open a new investigation is none to minus-one. LOL.
However, there is a ballot initiative in NYC that, if passed, would create a new, non-political, non-partisan investigation, with subpoena power, with a commission made up of a wide variety of people (I think the number is 25), including two of the “Jersey Girls,” victim’s family members, survivors, journalists, scientists, etc.
For those who live in NYC, I urge you not only to sign the petition, but to help spread the word. The site for the initiative is:
http://www.nyc911initiative.org/
Peace.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, May 22 at 3:21 pm #
Unlike the 9/11 commission which rushed to judgement, many fellow 9/11 researchers like to follow all the leads, inconsistancies and coincidences which were not available at the time of that hearing.
A new hearing needs to be established under the new government, with all the advocates on both sides represented.
Dirt always comes out in the wash.
Report thisBy Maani, May 22 at 9:00 am #
Cyrena:
I’m really glad that my link led you to the very thing you were looking for. And thanks for providing that direct link.
Re Silverstein, it was actually two of his backers who made the purchase of the Sears Tower from Met Life in 2004. Here is the article:
http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyreport/newsan dtrends/20040312-starkman.html
I agree that the 9/11 Commission Report helped to undermine the government’s case. Between errors and omissions, conflicts of interest, and other factors, it actually serves to do the opposite of what it intended. How sweetly ironic.
I’m sure you’ve seen both Zeitgeist and Loose Change (both editions). As well, Griffin’s three main books are worth reading (The New Pearl Harbor, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Debunking 9/11 Debunking). What niloroth fails to realize is that, even if one or two particulars of Griffin’s claims ARE in error, this leaves an ENORMOUS amount that is NOT in error, and is, in fact, solidly supported.
As an aside, I’m really pleased that you and I have found something on which we are in virtually total agreement...LOL. And not coincidentally, it is the very thing that directly LED to everything that followed (the phony “post-9/11 world"), including the Iraq War, the Department of Homeland Security, the two Patriot Acts, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, color-coded terror alerts, illegal spying on American citizens, and the the evisceration of habeus corpus and posse comitatus, among many other outrages.
Peace.
Report thisBy Maani, May 22 at 8:22 am #
Niloroth:
Actually, I tried to post my multi-part response only hours after your last post. However, the site would not let me do so. I even had a long back-and-forth with the TD admin people about why the site refused to accept my post. That led to a great deal of work by them to increase response time, and eliminate various kinks in the system. It took them the better part of a week or more to get to everything. Thus, I posted my multi-part response at the first opportunity at which the site would accept it.
As for “infecting” people with my “stupidity,” I am fine with that, since it is better than YOU infecting people with your myopic, narrow-minded, “see no evil, hear no evil” approach.
Peace.
Report thisBy niloroth, May 22 at 7:57 am #
You folks never fail to amaze me with your consistency. You wait a good 2 or 3 weeks, until the article is off the front page, and no one is reading it any more, and then you come in with some idiotic list of issues to try to support your failed conspiracy hypothesis. Anyway, it’s all the same crap, and no one is reading it any more except for you 2. Have fun, once these things fall off the front page i have no more interest in them, since it is less likely you will actually infect anyone else with your stupidity.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 22 at 1:41 am #
THANKS Maani!!
This was very, very interesting. I’d not seen it before.
And guess what? On that very same sequence, the next video that came up, was of the guy that knew too much!!
It’s under the title of “Mass Media Knew Everything...”
So, I saved it this time. Actually, I had before, but my system crashed..(for real, not like the 9/11 thing)...and it was just going to be way to big a job to try and save it all.
So fortunately, I’ve been able to gradually replace some of the stuff as I go along.
Anyway, here are a couple more that you may already have, including this guy that just appears and they just happen to interview HIM, and he just happens to know all about how this steal melted and all.
And, thanks again for checking. I hope you didn’t have to spend a lot of time on it. It was lucky that it came up from the other that you gave me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE2WU-WAJ7A&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDModrMBQ3k&feature =related
Oh...from this video that you sent, did you hear or read somewhere on this blog...(I know I read it recently, but I can’t remember where) that Larry Silverstein has purchased the Sears Tower?
What the hell? Remember when they accused those guys in FLorida a couple of years ago, of planning a terrorist operation to include the Sears Tower? (It was one of the many occassional threats that they’ve drug out over the past 5 years). I think I remember reading a few months ago that they’d actually tried to bring it to trial, and it was thrown out. Those guys probably never even heard of the Sears Tower.
I just wanna know why Larry Silverstein bought it. Gives me the creeeps. Kinda makes ya think that dooms it, huh?
And, I just got two books on this 9/11 thing, even though I was expecting two others that I actually NEED right now. But, these came today, so I might as well waste some time looking though them. It will be new stuff for me. On is “Towers of Deception” and the other is “9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA.”
Philip Shenon also has an EXCELLENT book “The Commission: The UNCENSORED History of the 9/11 Investigation”, published by this same new (2005) publishing company, TWELVE, that is doing Robert Scheer’s newest book.
I’ve had that one for awhile, but haven’t gotten as far into because of other work. But, it’s great. Starts out with Kissenger meeting with the widows that eventually forced the investigation. Rove was apparently all over it as well.
And ya know, just in my own opinion, that Commission Report is what sealed the Admin’s fate, and confirmed the lies. I mean, we already KNEW what had happened, and it was obvious from day one, that the buildings at the WTC had been blown up. (at least to me it was, because I know airplanes couldn’t have done that damage).
So, that’s why I could never figure out why they didn’t just ADMIT that the buildings had been blown up. I mean, since they were lying anyway, they could have blamed that on the ‘terrorists’ as well, and we wouldn’t have known the difference. (well, eventually we would have).
Still, you know what I mean. Lying to cover up lies NEVER works, and it just means that they have to keep telling more lies, which then means there are more lies to catch them in.
It’s such a hassle. That’s why I always just reccommend that folks tell the truth. I tell ‘em, “you can lie to yourself, but you should never lie to your attorney.”
Just seems like Dick Bush would know that. Then again, I suspect they do, and just don’t care.
Thanks again..
Report thisBy Maani, May 21 at 10:36 pm #
Cyrena:
I am looking for the video you requested (the man who seemed to know too much...), and will post it when I find it. I know it is part of at least two longer videos I own, but I’m looking for just that clip.
In the meantime, I thought this might interest you as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpEHAad79LU
Peace.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 21 at 10:20 pm #
Niloroth BEGINS his post to me with this sentence…
• “Ah cyrena, the ignorance you bring to any thread on 9/11 you are in is always funny to see.”
Actually Niloroth, THIS is always funny to see. (at least for me). Ah yes, my ignorance after nearly 30 years of commercial airline operations, both navigating the not always so friendly skies, as well as dispatching, and emergency response to air disasters, which are of course always quite horrific. One never becomes ‘accustomed’ to such work, anymore I guess, than any policeman, fireman, or other public servant involved in that sort of thing. Yep, I’m sure ignorant about this airplane stuff. But, I can’t imagine why you would find that ‘funny to see’. You wouldn’t have thought it was so funny to have such an ignorant person chauffeuring you around at FL370 now would you? (oh, that’s 37,000 feet for laypeople) Or wait, maybe you’ve never been in an airplane. Maybe THAT explains it.
So tell me Niloroth, when exactly did YOU SEE this huge crowd of people in the aftermath of the alleged crash into the Pentagon, of AA flt 77 and did you also get some really good footage on the same at that field in Pennsylvania, where UA 93 allegedly broke into so many pieces that they much have all blown away, leaving that little hole there in the ground? I must have missed that Niloroth, and it was appear that you’re the only one who saw all of these people. Are you sure of what you saw Nilo? Do you know what an airplane looks like? Could you identify a 757 from at 767, or a 777 or even a 727?
I’m very familiar by the way, with the DCA airport that is nearest the Pentagon, but not as close as a mile, and I don’t reference google maps to find that sort of thing out. You see we have these CHARTS that we use to reference when flying around the friendly skys. And yes, we use approach plates, and various other sorts of things like that, to navigate our way between the ground and the sky. So after doing that for so long, one just sort of remembers those things. Know what I mean? That’s a tricky airport I might add..at least for a long time it was…I used to hate the approach at that airport. Leaving wasn’t bad, but the approach always required these special calisthenics. It’s much better now…they redid it years ago.
Meantime, I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but a 757 cannot fly ‘low to the ground at 500mph.” And, while there have been a million after attempts to scientifically justify the OCL that flt 77 could in fact do what it did, with an inexperienced pilot at the helm, it simply cannot. One of the arguments is that it’s not at all hard to fly a 757 into a building the size of the Pentagon, but that it is far more difficult to fly it properly. Indeed, landing an aircraft on a runway is far more difficult than slamming one into the Pentagon. On the other hand, nobody bothers to account for how this inexperienced ‘terrorist pilot’ managed to even FIND HIS WAY to the Pentagon, unless the flight plan had been accordingly uploaded that way. (that happens prior to take off by the way, and the pilots themselves do NOT upload those plans to the FMC)
BUT, ALL pilots certainly DO know how to squawk the hijack code, or the code for lost communications, or the other emergency codes that are used. So, it sort of makes me ‘wonder’ why, out of EIGHT PILOTS on FOUR AIRCRAFT, not a single one of them squawked the code.
Maybe YOU know Niloroth. I’ll wait for you to send me links to all of those people that were allegedly at the seen of the aftermath. NOT the next day Nilo. NOT 4 hours later. I’m talking about when the plane supposedly hit.
As for me ‘wanting’ to see dead body parts, that WOULD be sick. But as I’ve said, air disasters do happen, and I’ve been a witness and/or first responder to more than I like to remember. It was my JOB!
Report thisBy cyrena, May 21 at 9:25 pm #
Sdemetri
Excellent questions/points
• “As gruesome as it may sound, the body parts recovered… can you be absolutely certain they are from the pentagon? And, if so, what gives you that certainty?”
Answer…NO. To date, there is absolutely NO proof that the body parts that the Gov claimed to recover actually came from the Pentagon, and I don’t believe that they did. We have only the governments word that they even recovered any bodies there.
• “The debris… there may be a pissing contest going on, but no large aircraft crashes that I am aware of were ever void of large pieces of debris… tail sections, wings, engines.”
This made me chuckle…on the pissing contest thing. There really isn’t one (pissing contest) UNLESS you’re trying to have any rational discussion with Niloroth, which isn’t gonna happen. He’s committed (for a lifetime apparently) to ignoring all evidence of anything other than the ‘official lies of the commission’…heretofore OLC.
Anyway, I’ve mentioned this a few hundred times. (the lack of debris, or any sign that an airplane was ever there). But, maybe that’s too obvious for folks, unless they’ve spent a few decades working/living the operations of the commercial airline industry. Then again, it just seems like it wouldn’t even take that. Seems like anyone who’s done any checking on previous air disasters AT ALL, would realize that aircraft ALWAYS leave debris. No matter what.
The other issue is that there is ALWAYS an immediate emergency response team, even for aircraft that go down in the middle of the ocean, or the middle of the mountains. But, because so many of these disasters HAVE occurred either in airports, or nearby such facilities, that emergency response is immediate, as it was in NYC. But, not at the Pentagon. I did not see a single solitary emergency response vehicle or team. AT THE PENTAGON!
Now there is SO MUCH footage, (sadly) of previous air disasters, and it seems to go on and on forever. The aftermath of AA flt 191 at ORD way back in 1978 or ’79. Then the aftermath of DL flt 191 (yes same flight number) at DFW in the early 80’s. (about 83 I believe). Of course there have been far more, and those stand out in my mind just because I happened to witness them. Egypt air in the late 90’s, was the same. ALL of these passenger jetliners that have come to such fatal ends ALWAYS have an immediate emergency response, because major cities and airports PLAN for such disasters. But the Pentagon? Nothing.
UA flight 93? Nothing. No debris, and no news footage of the disaster from the regular news coverage. I can’t and won’t believe that this was not intentionally planned here, because no ‘terrorists’ arranged in advance, to make sure that the demise of the 4 airplanes and their passengers, would not and could not be recorded by the US media, who NEVER miss an ‘opportunity’ to cover these things, and immediately.
Yes, it’s true that all eyes were on NYC and the WTC, which DID have the standard emergency response, because we know how many of those first responders lost their lives as well. But conveniently, (for the first time in the recorded history of commercial aviation) not a single piece of the aircrafts were left to identify.
Meantime, does anyone know where I can find the video of the guy that was talking to the news media immediately after the 1st plane hit the tower? He is presumed to be a spectator, describing what had occurred, and he goes into a long explanation about the fuel melting the steal and weakening the structure, within minutes after the tower was hit, while there was still pandemonium in the area. And, he’s very detailed in how this all occurred, and it turns out to be the same thing the OLC tried to put over on us. It’s SO suspect, but maybe only in hindsight. I’d like to review it again.
Report thisMaani, nice job on the series.
By Maani, May 21 at 5:15 pm #
CY:
You have it exactly backward. Most of the work being done on that section, to “shore it up,” had already been completed. Thus, it was the STRONGEST part of the building, not the weakest. In fact, the wing of the building in which the “brass” are housed (including Rumsfeld) was one of the weakest parts of the building at that time.
Peace.
Report thisBy sdemetri, May 21 at 4:41 pm #
If you haven’t seen this yet, I highly recommend the following presentation given at Waterloo University in March 2008, to an audience of about 400 people. The second speaker, Dr. Graeme McQueen gives one of the best presentations on the collapse of the towers I have seen to date. His bit starts at about 48:00. The first fellow is worth listening to as well, but McQueen’s presentation is excellent. As I am sure you know, he wrote the paper “118 witnesses” on the Journal of 911 Studies site.
Thank you for your work putting these comments together. Nice job.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=812494320239887035
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, May 21 at 1:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The pentagon was built during WWII it was supposed to last only to the end of the war. It was not constructed well, and lately, the Defense Department has been attempting to upgrade. The destroyed section was under construction when the w\hatever happened on 9/11. I probably could have driven my Buick through those walls!
Report thisBy Maani, May 21 at 12:12 pm #
(1 of 9)
Niloroth et al:
Put THIS in your pipe and smoke it! LOL.
1. The Twin Towers.
The 9/11 Commission Report would have us believe that the towers fell as a result of steel support structures being weakened by the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires. The Report claims that the fires fed on flammable materials in the building, leading to the weakening of the interior and exterior support structures, which then led to the collapse of the buildings in a “pancake effect” - i.e., one floor collapsing on top of the next, with the combined weight causing each of the buildings to collapse. Here are some facts and questions that “put the lie” to that theory.
-The impact of the planes in and of themselves did “take out” some of the exterior and interior support structure. However, the impacts themselves would not have caused the buildings to collapse.
-The initial “fireballs” of jet fuel probably caused some damage, but were not hot enough, or for long enough duration, to cause any significant damage. It is important to keep in mind that, in both impacts, the vast majority of the diesel fuel burned up within seconds. More importantly, jet fuel burns, at its hottest, at around 1,800 degrees. Yet the melting point of steel is ~2,600 degrees. So the heat from the fires - even had it been at the hottest possible temperature (which is was not) - could not have melted the support structures. Numerous studies have been done on this, and all have concluded that there is no way that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. (See, for example, http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064).
-There was very little flammable material in the buildings that could have provided “fuel” for the fires, especially to create a hot enough fire to continually affect the steel. In fact, it is very clear that the fires were not very hot at all. For one thing, the darker the smoke, the more “fuel-starved” the fire is: and the smoke from the fires in the two towers began to get dark in less than 20 minutes, which means they had very little to “feed” on. In addition, there are numerous photographs of people standing in the areas in which the fires were supposedly hottest: yet these people are standing there comfortably (though admittedly stranded), many in clothing that is not even black from smoke. (See, for example, http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/17010 5womanwaving.htm).
(cont’d below)
Report thisBy Maani, May 21 at 12:11 pm #
(2 of 9)
-Each tower had a “central core” comprised of 47 vertical solid-steel beams. Note that The 9/11 Commission Report completely omits this: it is as if these “central cores” did not exist! This is because their “pancake theory” falls apart given these “central cores.” Had the floors collapsed on top of each other in perfect pancake fashion, as the Report claims, there would have been a “stutter” effect - i.e., a slight time lag - due to the existence of this “core.” Yet it took between 10 and 16 seconds for each of the towers to collapse. This is called “free fall” speed: i.e., the time it would take for an object dropped from the top of one of the towers (i.e., without any resistance other than wind) to reach the ground. But buildings - any building - cannot fall at “free fall” speed unless the entire interior support structure is destroyed. The only thing that could have destroyed the interior “cores” of the twin towers is explosives: i.e., a “controlled demolition.” There is simply no other way to explain how and why the towers fell at “free fall” speed. Indeed, in some of the photographs and videos of the collapses, you can spot the “squibs” (i.e., explosive charges) blowing up just prior to each floor collapsing, and see parts of the building flying outward - and even upward - which can only be the result of explosives. (See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squ ibs.html and
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/).
-Over 90% or more of the concrete in both towers was pulverized into fine dust: there were very few large chunks of concrete. If the government’s “pancake theory” were true, there would have been quite a few large chunks of steel flying off as the floors collapsed on top of each other. The only thing that could have pulverized 95% of the concrete is explosives - especially given that some of this pulverizing occurred before the buildings had completely collapsed. As well, there were no pieces of steel longer than between 12 and 24 feet. In fact, almost all of the pieces of steel were exactly that size. Only explosives could have created such perfectly “cut” steel pieces. As an aside, this is coincidentally the exact size that fits on a flatbed truck. (See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/aerialdust.html and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html).
Report this-The twin towers collapsed almost perfectly into their own “footprints”: even though the top of one of the towers was leaning precariously, both towers fell straight down, causing the most minimal damage to the buildings around them. This is exactly how a controlled demolition works. (See, for example, http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/wtc.htm).
By Maani, May 21 at 12:10 pm #
(3 of 9)
These are the clearest, most direct facts and questions. There is also evidence to support the fact that there were explosions in the sub-basements of the two towers just prior to their collapse (See http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/under ground_explosions.htm and http://www.explosive911analysis.com/). It is also curious that one of the companies hired to do the clean-up at the site was the same company that had been working, prior to 9/11, on strengthening of the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed. (See http://www.global-conspiracies.com/16254.htm). And then there is the fact that, despite the site being essentially a “crime scene” - for which a thorough forensic investigation should have been done - the clean-up was done as quickly as possible, without allowing any government or independent agency to seriously examine any of the “evidence.” One widespread speculation is that, had such an investigation been permitted, someone would have discovered traces of thermite - the explosives used in controlled demolitions - on the steel beams and in the pulverized dust. [N.B. Actually, one scientist did find traces of thermate, a precursor for thermite. Here is his (very long) paper: ]http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndee dDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf.]
Report thisFinally, for a very good overview of the twin tower collapses, go to: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html.
By Maani, May 21 at 12:09 pm #
(4 of 9)
2. WTC 7
Report thisAt ~5:20 on September 11, 2001, WTC 7 - a 47-story steel and concrete building - collapsed, just hours after WTC 1 and 2.
The 9/11 Commission Report does not address the collapse of WTC 7 at all. This is an incredible oversight, given what its collapse almost certainly signifies. FEMA did do a “report” on the collapse of WTC 7, as did NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). The FEMA Report is a joke, as almost none of the “facts” in the report are backed up by any evidence - and, indeed, almost all of the visual and other evidence clearly undermines that report. The NIST Report was more “thorough,” but ultimately does not conclude what caused the collapse. (See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/).
Here are some of the facts that point to a controlled demolition, and what that means in the “bigger picture”:
-WTC 7 was a 47-story steel-and-concrete building. It was not hit by a plane. Prior to its collapse, there were two or three small fires on various floors of the building. None of them was severe (i.e., uncontrollable), despite what firefighters later claimed. And although the building was hit by some of the debris from the collapse of the north tower, this did not cause the fires. Indeed, the origin of the fires has never been ascertained: they could have been set deliberately. (For photos of WTC 7 w/fires, see http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/230806 wtccomplex.htm and http://www.rense.com/general65/911m.htm.)
-At ~5:20, WTC 7 collapsed at “free fall” speed, completely into its “footprint.” As noted above, a building cannot collapse at “free fall” speed unless the entire interior support structure is destroyed first. And the only way that can be done is by explosives. Similarly, as above, a building rarely if ever collapses perfectly into its “footprint” unless by controlled demolition with explosives. These two facts alone point to a controlled demolition. Yet the most direct evidence that WTC 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition comes from WTC owner Larry Silverstein himself, in an interview done for a PBS documentary on 9/11. In that interview, Silverstein clearly states that he and the fire department made the decision to “pull” the building: “pull” is construction industry terminology for a controlled demolition. And you need only watch any of the numerous videos of the collapse of WTC 7 to see that it was unquestionably a controlled demolition: it looks exactly like all the controlled demolitions they show on TV. See, for example, http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/pp_fdny.htm. If you play the second video (click on the second “play” button), you will see the clip from the PBS video and hear Silverstein say that it was “pulled.” Note that some people are claiming that he meant that he was pulling the firefighters from the building. However, it is very clear from his last sentence that that was not what he meant: he clearly meant “pull” the building.
By Maani, May 21 at 12:08 pm #
(5 of 9)
-WTC 7 had some very interesting tenants, including the IRS, the CIA, the Department of Defense, the Secret Service, and the Office of Emergency Management (OEM). Re OEM, this was the famous “bunker” that Giuliani built as a command center for crises. There are many who believe that this was actually the command center for coordinating the 9/11 attacks on the WTC, and that the building was destroyed to cover up all evidence of this fact. [N.B. There are also reports that a tunnel led from WTC 7 to WTC 4, where hundreds of millions of dollars in gold was stored. See e.g., ]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html.]
Indeed, given that the collapse of WTC 7 was almost certainly a controlled demolition, there is a further critical fact to consider: setting the charges for a controlled demolition takes day, if not weeks - it cannot be done in just a few hours, especially for a 47-story building, and especially when there are active fires in the building. This means that the explosive charges had to have been set prior to 9/11. And this leads to two conclusions, the first one obvious: if the explosive charges were set prior to 9/11, this means that someone - indeed, many people - had prior knowledge of the attack. And the second conclusion is that if explosive charges were set in WTC 7 in advance of 9/11, this makes it more likely that explosive charges were set in the twin towers - which means that the collapses were not the result of plane impacts and fires, but of controlled demolitions. Indeed, the semi-annual “power-down” of the two WTC buildings occurred just two weeks prior to 9/11, and required that no one be in either of the twin towers working late at night; i.e., both towers were empty. (See, for example, http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html). As if that were not incredible enough, the company that provided security access to the towers was owned by...George Bush’s brother! (See http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html).
Finally, consider that the BBC began reporting the collapse of WTC 7 almost half an hour before it happened! WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. Yet the BBC reporter begins discussing the collapse at about 4:50pm! Note that WTC 7 is still visible behind her left shoulder (as she begins speaking), and is fully visible as she moves aside! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s.)
Report thisBy Maani, May 21 at 12:06 pm #
(6 of 9)
3. The Pentagon.
Report thisHere we have the most clear-cut case of a cover-up, and the most complicated set of events, facts and possibilities.
The 9/11 Commission Report would have us believe that a Boeing 757 crashed into one wing of the Pentagon at over 500 miles per hour, causing a fireball and virtually disintegrating. Here is both factual evidence and strange occurrences that lead to a different conclusion.
-A Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 124 feet, a length of 155 feet, and a height (at the tail) of 44 feet. (See http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html). The hole that was made in the side of the Pentagon measured 60 feet across and about 30 feet high. It does not take a genius to realize that a plane with a wingspan of 124 feet would make a hole much larger than 60 feet across, and that the tail section would create a hole higher than 30 feet. (See http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/plane-crash-p entagon-hole-photo.htm).
-There was very little debris of any type found. No seats, luggage, personal effects, or large sections of plane wreckage. Note that even if a fireball occurred at impact, all plane crashes leave wreckage of some type. And what little wreckage was found was very suspicious: the largest pieces were found quite a distance from the impact zone, and did not appear in early photos of the scene. Also, the wheel base found at the site did not match a 757. (See, for example, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html).
-There is some question as to just how large the fireball was. The only photos released are official Pentagon photos from a single closed circuit camera some distance from the imact zone. As an aside, it is suspicious that all other closed circuit cameras at the Pentagon happened to be shut down at the time of the impact. And the Pentagon has only released a handful of frames from the Pentagon video camera. Setting aside the additional suspicion created by the fact that the “time-stamp” on the photos is 9/12, the photos are not in sequence, and it is impossible to tell what hit the building. Yet a careful look at the photos shows two things. First, whatever hit the building was not large enough to be a 757. Second, the fireball was not nearly as large as one would expect from a 757 fully-laden with 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel. In fact, if you compare the fireball with the one we saw when the second plane hit the twin towers, it is clear that whatever hit the Pentagon could not have been the same size plane. (See, for example, http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm. Scroll down about 2/’3 of the way to see the video stills.)
By Maani, May 21 at 12:05 pm #
(7 of 9)
-Note also that there was video footage from at least four other cameras in the area, including a gas station and a hotel. However, all of these videotapes from confiscated by the FBI within less than an hour of the crash, and while some of it was finally released to the public (almost 7 years after the event!), it is totally inconclusive, and only raises even more questions.
-Despite the impact, the windows on the third floor directly above the impact zone were undamaged. This is highly unlikely if a plane with a height of 44 feet hit the building. (See http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/building.html). Second, despite the fireball, items directly next to the impat zone were undamaged by fire, including a wooden desk with an open book. (See http://www.physics911.ca/Omholt:_9/11_and_The_Impossib le_Pentagon. Scroll down about 3/4 of the way and look for a daytime shot of the collapsed section of the building. On the second floor, in the third room back, is a wooden stand on which is sitting an open book. Neither of these items - nor anything in the rooms adjacent to the impact zone - was even singed.)
Report this-Whatever hit the building left an “exit” hole that was perfectly circular. (See http://www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm, first and second photo). If a plane had hit the building, it would not have left a perfectly circular exit hole, since the nose of the plane would have been the first thing smashed. In addition, the exit hole is a long distance from where the internal end of the impact zone occurred, and even if the nose of the plane survived, it would not have travelled that distance. Third, there is no nose cone wreckage at the exit hole. (See also http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagon/exit_hole/ and http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/11 September 2001/pentagon.htm).
-The lawn in front of the impact zone was completely untouched. In other words, despite the claim that a 757 was flying virtually only a few feet above the ground when it impacted the building, there is no damage to the lawn at all, either from exhaust or “sliding” or the impact itself. (See http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html and http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/lawn.html. Both of these websites have great photos of all aspects of the crash. As you look at the photos of the building from different angles and at different times, you will see - without any question in your mind - that it could not have been a 757 that hit the building).
-According to the official Report, whatever hit the Pentagon did a 270-degree turn at over 400 miles per hour. Every professional commercial pilot who was asked about this said that such a maneuver is virtually impossible - especially for a novice flyer (which the alleged Arab pilots were). (See, for example, http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analys is.htm).
By Maani, May 21 at 12:04 pm #
(8 of 9)
-It is highly suspicious that, despite having one of the most comprehensive and complex video, defense and anti-aircraft systems, all of these systems were inactive when the Pentagon was hit.
-It is additionally suspicious that the wing of the Pentagon that was impacted had been undergoing a “strengthening” at the very time of the impact: i.e., blast windows were being put in, and other measures were being taken to “shore up” that part of the building. (And, as noted above, the company that was doing this was one of the four companies that just happened to be chosen for the clean-up of the WTC site.) In addition, that wing was the furthest place possible from where all the “brass” were - including Rumsfeld himself, who was in the building at the time. If you were a hijacker with enough info to be able to penetrate the Pentagon’s defense system, you would certainly also know what part of the building had the greatest number of “important people.” So why would you deliberately avoid hitting that part of the building - making a complicated and dangerous 270-degree turn at high speed to do so - in order to hit the part of the building that would cause the least damage and loss of life?
Report this-The sole “proof” that the alleged hijackers were “Middle Eastern” men and were armed with “knives and boxcutters” comes from a single source: two alleged phone calls from Barbara Olson (a passenger on Flight 77) to her husband, then-solicitor general of the U.S., Ted Olson. However, there are at least three serious problems with this. First, the airphones on Flight 77 were inoperable that day, so Ms. Olson would have had to be using her cellphone - which Mr. Olson did in fact claim. Second, the FBI investigation of Ms. Olson’s cellphone records shows that only one call was placed from her cellphone - but that even that call did not connect. Thus, Mr. Olson (by coincidence a Bush crony) may well have been lying. Third, consider: Mr. Olson allegedly gets not one but two frantic calls from his wife on an allegedly hijacked plane, and what is his first reaction? Call CNN. Does that sound logical, or even reasonable, under the circumstances? He doesn’t call 911; he doesn’t call the White House (whose private line he has); he doesn’t call some sort of emergency services; he doesn’t call his family. He calls CNN. Not only is this highly suspicious, it is also against the law; i.e., he violated serious national security protocol by giving information to the media as an apparent attack on the U.S. was occurring.
By Maani, May 21 at 12:02 pm #
(9 of 9)
4. Flight 93.
The 9/11 Commission Report would have us believe that a “titanic struggle” occurred when passengers on the plane stormed the cockpit to try to overpower the hijackers, and that this was what caused the plane to crash into a field in Pennsylvania. However, there is quite a bit of evidence to support the belief that Flight 93 was shot down by one or two military planes, and that no such passenger heroics ever occurred.
-Numerous eyewitnesses claim to have seen a “white military plane” following Flight 93 just prior to the crash. And at least one military veteran believes that the sound he heard just prior to the crash was a missile. (See http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/flight_93.html and http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid =12192317&method=full&).
-A photo of the alleged crash site speaks for itself: where is the plane? Indeed, where is anything? No plane, no engines, no seats, no luggage, no bodies, no debris. Compare that photo with other crash site photos. (http://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html. Compare against: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6425671.stm.)
Report this-The FBI and Pennsylvania Police cordoned off a second site where wreckage was found - almost eight miles from the crash site. The only way that wreckage could have been strewn that far is if the plane were blown apart in mid-air. (See http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html (second quote on right side of home page, reported by CNN) and http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris _field.html (see 5th paragraph)).
-In a speech to the troops in December 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld actually stated that Flight 93 was “shot down.” The Pentagon later claimed that Rumsfeld “misspoke,” but given the other evidence to support a shoot-down, it would seem that he “accidentally” spoke the truth. (See
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/).
Finally, it is incredibly suspicious that the FBI took possession of both the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder (the “black boxes"), and refused to release any of the evidence from either of them for quite some time - until they coincidentally released recordings (almost certainly “doctored") regarding the alleged heroics of some of the passengers. Indeed, the alleged cellphone calls made from Flight 93 (which alleged calls were used as “back-up” for the government’s claim about passenger heroics) would have been scientifically impossible, since, at the time (2001), cellphone techology would not have permitted any call to be placed above 8,000 feet, and the plane was cruising at ~30,000 feet.
By SteveL, May 9 at 1:48 pm #
Right after 9-11 there were TV programs speculating on whether or not a plane could penetrate the containment wall on a nuke plant. The programs showed experiments in the desert where small and large planes were crashed into wall like those containing reactors. No penetration was possible. This blows up two lies. When Rice and Cheney said who would have thought about planes flying into buildings they lied (they were experimenting with this very thing). Also those heavy walls at the pentagon could not have been penetrated by an ordinary airplane.
Report thisBy sdemetri, May 7 at 5:03 am #
I admit I was running short on time and did not look more closely at the data points used to compute the trajectory. I will try to do that today. But I am not at all sure that will change my views on this.
As far as competing “internal contradictions:”
I have a person who was in charge of the department that did this type of analysis for a good part of the Cold War with the Soviets. A highly credible source. Not sure of the sources you call up as they are unnamed. And if current military sources are calling Stubblebine’s analysis into question, given the military leadership’s complicity with Bush’s highly controversial (in my view, criminal) policies, I would expect naysayers to be coming out by the hundreds. Douglas Feith’s new book reveals in part how complicit some of the current military leadership has been with the neo-con agenda, even throughout the Clinton administration.
As gruesome as it may sound, the body parts recovered… can you be absolutely certain they are from the pentagon? And, if so, what gives you that certainty?
The debris… there may be a pissing contest going on, but no large aircraft crashes that I am aware of were ever void of large pieces of debris… tail sections, wings, engines. No large aircraft crashes disintegrated into pieces that could not at least be partially reassembled to gather forensic information. I recall reading about a crash outside of Pittsburg some years ago where a large jet took a sudden dive into the ground. A failure in a mechanism that operates the tail flap. Even then there were parts that were recoverable, though much of the plane was shredded. I don’t recall how much was reassembled, if any, but large sections remained, and this plane accelerated into a ravine nose first.
It would be a simple matter for the government to disclose whether the video technology was standard or not. Such information would likely be revealed in a criminal investigation, had one been carried out.
Your last two points are not terribly conclusive either in proving my theory has internal contradictions. In the case of the eyewitness accounts, some of those seven that positively ID’d the plane as a 757 must be held with at least a certain amount of suspicion being military. That is not to say they are biased, just that a bias CAN exist because of their affiliation. Again, a plane painted to look like an AA aircraft suddenly appears, flying very fast, very low… the time it is in view is only a matter of seconds… making a judgment with absolute certainty, given those conditions, arguably difficult. In this case the eyewitness accounts certainly have some bearing on what happened, but must be analyzed very carefully and cannot be accepted as absolutely true at their face value.
Finally, you say,”it is not enough for me to decide the whole event was a lie...” Nor is it enough for me to decide the government’s conspiracy theory is not a lie. There is so much about the government’s explanation about the events of September 11 that is rife with internal contradictions for me not to question it. There needs to be a thorough criminal investigation, where the remaining videos, and FBI/FAA records are revealed.
Report thisBy niloroth, May 7 at 4:26 am #
Ah cyrena, the ignorance you bring to any thread on 9/11 you are in is always funny to see.
Lets see what you got wrong this time.
Emergency responders: So in other words you are saying that all the following people were in fact not there at all during the aftermath of the attack? Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff’s Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police
Body parts: You are really wanting to see pictures of the morgue? Wow, you are sick. So i guess all the emergency response people who pulled body parts out and the morgue workers who identified the victims are all lying right? Just in this post how many people are you going to accuse of covering up a murder of their own countrymen? I figure at this point you are up to at least about 1,000.
Airport: It would have taken you about one minute to hit google maps and discover that in fact Reagan National Airport is about 1 mile away from the pentagon. Your intellectual laziness never ceases to amaze me.
The hole: sure there are people who think the hole is to small. But keep in mind that there are also people who think that ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ are real. However, much like the ones who think the hole in the pentagon is to small, they are in the minority.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 6 at 7:56 pm #
Some other equally obvious things that are NOT consistent with a 757 PASSENGER aircraft striking the Pentagon..
There was NO EMERGENCY RESPONSE!
There should have been dozens upon dozens upon dozens of emergency response personnel and vehicles on the site IMMEDIATELY! Why don’t we see a single solitary news clip or photo of ANY?
Niloroth speaks of body parts that were identified. BY WHOM? We’re just taking the Coverup’s word on ALL of that. Where were the bodies taken? Supposedly to a makeshift morgue in the area. Did anybody see that?
WHICH airport is supposedly within a mile of the Pentagon? NOT one that handles passeger traffic, because the Pentagon is surrounded by it’s own restricted airspace, just as the White House and other areas are off limits to commercial air traffic.
Niloroth conveniently fails to appreciate the obvious in his tortured logic to explain what cannot be explained away. For instance, FAR MORE than ‘one’ person or expert can see, and has noted from moment one, that the ‘hole’ in the Pentagon allegedly created by a 757 is far too small. Only Houdini could perform such a feat.
Report thisBy niloroth, May 6 at 6:34 pm #
Your getting all upset about my comments on the data points used to compute the trajectory of flight 77 all but proves you did not in fact even look at the information i liked you to. The data points i was talking about were the ones used by the people at pilots for truth, and the issues with them using the ones they chose. It was not an attack on you. You would have realized that had you read the link.
You say “The best theories are those that do not have internal contradictions.”
But yours contains just as many as you claim the official story does.
1) The size of the hole in the pentagon. Fine, you have one person who thinks it was to small, but there are hundreds who don’t think that.
2) The body parts recovered at the site. All but one child were identified. Did your smaller plane or missile carry the dead on it’s way to the pantagon?
3) The debris at the site. You claim it was to little, but many many others do not agree with you.
4) The video you claim is missing 17 frames with the plane in it. Right off the bat you jump to conclusions by stating “...if the recording camera at the parking lot was using standard video technology which records at 30 frames per second, and there is not much reason to think it wasn’t,...” Do you have any source for this, or is it just a theory you have?
5) The angle of the plane as far as the FDR shows. The only way the plane would have missed the light poles and the pentagon was if it was not accelerating in the last few seconds, however, the data before the last few seconds shows it was being accelerated, and that matches up with eyewitness testimony.
6) The eyewitness testimony itself. If you read over the link i provided, you will see that 26 mentioned it was an AA plane, 7 said it was a 757, 104 saw it hit, and 8 witnesses were in fact pilots. (Not that strange since there is an airport about a mile away.)
In the end, the only thing i have to give you is the fact that the government will not release info on the identification process with regards to the aircraft debris. I am still rather puzzled by it, but in the face of all the rest of the evidence for the fact that flight 77 hit the pentagon, it is not enough for me to decide the whole event was a lie.
Report thisBy sdemetri, May 6 at 12:42 pm #
There has not been a positive identification of the aircraft that hit the pentagon. What has been given publicly by the government is innuendo. And the fact that they vigorously refuse to provide positive identification is highly suspect. I will look through the list of witnesses when I have more time later today, but at first glance I fail to see anything that is definitive, and can be said with complete certainty as to the identity of the aircraft. The speed of approach, the suddenness of such a highly unusual phenomenon makes extremely plausible a cleverly camouflaged paint job on a smaller aircraft a very real possibility.
The damage to the building was not extensive enough to have been from a 757 traveling at 400 mph. The photographs from immediately after the strike, as Major General Stubblebine said, show something hit the pentagon but not something the size of a 757.
And competent analysis of the Judicial Watch clip leaves some very big questions unanswered. As I said below, if the recording camera at the parking lot was using standard video technology which records at 30 frames per second, and there is not much reason to think it wasn’t, the aircraft in that clip, if a 757 flying at roughly 400 mph, should have been recorded in about 17 more frames, given the time and distance it had to travel from the time it first appears until the time it strikes the building. As it does not appear, either the clip was editted, or else a much faster aircraft struck the building. Your certainty is suspect because you leave a lot of questions unanswered.
The best theories are those that do not have internal contradictions.
Your theory has a BIG problem. Your theory is AA 77 crashed into the pentagon. You have NOTHING to back up that theory, no positive ID of the aircraft or aircraft parts, eyewitnesses that saw something hit the pentagon, but which have no way to verify with certainty exactly what.
My theory is something hit the pentagon, but given the damage initially recorded, not extensive enough to have been due to a 757. The damage recorded in photographs is more consistent with a smaller aircraft. The last known data point from the FDR places the speed and direction of Flight 77 too high to strike the pentagon where it was struck. The FDR has no serial number associated with it and so cannot be positively identified as belonging to Flight 77. It may be, but without the serial numbersof parts of the rest of the fusilage collected from the wreckage it can not be matched as having come from within the pentagon. The damage inside the building is not consistent with a large aircraft strike, but with a much smaller aircraft. The lack of large pieces of aircraft outside the pentagon is not consistent with a 757, but with a much smaller aircraft. The damage to the C-ring is not consistent with the known structure of a 757, or of the trajectory.
I could enumerate more points, but the main point is, without positive identification of the aircraft, the certainty with which you talk about what struck the building is based on pure HEARSAY.
My theory is incomplete, but lacks the internal contradictions that cripples yours.
It is entirely consistent for me to not say with certainty what hit the pentagon, because the evidence is not complete enough to make that determination. But the evidence does favor something different from a 757, because there are too many contradictions to that theory. Your rather insulting remark that I am simply trying to make only certain data points fit my theory is unwarranted and adds nothing to this discussion. In fact, it appears, niloroth, that what you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing yourself. You are trying to make only your selective data fit your theory. Bad form. And completely inconclusive.
Report thisBy niloroth, May 6 at 4:38 am #
Thank you for the links, it will of course take me a while to work through them, but it is at least somewhat refreshing to have new material rather than the outdated drivel than most of the 9/11 deniers seem to post on this site.
“ The eyewitnesses saw many things. How you fail to see the importance of eyewitnesses seeing a commuter size plane, a C-130 military plane following a 757, or an F-16 or A3 Skywarrior just prior to the explosion is your problem. Your claim that the eyewitnesses clinches it is completely inconclusive. The eyewitnesses saw many things”
Yes, the eyewitness saw many things that day, i know because i have read about every interview that was printed or taped about the crash at the pentagon. The funny thing is, that while the c-130 is mentioned as being in the area of the pentagon, no one actually says it was the one that crashed into the building. And no one mentions the same issue with any A3 or F-16. However, at least 104 people actually witnessed the plane hitting the building, and amazingly enough, none of them mention a c-130 or an a3, or anything else. Even more people saw the plane heading towards the building but didn’t see the actual collision. And none have made a credible statement that the plane pulled up at the last second. Or that a military jet or missile hit the pentagon.
Witness list, fully linked and sourced.
So quite frankly, i am curious how you have decided that something else must have hit the pentagon, other than for the simple fact that it doesn’t jive with your theory. Obviously you can’t have eyewitness testimony you believe, since if you put stock in that, then you have to also value the other eyewitnesses, or at the least, debunk them all. And since as we have already shown, none of the video from that day show anything useful for identifying what hit the pentagon. So in the end, you really have no evidence that supports your theory, other than the fact that you want it to be something other than flight 77.
I will look over the links you supplied.
Report thisBy sdemetri, May 6 at 4:33 am #
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are collectively one of the most significant events in world history. And because of the absence of complete information regarding various aspects of this event, many scenarios contrary to the U.S. government’s account of events, have evolved within a large percentage the collective public’s imagination.
Release of requested defendant agency records than can better clarify events of that day, are thus in the greater public interest.
Report thisBy sdemetri, May 5 at 6:26 pm #
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15029
F.B.I. Counsel Apparently Disputes N.T.S.B. Information Regarding 9/11 Aircraft Wreckage Recovery
This posting is long and has lots of information. In the comments section, Monahan lists two possibilities:
1). NTSB/FBI investigators did undertake a collection and identification operation for 9/11 aircraft wreckage and did not generate any related records.
2). NTSB/FBI investigators did undertake a collection and identification operation for 9/11 aircraft wreckage and did generate related records that were later eliminated.
It is difficult to imagine that the recovery and identification of the murder weapons used to take 3,000 lives on 9/11 was not documented.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14447
The Court orders the FBI to respond by April 14, 2008:
Civil Action For Release Of 9/11 Aircraft Records
The following is a March 17, 2008 court order pertaining to Federal defendant’s motion and also plaintiffs response. (See attached PDF court order)
Background:
http://www.infowars.com/?p=886
Court order reads in part:
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint (#20), filed on March 14, 2008. On February 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (#15). Defendants request an enlargement of time pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and LR 6-1. For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint (#20) is granted. Defendants shall serve and file their answer or responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s amended complaint in this case on or before April 14, 2008.
So what exactly are they hiding?
Report thisBy sdemetri, May 5 at 6:12 pm #
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14081
In Part:
Aidan Monaghan
Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 ‘black boxes’ are virtually the only ones without listed serial numbers.
NTSB American Airlines flight 77 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:
http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf
NTSB United Airlines flight 93 flight data recorder report, not noting a device serial number:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf
The United States government alleges that 4 registered Boeing commercial passenger aircraft were used in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, yet has failed to produce any physical evidence collected from the 3 9/11 crash scenes positively tied to these federally registered United and American airlines aircraft. Despite the release of abundant information regarding the 9/11 flights and the aircraft reportedly used, specific information that would confirm official allegations regarding the identity of these aircraft has been mysteriously withheld or denied upon request.
The federally registered aircraft reportedly us