Evan Burton

As for what hit the Pentagon, I cannot respond with similar certainty. From the evidence I have reviewed, damage to the building and immediately adjacent grounds is inconsistent with a 757 strike. Other evidence you reference comes from tainted sources. Even non-conspiratorial, superficially unbiased eyewitnesses differ as to the size and markings of the object that impacted the building. The chances that biological remains of scores of passengers sufficient to provide DNA identifications for one and all could have been recovered from a crash that consumed most of a jumbo jet and its contents are virtually nil. The refusal of the USG to release videos of the attack raises suspicions of cover-up.

Charles - likewise. Just because we disagree does not call for insult.

I can understand that you might doubt "official" sources for much of the data. In some cases, this would be perfectly acceptable; in other it might not be. In some cases, the sole source of data might be the government / agency / department in question. In those cases you probably have to either: 1) completely discount the data for either side of the argument; or 2) accept the data but place the onus on the detractors to prove it is incorrect. Neither is a really acceptable situation when you want to either prove or disprove a proposition... but what are we to do?

The DNA evidence actually came as a bit of a surprise to me. Do some Googling on DNA identification after fires and you might be surprised by what they can and cannot tell.

The release of videos - IMO - is actually a bit wrong. There was some video was was being withheld, but most (if not all) video has now been released. I'll see if I can find the website which deals specifically with the release of such material.

Were there anti aircraft defences deployed at the Pentagon or not? Ordinarily, I would phone up the Pentagon and simply ask. Ordinarily. Sure, the Pentagon has said that it didn't have any "anti aircraft batteries" (I believe this is the exact term they used but am open to being corrected here) and all this proves, for those of us are cynically minded, is that there could have been, anti-aircraft missiles (not batteries mind), and even a free traversing Phalanx CIWS that is, as you know, specially adapted for closer in anti aircraft "work".

But who in a position of authority can we really trust these days? Everything has been politicised and we're left sorting through the ashes of what may well be purposeful disinformation - and getting clogged down in that rather, than focusing efforts on more important issues.

David,

I understand what you mean. Just because I can find no public statement of any such system does not mean there was no such system in place. After all, sometimes you will make your defence capability very close hold. Also, various agencies may decided that being economical with the truth - or even reshaping it - is the correct thing to do.

How do you tell what is real? You just have to base things on your research and best judgment.

Firstly - oops! I didn't explain a bit of my previous post. CIWS - Close In Weapon System, otherwise known as a PDS - Point Defence System. Hey - I'm military and acronyms are just SOP (hehehehe).

Secondly - Len: please refer to other posters with more respect. You are getting pretty close to the line with some posts. That's a final warning before I increase your Warning Level by 10%. If you think someone is being blatantly wrong / deceptive / whatever and you think your rebuttal might breach our standards of etiquette... check with a Mod. Tell them what you want to say and - very importantly - WHY you want to say it. Thanks.

I think the "anti-aircraft" defences which have been referred to were the Nike missile batteries that ringed the Washington area during the cold war. I can't find reference to other systems.

David - even the Phalanx / Goalkeeper / other CIWS or PDS have still suffered from the limitation that there is an engagement zone. If the CIWS is "weapons free" and you enter the zone, it doesn't care who you are. Everything is a threat and it deals with them on a priority basis. I couldn't see them being used on 9/11 or prior because they are a pretty specialised defence system. The radar system they employ (IIRC) is a CW Fire Control type system, which means it is pretty harmful to your health by itself. You wouldn't want that zapping passenger aircraft that strayed a little. The local airport is about 1600 yards away from the Pentagon, and aircraft would probably close to about 1400 yards during the approach. The start of the engagement zone for a CIWS is about 2000 yards, so you would be constantly risking it take out an aircraft doing absolutely nothing wrong. I just don't see it being used.

Peter - you did educate me. I didn't know that the Nike batteries were used until the early 1970s; I had always thought that any type of anti-air system would be regarded as an ABM system and therefore prohibited under the ABM treaty and that they were only used during the mid-1950s. Thanks also for giving the correct spelling of the name for the Calgary article. Reference the "I'm Friendly" signal - do a search on "IFF" and have a look where it is employed and its limitations; that might make my skepticism clearer for you. My doubting of anything other than a MANPAD system is also based on the interference that a fixed radar system would cause to the surrounding area.

Why in the world would I lie about any of this? It would be a pretty stupid thing to do considering anyone with a camera and recreate my test and see for themself if my results and be duplicated. In fact thats exactly what I would expect a serious researcher to do...check for themself. This has been something that has been suggested to you many many times...and as far as I can tell you have yet to do so even once. Instead your system seems to be "I believe therefore I am right". Thats all fine and dandy, but given you are playing in an arena that is pretty black and white, empirical testing trumps "I believe" every time.

Before anyone replies, I consider this important. One of the most crucial points is being able to reproduce an experiment. If there is a dispute between parties about whether something is possible or impossible and the conditions can be easily replicated by the average photographer, then the veracity of someone's statements in this matter should be tempered with knowledge of their having carried out any such tests in order to support their views.

Len, Charles...

I understand how you view each others assessment on things, and would really like to offer you a solution... but I can't. Charles, you'll discount material in the same way that Len and others (including myself) will discount other material. We're all probably confident our own assessments are correct, and that statements to the contrary are either incorrect or inflammatory. This is not always the case.

I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of matters on this forum. It doesn't mean I'm always right, or always wrong, or that the people who disagree with me are deliberately trying to deceive... or that I am guilty of the same charge.

We generally come to opinion based on experience, education, and research. Changing that opinion can be difficult - or unnecessary. What I have learnt to do is not try to convince your opponent they are wrong, but lay out the facts as you believe them to be... and to try to convince the lurkers that whatever opinion you hold is the more logical one.

And so I'll begin....

I totally agree with Matthew about the "anti-aircraft batteries" at the Pentagon. I have never seen any evidence of any such systems there. At certain times there may have been what we call MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defence Systems - that is, shoulder-launched missiles) but they do not have the ability to discriminate between targets using IFF (Identification - Friend or Foe). They generally use an IR source and home in on it. To me, such a claim is simply make a hypothesis without any supporting evidence. I might claim there is a secret underground airfield beneath my locale McDonalds... but I have no evidence for it at all.

I can understand your mistrust, but we have a pretty significant amount of witnesses who saw an airliner hit the Pentagon. Some military, but generally a large amount of people who just happen to be there during their normal activities.

This is not a small number of people who may have been coerced by government agencies, but a large number of people who reported what they saw almost immediately after it happened.

There is the Flight Data Recorder from the aircraft.

There is the aircraft debris around the Pentagon.

There is the damage to the building which is consistent with a large aircraft and not anomalous as some people claim, plus the remains of persons aboard the aircraft.

And much more. And I say this as someone who does have a reasonable amount of aviation experience.

I've have consistently maintained that although I do not believe it to be the case, it is possible that a group of persons unknown arranged for the 757 aircraft to be hijacked and flown into the Pentagon. That is consistent with the known facts.

Evan, My position is that 911 was an arrangement of some sort. Call it a new Pearl Harbour. As you quite rightly say, you and others view this position with distrust and tend towards favouring the "terrorists done it" storyline. And each of us tends towards harbouring and promulgating our own (now) instinctive views.

But sifting some of the more minor evidence post 911 is proving most difficult for someone not particularly intersted in the minutiae (me) of the event itself. I've taken a peek at the Pentagon anti aircraft batteries story and opinions are very divided about it. In the scheme of things it should be relatively simple to solve the puzzle and get to the truth. It's a small fact in and of itself.

Were there anti aircraft defences deployed at the Pentagon or not? Ordinarily, I would phone up the Pentagon and simply ask. Ordinarily. Sure, the Pentagon has said that it didn't have any "anti aircraft batteries" (I believe this is the exact term they used but am open to being corrected here) and all this proves, for those of us are cynically minded, is that there could have been, anti-aircraft missiles (not batteries mind), and even a free traversing Phalanx CIWS that is, as you know, specially adapted for closer in anti aircraft "work".

But who in a position of authority can we really trust these days? Everything has been politicised and we're left sorting through the ashes of what may well be purposeful disinformation - and getting clogged down in that rather, than focusing efforts on more important issues.

Me, I'm still scratching my head over the now mostly forgotten story of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer of the highly classified Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) operation “Able Danger” that identified Mohammed Atta and three other terrorists as Al Queda operatives a year before 911 took place. Col. Shaffer further stated that when he informed the FBI of what he had learned about Atta and urged that he be arrested, Pentagon lawyers intervened “and protected Atta for reasons that remain unclear”.

See: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context...p;articleId=867

And: http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/02/lt-c...-testimony.html [Note the "blackouts" in Colonel Shelton's testimony about his confidence in ABLE DANGER liklihood of preventing 911...

The fact that a long serving, decorated officer with an impeccable record thereafter had his reputation trashed by his employers strikes me as being quite revealing.

The data ABLE DANGER collected was, thereafter, destroyed.

Any opportunity that might have allowed Col. Schaffer to further testify was scuppered by Donald Rumsfeld who "insisted that the Able Danger program is classified and information about it cannot be publicly disclosed"

See: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005...ys-pentagon.php

And: http://qtmonster.typepad.com/qt_monsters_p...er_sources.html

Col. Shaffer is a CIA trained senior intelligence operations officer with over 22 years work in the intelligence community. He was a director of a DIA Task Force and was a recipient of the Bronze Star Medal.

Of course, one may ignore his experience, disregard all his achievements and mistrust his testimony and prefer, instead, to accept without question the report published by the Defense Department’s Inspector General that Col Shaffer’s “claims are without merit”. See: http://mediamatters.org/items/200609270011

That's the politicised world of the Pentagon for you.

Nice.

David

PS, my apologies for shifting the emphasis of this thread slightly away from the Pentagon air defences...but at least we're still focused on the Pentagon, ain't we.

David,

It's getting late here and I haven't read through the links you have provided; I'll do so tomorrow afternoon after work.

I think we can find common ground in what I have said; although I have no reason to believe it, I do not immediately discount the possibility that a person / group of people - either from within or without the US Government - arrange for / recruited personnel as a front for - people to hijack aircraft on 9/11 and carry out the attacks.

Peter,

Have you done a search through the Calgary Herald?

I have used their search facilities here:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/index.html

and when I did a search for "Linda Slovodian" I came up with no results for that.

When I searched for "NORAD" I came up with various articles, but none of them referred to an OCT 2001 article regarding missile systems. The earliest article I can find through that website search was 23 JAN 2002 (Fighter jets scramble from Edmonton airport). I didn't examine the article for that search because it involves a fee.

I am probably not using the search facility correctly, so would appreciate it you could give me a link to the original article where these figures were quoted, and the source from which they were derived.

Thanks.

Peter,

Your posts are being slightly truncated by whatever system you are using. It's only normally only the first letter or two, but you should be aware of it.

I agree with you that a very bright Sun does look as though it shines through objects ... A dimmer Sun , like at sunset however, does not .

The reason I posted Jack's study was not to show the Sun shining through the LM but to show the obvious difference in the size of the A14 Sun , from one photo to the next ....

But I am replying to Jack's study; that is why I said that Jack was wrong.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l12/stra...a14sunsizes.jpg

You have said that a dimmer Sun , like at sunset, does not shine through. Could you explain to me why this is, and the relevance to Apollo 14 image? I don't see the linking. The flare in each means that the "apparent" size of the "sun" in each is different. To me, the size of the flare in each is different. I do not see how Jack's study nor the remark about sunset applies to either.

Thanks.

Between Sept. 2000 and June 2001 there were 129 fighter scambles in under ten minutes and 67 fighter interceptions of civilian aircraft...

Could you post details of where I can confirm this? This is not the case to my knowledge but I am willing to be corrected on the matter.

Add to anti-aircraft missles interceptor jets.

Mixing up a few terms there, aren't we Peter?

Anti-aircraft Missile/s

Interceptor Jet/s

Two different things there, sport.

Len, Charles...

I understand how you view each others assessment on things, and would really like to offer you a solution... but I can't. Charles, you'll discount material in the same way that Len and others (including myself) will discount other material. We're all probably confident our own assessments are correct, and that statements to the contrary are either incorrect or inflammatory. This is not always the case.

I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of matters on this forum. It doesn't mean I'm always right, or always wrong, or that the people who disagree with me are deliberately trying to deceive... or that I am guilty of the same charge.

We generally come to opinion based on experience, education, and research. Changing that opinion can be difficult - or unnecessary. What I have learnt to do is not try to convince your opponent they are wrong, but lay out the facts as you believe them to be... and to try to convince the lurkers that whatever opinion you hold is the more logical one.

And so I'll begin....

I totally agree with Matthew about the "anti-aircraft batteries" at the Pentagon. I have never seen any evidence of any such systems there. At certain times there may have been what we call MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defence Systems - that is, shoulder-launched missiles) but they do not have the ability to discriminate between targets using IFF (Identification - Friend or Foe). They generally use an IR source and home in on it. To me, such a claim is simply make a hypothesis without any supporting evidence. I might claim there is a secret underground airfield beneath my locale McDonalds... but I have no evidence for it at all.

I can understand your mistrust, but we have a pretty significant amount of witnesses who saw an airliner hit the Pentagon. Some military, but generally a large amount of people who just happen to be there during their normal activities.

This is not a small number of people who may have been coerced by government agencies, but a large number of people who reported what they saw almost immediately after it happened.

There is the Flight Data Recorder from the aircraft.

There is the aircraft debris around the Pentagon.

There is the damage to the building which is consistent with a large aircraft and not anomalous as some people claim, plus the remains of persons aboard the aircraft.

And much more. And I say this as someone who does have a reasonable amount of aviation experience.

I've have consistently maintained that although I do not believe it to be the case, it is possible that a group of persons unknown arranged for the 757 aircraft to be hijacked and flown into the Pentagon. That is consistent with the known facts.

Peter,

If the recollections are honest and accurate, would you consider that the incident at the Pentagon was a terrorist act?

Evan,

Please know that I am NOT answering for Peter.

I appreciate your question for its subtext, which I humbly suggest leads directly to the rim of the chasm that separates your mindset from my own (which is quite similar to Peter's point of few, by the way).

Of course the "incident" at the Pentagon was an act of terrorism.

Our separation arises from the fact that you seem to be emotionally incapable of merely considering the possibility that players in the American political structure -- deep and otherwise -- are terrorists.

Do not read this as an ad hominem, but only as my sincere effort to get to the essence of this disagreement.

Charles

Charles,

Well pointed out, and no I don't consider it an ad hom. I didn't define what a terrorist was, so we could both agree to the statement while disagreeing with one another over the whole matter!

My revised question would be: if accurate, would you consider that it was an American Airlines 757 that was flown into the Pentagon? I can't really remember what your position on this was. IIRC, you may believe that it was an A-3 or a Global Hawk or some type of missile.

There are numerous examples of the sun flare in a picture being larger than the actual size of the sun in the image.

For instance, in this picture, do you believe that the sun is actually overlapping the side of the building?

http://gallery.zed1.com/albums/Vivicam-tes...mage9.sized.jpg

I don't think this image has been altered at all, but cannot vouch for it. If anyone likes, I'll try to find the original image along with it's ID number and ensure it is not a composite of some type:

More examples:

http://images.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/DGV/...0204631-001.jpg

http://www.emilydewan.com/blogpix/20070707_jfcf_1506.jpg

http://www.nakaiphotography.com/blog/wp-co...joe-cate-27.jpg

http://tumyeto.com/images/uploaded/Austin-Sun-Flare_opt.jpg

etc, etc

What it means is that once more, Jack's study is wrong.

Peter,

If the recollections are honest and accurate, would you consider that the incident at the Pentagon was a terrorist act?

When I see this, I can't help but think of the term "grasping at straws"...

These might also be of interest to you, especially with the Australian involvement:

Conversations with Apollo - Mike Dinn (Honeysuckle Creek Part 1)

Conversations with Apollo - John Saxon (Honeysuckle Creek Part 2)

Whether by design or not, 9/11 has ultimately served Israeli regional interests well. Others on this thread have expressed agreement to this. It's a fact. Accept it.

I think we have to accept this. My personal opinion is that the 9/11 decisions certainly favour the Israelis. I think that both sides have almost equal blame. It will take, however, a strong negotiator to be able to step in and impose threats on both sides.

I am not aware of any Republican candidate who claims he has seen a UFO.

I don't know about the current crop of candidates, I imagine they might think it it best to keep such ideas to themselves, but Barry Goldwater was very open in his belief in in UFO's and that something was being hidden in "Area 51" the Reagans IIRC believed in ESP etc. Bush 2 said that God doesn't listen to the prayers of non-Christians, presumablly Romney believes the tennants of Mormonism which most people would find rather bizzare.

I don't know about being a republican or a democrat, but President Jimmy Carter reported seeing a UFO.

I may be wrong, but I thought the Army was called The Green Machine.

And gentlemen always prefer blondes...

Tim, Dawn,

I am prepared to let this thread continue as long as all parties are civil. If people start to throw insults at one another, I'll delete this thread without warning.

I DO NOT CARE IF ANYONE ON ANY SIDE HAS BEEN PROVOKED - REMAIN CIVIL OR THE THREAD WILL BE DELETED.

Any transgressions will be recorded for John and Andy to see what happened, then the thread will be deleted.

Craig,

I'd have to agree with Mark. There are shifting strength and weaknesses: ground forces, naval, armour, air, anti-air, C3I, etc and I am sure you are correct that Iran would hold a superiority in some of those areas. Overall, however, I don't think it could be considered to be the most power force in the region. Enough to pose a serious threat to any other force in the region, yes - but not the leader.

I think C&C is an area that greatly lets them down. The division between the regular and 'revolutionary' forces means that friendly forces might be unaware of each other.

John / Andy,

Request you investigate Jack's claim and publicly report your findings. Once more, by the same people, my character is being called into question and I would like full public disclosure of the results.

I believe these claims are vexatious in nature.

I can confirm that Evan has not deleted/altered any of Duane's posts. You are warned that if you continue to spread lies about our moderators your membership will be deleted.

By my count, seven postings I have made in recent weeks NEVER APPEARED.

I DO NOT KNOW THE REASON FOR THIS, AND HAVE BLAMED NOBODY. I have

merely reported that this happened.

Obviously THEY ARE NOT IN FORUM RECORDS that you can check SINCE THEY

NEVER APPEARED. If you check, you will see that I did not accuse Burton of

anything. I do not know a reason for this, contrary to claims.

The possibility exists that the seven postings were held up so long that they

appeared MUCH LATER on pages later than PAGE TWO. I never check any

pages except Page ONE and Page TWO. That is why I suggested that all

moderated postings be posted within a certain time limit.

Jack

Jack, I have looked over your posts in this thread and you are correct. You never accused me of anything. Your posts were quoting Duane's comments, mentioned my name, and were asking what was going on with your posts. I incorrectly believed they were accusing me directly. I apologise for jumping to conclusions.

My suggestion would be that if you have submitted a post, and it hasn't turned up within 24 hours, contact a mod and ask them to investigate. It might be that the post is being held in abeyance; it might be the post has been overlooked; it might be that the post was never received and you'll need to resend it.

For that reason, if the post is anything but a one or two liner which you can easily redo, make a copy of the post so that you can easily resend it. If the posts is not appearing for unknown reasons, you can send it to a mod / admin and they will post it for you (subject to moderation). If you send it to another member to post on your behalf, please remember that that is circumventing the moderation process and the member posting on behalf of you will be held responsible for the contents.

According to the FAA registry, the aircraft mentioned in the article, N987SA is owned by:

Name DONNA BLUE AIRCRAFT INC

Street 4811 LYONS TECHNOLOGY PKWY STE 8

City COCONUT CREEK

State FLORIDA

Zip Code 33073-4346

County BROWARD

Country UNITED STATES

The site for aircraft history is down for maintenance right now; it should be available again in a few hours.

What significance is aircraft registry? The CIA does not register aircraft

in the name of CIA, Langley...but uses untraceable "front" assets!

Jack

It has to be registered to someone. I'm seeing what information is publicly available, and a Forum member with more experience might recognise one of the companies to be - or have the hallmarks - of a 'front' company.

Other companies that have a finacial interest in the aircraft:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/do...7&partytxt=