FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Jack White]

Bill...I of course disagree with you and John Judge THAT

757 AA FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON. There is a total

lack of BELIEVABLE evidence that was the case...otherwise

the govt would have been quick to present it. I could go

into great detail on this but do not have time right now.

Suffice it to say there were dozens of surveillance video

cameras which would show what happened, but all are

suppressed.

Each individual aircraft part has a manufacturer serial

number, yet not a single piece of wreckage is in evidence

containing such serial number.

Why would the govt WITHHOLD EVIDENCE which supports

the official story?

Jack

Hi Jack,

As always, great to read you here.

I lean heavily toward your position regarding what hit -- or better yet, didn't hit -- the Pentagon. But I also can propose an answer to your concluding question above:

To sucker punch the otherwise on-target critics at the opportune moment, and in the process taint by association ALL so-called "conspiracy theories."

I've yet to read or hear explanations that sufficiently blunt the major objections to the AA 77 theory. But we're still in the dark to the degree that I for one am not prepared to state with certainty that something else caused the wound to the building. Let's say I'm 89 percent there.

Best,

Charles

Thanks Charles.

In my opinion, it is 99.9 percent certain WHAT DID NOT hit the Pentagon.

On the other hand, I agree that we are still in the dark regarding what DID hit it.

I theorize (see my website) that a radio-controlled A3 jet loaded with

explosives approached the building, fired a bunkerbuster missile at the

last second, and exploded inside the building. Evidence supports this

scenario. Numerous witnesses reported smelling CORDITE, an explosive,

and did not smell jet fuel. Google "Pentagon Cordite Smell" to read the

statements. Also Google "bunker buster missiles". Evidence suggests

that such missiles were fired at the WTC also.

Jack

[Len Colby]

P-56 Prohibited Airspace

“Andrews Air Force base, within 10 miles of the city have provided consistent scramble-ready defenses for the P-56 sector, which protects the most important government buildings. Having grown up and lived in the area for most of my life, I saw such defensive responses many times, guiding planes away from the restricted area.”

— John Judge

He saw this from the ground? Why doesn’t anybody else seem to remember this. The claim simply isn't credible.

The Pentagon sits inside the P-56 — a Prohibited air space.

The P-56 is a section of prohibited air space that extends 17 miles in all directions from the Washington Monument. Advancing toward this air space activates air defenses from a joint FAA/Secret Service radar and air traffic control at Langley, VA. This prohibited air space is separate from, and more closely monitored than standard restricted FAA commercial air space, as well as much better defended. Interceptor fighter jets guarding that area were regularly scrambled when commercial planes went off course. The scrambling range is known as the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) this extends out to 50 miles.86 [ii]

An obviously false claim because A major airport (Regan-Washington National) lies with in this region, the supplied link (from a truther site) doesn’t work, I found a page with the same title but it in no way backs this claim.

http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/rtk061002b.htm

I don’t care who says the Pentagon is in P56 as the map Matthew posted shows it isn’t. According to NASA P-56 is “a very small patch of airspace…over the White House” and entering it doesn’t lead to interception but rather being questioned afterwards. This corresponds with the FAA map

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:8-xYq...mp;client=opera

Even after 9/11 most violations of prohibited airspace did NOT lead to interceptions, there was even an incident when a 757 entered P-56 (no date is mentioned) and it wasn’t intercepted nor were planes scrambled

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/penetrat.pdf

Here are some reports regarding the Pentagon defenses:

Col. Robinson then pointed to the roof of the Pentagon, just above us, and said, “And we have cameras and radar up there to make sure they don’t try to run a plane into the building.” …certainly they did not expect “cameras and radar” to stop the attacking plane, there was some method of defense coordinated with them (SAMs, interceptors, etc.).86

Even if we take it for granted that Judge is accurately recalling what Robertson told him 8 years earlier and that Robinson’s comment was accurate and the colonel was joking or exaggerating as Judge himself noted Robinson said nothing about SAM’s. He employed a logical flaw common among “truthers” faced with a contradictory comment he accepts the part that fits his theory and assumes the part that contradicts it is erroneous. Also it’s hard to believe that if the building had some super secret air defenses the building’s head of security would have spilled the beans to someone applying for a permit to protest in front of it. We also have no way of knowing how much the coronel who was presumably responsible for the security of the Pentagon grounds knew what sort of air defenses if any the building had.

DCA is located due south of the National Mall, and The Mall happens to be restricted airspace up to 18,000 feet. So, to avoid the real possibility of being shot down by military SAMs, pilots aren’t allowed to fly straight in on a southbound approach to Runway 19: instead, they have to manually fly the plane down the Potomac and line it up with the runway at the last minute.[vi]

The quote doesn’t appear on the current version of the cited page nor on various 2002 and 2006 versions of it stored on the Internet Archive. The author claims it came from a 2006 version. The actual source of the quote seems to be Everything2.com a Wikipedia type site. In anycase the page was posted Nov. 2002 the claim isn’t sourced but it cites the same page as Peter’s article. The quote only generated 4 Google hits 1) the article cited by Peter 2) & 3) two different versions of the Everything2 page and 4) a reply to blog entry that quotes 1)

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=497139

April Gallop … got a classified tour of the building introducing her to its defenses, and she was told it was the best defended and safest building in the world. To this day she cannot comprehend why those defenses would have failed on 9/11. NOTEREF _Ref131902842 \h \* MERGEFORMAT 86

Gallop didn’t say the building had anti-aircraft protection, it’s hard to believe that if the building had some super secret air defenses they would have told a secretary about it.

[William Kelly]

Is there anyone out there who thinks it intresting that one of the authors of the Warren Report also wrote this report?

BK

In addition, FYI, one of the credited authors of this report, Alfred Goldberg, is also a credited author of the Warren Report.

<A href="http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix4.html">http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix4.html

xxxxx

Alfred Goldberg was born in Baltimore, Md., on December 23, 1918. He received his A.B. degree from Western Maryland College in 1938, and his Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University in 1950. After 4 years' service with the U.S. Army, Dr. Goldberg became historian with the U.S. Air Force Historical Division and later Chief.

BK

[Guest David Guyatt]

Peter wrote: "Little private plane flies near White House...every one evacuatate and

public in the papers were that anti-aircraft batteries were ready to fire"

Does anybody know what he is talking about? He seems to make stuff up (in his own mind I imagine) as he goes along. Perhaps someone on "speaking terms" with him can ask him for a citation.

Yes Len, I knew exactly what Peter was talking about and I'm not even a rude American. I think you also know what he is talking about too, but are playing one of your coy little point scoring games that you are so fond of. And the point Peter makes about the private aircraft intercept episode a few years ago is a very valid one. I had forgotten about it entirely. It demonstartes for all and sundry that the White House is under the obvious protection that it should be. It would be criminal negligence were it not protected. Which, as Peter's post most sensible indicates begs the question...

Also, I am on speaking terms with Peter and wouldn't dream of asking him to provide a citation for you. You need to do more of your own homework rather than shucking it off on others to do for you. Remember, Lady Google is always at hand. I also sometimes decline to provide citations for you on principle. Peter and I are not alone in this either. I know others react likewise to your baiting in the same manner.

You might consider why that is (but you won't)...

David

David the only pre-9/11 incident along those lines I can remember is when a small plane crashed into the White House on September 13, 1994 when the building was NOT protected by anti-aircraft weaponry

“The South Lawn, where the Middle East peace pact was signed last year, was a remarkable sight today to those who had assumed that the White House had a sophisticated security system, with anti-aircraft guns and perhaps even rooftop missiles that could shield the mansion from an aerial intrusion, especially one so unsophisticated.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75AC0A962958260

If you can turn up any evidence the building was equipped with anti-aircraft protection in the intervening 7 years I’d like to see it. But even if the White House had such protection that wouldn’t indicate the Pentagon did as well

I stand corrected, Len.

David

[Guest David Guyatt]

Is there an unadulterated and complete transcript of Mineta's testimony to the 911 Commission availoable online anywhere? Just the testimony -- no interpretations just the testimony as it took place?

David

[Charles Drago]

I'd like to broach a subject that is at once directly related to this thread's areas of contentions and absurdly speculative.

Discussions of so-called "esoteric" weaponry -- from dart-firing umbrellas to building-leveling particle beams from space -- have haunted our most serious inquiries for far too long. The enemy has seized upon theorists who argue that these devices have been utilized in Dealey Plaza, at the WTC, and elsewhere and endeavored to poison by association all investigators of deep political phenomena.

With this aspect of our war in mind, I gingerly offer the following:

Assuming for the sake of argument -- and man, it pains me to do so -- that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event, as well as the absurd official conspiracy theory and the feds' refusal to release video records of the hit, be explained by the use of an above-top-secret "esoteric" anti-aircraft weapon deployed in the District?

For the record: I do not believe this is the case. I have zero evidence to support such an idea. I am nearly convinced that whatever did strike the Pentagon was not anyone's 757. I am convinced that the official 9-11 conspiracy theory is a massive lie.

And yet would we not be remiss if we did not entertain, at least in passing and if for no other reason than to quickly dismiss them, the most fanciful of explanations?

Unsteadily,

Charles

[Len Colby]

Is there an unadulterated and complete transcript of Mineta's testimony to the 911 Commission availoable online anywhere? Just the testimony -- no interpretations just the testimony as it took place?

David

IIRC it's on the Comission's website either way with a little help from "Lady Google" to use your phrase you should be able to find it. If you use the forum's search engine you'll discover this has already been debated here Mineta seems to have been confused about the timeframe of events that morning.

Drago wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]"

Pentagon pre-collapse

source: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

and post collapse

source: http://www.vaemergency.com/newsroom/photos...pentagon_01.cfm

Good debunkings of the a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon nonsense from a leading ‘truther’

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallplane.html

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

How many times have we been over this absurd theory that even many truthers reject?

Edited November 11, 2007 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

Len,

I agree. In the "9/11 truth" community, the "no-planers" are widely considered to be either government plants or wackos.

Peter,

You want to be taken seriously and you quote "Killclown?" That guy is a credibility vacuum.

We've discussed Mineta's testimony before, and I don't see any point in rehashing it again. IMO, he was confused about the timings and misinterpreted which event the VP was referring to.

Jack,

You raised the issue of an A-3. I continually failed to understand why people believe this when:

- There is ZERO evidence that ANY A-3 Skywarrior aircraft have ever been converted to a remote control / drone status (QA-3).

- There has never even been (to my knowledge) even a proposal that surplus A-3 airframes be converted to drone status (this can happen with surplus aircraft, the recent examples including F-4 Phantom IIs being converted to QF-4s. In most cases they are used as target aircraft for missile tests or proficiency firings).

- The aircraft debris found was consistent with an airliner-type aircraft.

- The engine remains are consistent with a 757 engine but not the J-57 in an A-3.

- THE WITNESSES:

103 people saw an aircraft hit the Pentagon.

26 said it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

NONE ever described seeing an A-3.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

I theorize (see my website) that a radio-controlled A3 jet...

Though this is not supported by any evidence apart from your own opinion. See my previous posts regarding a fictional QA-3.

... loaded with explosives approached the building, fired a bunkerbuster missile at the last second, and exploded inside the building.

How exactly was this done? You have said "...fired a bunkerbuster missile..." but the A-3 has no external stations from which to fire this "missile". The aircraft had an internal bomb bay, but no external stations due to concerns regarding wing flutter.

You seem to be creating imaginary capabilities for aircraft in order to suit your own view.

Evidence supports this scenario.

I keep asking, and you never answer: what evidence? Every single piece of evidence REFUTES your hypothesis. Your idea of evidence would seem to be "just keep saying it enough and people will think it is true".

Please - post your evidence, not your opinion.

Numerous witnesses reported smelling CORDITE, an explosive, and did not smell jet fuel. Google "Pentagon Cordite Smell" to read the statements. Also Google "bunker buster missiles".

I have told you - with references - at least twice now... cordite was used by the British during WW I and II, and (IIRC) shortly after as a propellant rather than the misnomer 'explosive'. It is no longer in use except for legacy ammunition. So witnesses who smelled CORDITE (your capitalisation) are smelling an obsolete material unlikely to have been in use anywhere, and are most likely associate a term they have heard with an unfamiliar smell.

[Charles Drago]

SEE BELOW

Edited November 11, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Charles Drago]

Drago wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building "

Colby is misstating.

I wrote, "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" (emphasis added)

We could not ask for a more blatant, unambiguous, reprehensible example of his modus operandi throughout this Forum. In this case, he is misstating via selective and intentional editing and misrepresentation of my original post.

I repeat: Colby is misstating.

Charles Drago

(Edited to add misstated and misstating: removal of words banned by Forum Adm.)

Edited November 11, 2007 by Kathy Beckett

[Charles Drago]

Colby did so intentionally in order to support a wholly unwarranted claim that I am maintaining that the Pentagon did not sustain damage.

There is no innocent explanation for his selective editing.

Repeat: There is no innocent explantion.

Colby is misstating.

Charles Drago

(Edited to add misstating in place of other term.)

Edited November 11, 2007 by Kathy Beckett

[Charles Drago]

Drago wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building "

Colby is misstating.

I wrote, "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" (emphasis added)

We could not ask for a more blatant, unambiguous, reprehensible example of his modus operandi throughout this Forum. In this case, he is misstating via selective and intentional editing and misrepresentation of my original post.

I repeat: Colby is misstating.

Charles Drago

(Edited to add misstated and misstating: removal of words banned by Forum Adm.)

This is the last straw.

Unless my original words are reinstated, I am done with this Forum.

John Simkin, the call is yours.

Colby is allowed to twist my words for his own vile purposes, and Evan Burton implicitly endorses that action by censoring MY response!?!?!?

"Misstating" my XXX!

Charles Drago

Edited November 11, 2007 by Kathy Beckett

[Evan Burton]

Drago wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building "

Colby is misstating.

I wrote, "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" (emphasis added)

We could not ask for a more blatant, unambiguous, reprehensible example of his modus operandi throughout this Forum. In this case, he is misstating via selective and intentional editing and misrepresentation of my original post.

I repeat: Colby is misstating.

Charles Drago

(Edited to add misstated and misstating: removal of words banned by Forum Adm.)

This is the last straw.

Unless my original words are reinstated, I am done with this Forum.

John Simkin, the call is yours.

Colby is allowed to twist my words for his own vile purposes, and Evan Burton implicitly endorses that action by censoring MY response!?!?!?

"Misstating" my XXX!

Charles Drago

And Charles, as I said by PM, I was intentionally not taking any action with regard to your and Len's postings because I was close to the subject matter. As I told you, I passed it on to other mods for whatever action - if any - they saw fit.

I did NOT "censor" your response. It is an incorrect statement... or perhaps there would be another word I could use for it?

[Guest David Guyatt]

I'd like to broach a subject that is at once directly related to this thread's areas of contentions and absurdly speculative.

Discussions of so-called "esoteric" weaponry -- from dart-firing umbrellas to building-leveling particle beams from space -- have haunted our most serious inquiries for far too long. The enemy has seized upon theorists who argue that these devices have been utilized in Dealey Plaza, at the WTC, and elsewhere and endeavored to poison by association all investigators of deep political phenomena.

With this aspect of our war in mind, I gingerly offer the following:

Assuming for the sake of argument -- and man, it pains me to do so -- that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event, as well as the absurd official conspiracy theory and the feds' refusal to release video records of the hit, be explained by the use of an above-top-secret "esoteric" anti-aircraft weapon deployed in the District?

For the record: I do not believe this is the case. I have zero evidence to support such an idea. I am nearly convinced that whatever did strike the Pentagon was not anyone's 757. I am convinced that the official 9-11 conspiracy theory is a massive lie.

And yet would we not be remiss if we did not entertain, at least in passing and if for no other reason than to quickly dismiss them, the most fanciful of explanations?

Unsteadily,

Charles

Charles, the former Secretary of Defence, William Cohen, certainly entertained thoughts that "esoteric" weapons were being used by terrorists, so I think it is at least a valid point to raise as a general point (see below):

http://www.cheniere.org/references/cohen.htm

Like you, I don't think this was the case, but on the premis that no stone should be left unturned you are right to say that it is worth considering.

David