Sorry but I believe these are questions:

Is it a just coincidence the most of the passengers on Flight 77 with military backgrounds were Navy and that the crash at the Pentagon happened in the Navy's command center which took the heaviest casualties

Why didn't the passengers of Flight 77 rise up against the alleged hijackers like we are told the passengers on Flight 93 did since they both knew the hijackers were going to kill them? Considering the majoraty are Military trained?
If the reason there is no debris of Flight 77 at the Pentagon is because the plane disintegrated upon impact and/or melted from the ensuing fire afterwards as some say, then how did the government manage to find the DNA of all but one of the 64 passengers onboard at the crash scene?

What evidence is there that Capt. Burlingame "fought off the terrorists" and died before the crash as some of his friends and family believe?

Is it unusual that Ted Olsen was able call CNN to report his wife's phone call right after she just died when he should have been very distraught about her death?


As you can see they start with: is it? Why didn't, What evidence? and is it? again.

Can't say much about the other questions, but as a former Navy Master at Arms, our Hijack Training was to buckle up and don't move so the terrorist won't pull you out of your seats and kill you (of course they are going to say their going to kill you, but cooperate, let the specialists do their job, and you stand a better chance of surviving).

I agree and anyone that is trained in counter terrorism techniques knows the best seats to pick when booking flights... both for observational and possible take over options.. however when the situation loses direction there are still options????

Emergency SOF operations, especially those involving civilian peripherals, are the most dangerous and necessarily hesistant of all.
To expect SOF personnel to engage in a civilian environment the same as a non-civilian environment is not warranted or practical without team training and team execution.

Before you ask, XSAS, two of my best friends: One, an ex-U.S. Navy SEAL, the second, an ex-Marine RECON Ranger with a CIA detachment.

And what your question is?

I was commenting on your question to aquatus1:

"I agree and anyone that is trained in counter terrorism techniques knows the best seats to pick when booking flights... both for observational and possible take over options.. however when the situation loses direction there are still options????

XSAS, options are available if options are trained for. That's my point.

And, frankly, the average military person, is not trained in joint close quarter take-down of armed opponents. They are trained to sit it out so the people who are trained can take care of things.

My questions are still being avoided, I see....

Please note the Scorpius link was interesting, but the whole 31 degree angle they came up with seems a little dubious to me, as well as a few other arguments which could easily change with a few inches in another direction.



I'm not comfortable with that, I personally would love for them to release all the footage, however with what evidence there is, it all points to the 757 hitting the pentagon imo, i mean at the very least we know it was a plane of some description, i'm yet to see anything convincing proving it to be something other than the 757.

Like the videos might?? The video stills are such a joke when we know full well they are sitting on the real proof. By suppressing the evidence, they have become a dictatorship that will answer to no-one, and does everything possible to create their own 'version' of the truth......we should all be enraged by the way they treat us no better than common serfs of their fantasy Kingdom.

It is these self-righteous slimebags who should be held accountable for their actions - by stealing and still continuing to suppress the release of these videos, the most important evidence of the event, one can only conclude they are guilty of the murders, either directly or indirectly complicit.

So all those military personel on that plane would make no attempt to take control of a few guys with box cutters... regardless to their training not one of them made any efforts to control the situation?

Would not surprise me in the slightest.

I sincerely hope you don't think all military personnel are combat trained, lightining-reflexed, ready for combat and willing to die at a moments notice. The great majority are simply civilians in uniform, with a much more dedicated point of view towards their jobs (not necessarily towards combat).

What were your questions? I went back a couple of pages, but couldn't find anything definite.

You don't have to be combat trained to have a go with a guy carrying a box cutter... and why was this plane not traced by radar? why was it allowed to fly 400ish miles out aand then turn around heading back to the Pentagon... why were no fighter jets scrambled to intercept it? nearly an hour after the towers were hit?

Then why make such a big deal about all of them being military? You put forth the assertion that military personnel should be expected to attack terrorist hijackers, and then, after being told by former military personnel that the training given to the general military involves taking no action, you claim that no such training is needed.

If that is the case, then I would submit that the reason they did not attack was for the same reason civilians would not have attacked. They wanted to sit it out and survive, as opposed to getting a box cutter across the throat.

And please don't say that they already knew they we're going to die. Of course they were told that by the terrorist, but even considering that such a suicide run had never been done in this manner before in the history of America, the average person isn't quite so cold-bloodedly logical that, upon being told that they are going to die anyway, promptly throw caution to the wind and no longer worry about their safety.



So, are we done with the military personnel question? Has that one been put to bed as explained?

I for one have a few questions that remain unanswered.

Why does the Government withhold video evidence from the public? Why did they only release a handful of low quality stills?

FAA has strict procedures as to what to do when a plane goes off course/disappears and looses contact. Why were these procedures ignored for the 4 planes?

Who profited from the 911 attack?

Why was the average number of people on the planes was only 20% if the average for that time is 80%?

How could someone have placed anonymous put options on American Airlines and United Airlines just prior to the attacks of 9/11?

Why does the official FEMA report state that Building 7 went down due to fire?


Since we have a lot of experts here, I would love to have all these questions answered, not ignored.

How about we take it one question at a time? Take your pick. This is done to avoid the whole "My question never got answered!" thing. It's also why I asked Xsas if we were done with the military question.

No problem, lets go down the list then.

Why does the Government withhold video evidence from the public? Why did they only release a handful of low quality stills?

i was under the impression that the stills weren't an official release?

Thats correct. The release was made anonymously. This way no one can go up there and question that person. Placing a name with them would mean that that person would be guilty too, if the conspiracy theories are proven true. Why would anyone discriminate themselves like that?

Well, I'm not going to go down the list about legal requirements, such as not releasing information for use in a trial prior to the trial date because, quite frankly, I don't know enough about it. It know the NIS has files containing evidence concerning events that don't get released until the five year date, and that is just for regular (non-conspiracy worthy) events. I would not be surprised at all if the reason nothing is being released is simply because the pictures were classified at a certain level of security en masse upon being seized, and have therefore been caught up in the official red tape. There might well be a picture of an old lady and her cocker spaniel there labeled top secret simply because she happened to be there at the time.

So, why did they release low quality stills? Because they were low quality stills, and no discernable data could be gathered from them (as most conspiracy theorists like to point out).

A question to consider while asking this is the following: Why would the government release video evidence to the public? By doing so, it runs the risk of exposing even more weak spots, to say nothing of giving a wealth of data over to others with a less curious and more sinister purpose for looking. Security-wise, it has no reason to. How about for PR purposes? The vast majority of the teeming masses have moved on, so no, the public is not generally interest in these videos. Legal reasons, a la Freedom of Information? Unless someone demonstrates a valid research necessity or investigative study, the government is perfectly within its rights to decline to hand over such data (and the methodology employed by most conspiracy theorists does not reflect proper research of investigation). The government doesn't hand out knowledge on a whim.

In short, why hasn't the government released the video evidence? Frankly, because there hasn't been a need too, and a few reasons not to. Security, red tape, procedures, all are being enforced as never before, and without a valid reason to do so, the manpower needed to de-classify secured items is best used elsewhere.

What about other cameras, like on the hotel, that would show the plane but not the impact. There were also cameras farther away that would show the object flying but be too far to see details of the crash itself, without 'the risk of exposing even more weak spots'. Frankly, i don't think that the classification of all the videos was necessary in this case at all.

This brings me to the next question of why the release of the stills was anonymous?

And I don't understand what 'weak points' you could be talking about.

Amen. Thanks for the voice of reasoning.

'What if there was no plane?'

I mean come the f on people. Go tell the families who lost someone on those flights the plane never existed. And as he said, the pentagon isnt a commercial building. Its a reinforced building.

If you look for a conspiracy, of course you will find one.

Like I said, the whole thing was probably classified as one whole unit. They didn't go through each individual picture and scene and decided which to classify and which not too; they rounded up everything, declared the whole bunch classified, and then went about the investigation. That would, at least to me, seem to be the most expedient course.



Could be a variety of different reasons. Could be simple: The reporter just doesn't known who gave him the pictures. Could be borderline illegal: Maybe someone in the press had good blackmail material on someone with access to the pictures. Could be self-interest: Maybe someone in the press dug up the pictures himself and didn't want to be visited by large and unsmiling people. Heck, it could even be that there is a conspiracy and someone was trying to make it public. There are a thousand and one different reasons why the release was anonymous, but ultimately, only one of them will be correct, and chances are pretty good that it is going to be a fairly run-of-the-mill reason.



There is a story that floats around the aviation community about how mechanics back in WW1 would take pictures of airplanes returning from battle and note where the damage on them was, then send these pictures out to other bases so that they could re-enforce these areas on their aircraft. Eventually, the pictures fell into the hands of the enemy, however our forces weren't too worried, since their planes had already been properly re-enforced.

As it turns out, however, the bad guys had these pictures, and realized something that we didn't. The planes returning with damaged sections did not need those sections re-enforced; what needed to be re-enforced were the sections that got hit on the planes that didn't return. The bad guys spread these pictures around their units and told them to focus their fire on the sections not damaged in the pictures, and thus gained a heavy tactical advantage in air-to-air battle.

Is the story true? Doubt it. The lesson, however, is that one does not release any data unless there is a Need To Know. It's just impossible to predict just what intelligence could be mined from the most unlikely source, and used against you.

well dont you think we need to know. I dont see why they would have a problem showing the video's from other cameras unless they were trying to hide something.

The only reason you would have a Need To Know is if you are setting up a formal case or investigation. Right now, you are simply displaying curiosity.

And, again, if the video is classified Top Secret, simply because it came in with all the other videos, you aren't going to see it unless it gets de-classified, which is a long and drawn-out procedure. Chances are pretty darn good that more than one family had a camera full of nothing but the kids and the dog, but their camera got seized with everything else, got classified with everything else, and now Billy, Cindy, and Scruffy eating watermelon in the park is classified Top Secret.

isnt there already a group of people trying to sue the government over the 9/11 stuff?

The need to know shouldnt have to be a formal case. Thousands of people wanting to know the truth should be enough. Who would be able to bring a formal case that big against the government? I think alot of people forget the Government is supposed to work for the people not the other way around. The government is supposed to serve its citzens not the citzens serving the government.

This link shows the attempts of a citizen to obtain release of the Hotel and Gas Station videos through the FOIA..FOIA Request. You should read all the original documents here - it's quite the story of evasion and lying by the FBI and the DoJ.

The first request to release the videos was sent directly to the FBI. Unbelievably, the response from the FBI was that they CANNOT FIND ANY SUCH VIDEOTAPES!!!

The citizen then filed a FOIA request for release of the videos. In reply, the FBI requested that the Court dismiss the case, which was denied until a motion to dismiss or motion to summary judgement is filed. That is where the case still stands today...... WHAT A FARCE!!

Exactly. If the U.S. government cared so little about the lives of the people they were going to kill ( I.E. the people in the WTC and the planes) then why the hell not just have the plane hit the pentagon? Why would they divert it, stash or destroy the plane and people on it?

We dont make sense eh? Say Hi to elvis when you see him. Damn conspiracy crazies.

If you had looked at the earlier posts, you would have read why they would have not flown the plane into the Pentagon.

First of all, at least get the plane right - Flight 77 that allegedly hit the Pentagon was a 757, not a 747, which is considerably larger than a 757. Now, as to why they would not use the plane itself, consider two important factors...
1. To navigate a 757 into the Pentagon, especially precisely into the side of the building, would be very difficult in itself. The ability of even the most experienced pilot to do so would be tough to accomplish. The flight path recorded also bears this out, with an impossible manouver for a 757 described by experts who looked at the flight path data.
2. The part of the building hit was the newly renovated wing, opposite Rumsfeld and other honchos that would be in danger if a 757 was crashed into the building. These guys are very much implicated in the whole 9/11 operation, so they wouldn't exactly want to take that chance.

Now, answer this..
Why did the FBI confiscate the videos?
Why are the FBI now making the unbelievably ridiculous claim that they don't HAVE any videos??!

They could have at least maintained a thread of credibility if they said they were holding the videos for security purposes. But no, they want us to believe they never had them in the first place!!

Nope - nothing fishy about THAT!!

Is there? Have they convinced the courts that they have a valid case that merits the use of the FOI act?



Thousands of people aren't all that interested. I would number the people who believe in conspiracies perhaps in the hundreds, if that high. It just isn't that big a topic to the great majority. and Need To Know, is most definitely a formal case. The entire purpose of it is to avoid casual dissemination of information.



People bring formal cases against the government on a regular basis. The courst decide whether the case is sufficiently valid to merit certain information, such as that retrieved by FOI. Now, I won't deny that the government plays dirty legal tricks to keep its side hidden, but then, that sort of thing is hardly unusual in the legal world, government or otherwise. With pleas, counter-pleas, blocks, the whole thing is more reminiscent of a judo match than a legal proceeding. That's just the way of the beast.

The people writing the letter made it way too easy for the government. The request for "any videotapes in possesion" is pretty easy to use as support that no serious investigation or case is being made up (under FOI, you have to specificy exactly what you are looking for, and have a court agreement that it is needed for your purposes).

Incidentally, even the letter writer acknowledges that the FBI isn't saying they don't have the videotapes, but rather that the videotapes can't be found. Incompetence, yes, but hardly proof of conspiracy.

Next question:

FAA has strict procedures as to what to do when a plane goes off course/disappears and/or looses contact. Why were these procedures ignored for the 4 planes?

Without discreditting physical evidence or lack of.
What possible reason would there be to cover this up? It doesnt make sense?

My first question would have to be: Did this actually happen? Were procedures ignored? If so, I would want to hear the official reasons, and then I would have to work from there to verify their likelyhood.

Where can I find an accounting of how the procedures were allegedly ignored?

Since I don't have those answers right now, I'll have to check. Meanwhile, have the military experience and classified video questions been satisfactorily answered?

Thousands of people aren't all that interested. I would number the people who believe in conspiracies perhaps in the hundreds, if that high. It just isn't that big a topic to the great majority. and Need To Know, is most definitely a formal case. The entire purpose of it is to avoid casual dissemination of information.


You are totally wrong on that my man. Just becuase the majority of the people wont question what happened there is easily over a thousand people who dont believe the government on what happened.

You really think the FBI is going to lose footage of that importance come on man.

I am not 100% sure it wasnt a 747 but there is enough evidence to the contrary to warrant the government release those videos. Why are they classified in the first place. Why hide something like that? It only hurts them to not release it.

Our government is all screwed up what makes people think they really have the american citzens interest at heart. Half the stuff the government does doesnt make any sense but yet people have this unrealistic confidence that the governemnt would lie about this stuff. keep following the government blindly and see where this country ends up. Never question their authority becuase only they know whats good for you. People in power really think that the average person is too stupid to know whats best for them.

Again, I bring the Payne Stewart's example up again. The private jet went off course and jets were scrambled. This was normal procedure. 4 jets go off course/disappear of the radar and nothing is done about it.



In my opinion of the military experience, that has a lot of other points that have to be accounted for. But my main concern isn't the experience, but the fact that the flying crew didn't radio for help. In all 4 planes, regardless of the passengers. The 'official story' just doesn't cut it here. Especially since at least 5 of the alleged terrorists were confirmed alive and well after the event.

The whole official story smells fishy to me all together. The gov. had no prior knowledge of the attack, yet they managed to slap the name Osama and come up with 19 photos and names within 48 hours after the attack. And while all planes were grounded, all Bin Ladens were allowed to fly out of the country.

About the video tapes. You have to look at both sides of the story here. IF the gov was responsible for the attack or at least covering it up, it would be pretty convenient and easy for them to do so. This is still the conclusion I came up with after looking at both sides of this. It comes down to weather you believe the Government cares for it's people or not.

We must not forget that Patriot's act 1 and 2 came out, wich pretty much take away the Bill of Rights from the people.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Where I admit our Government has many faults I cannot believe they "willingly" let thousands die. The only way for them to devise this "cover up" of Petagon attack is "if" they had advance knowledge of attacks including WTC! This suggest that our Government has willing to sacrafice thousands of innocent lives for sake of a Bill! No I am sorry I am not going to swallow that yes we have some evil peoplein this country and some are in high positions but too many would HAVE to be involved in this. Far as pulling Bin Laden out give us some credit for good investigative work besides its not like Bin Laden had not been involved in previous attacks in other areas he was a prime suspect.

Possibly. Possibly not. Regardless, if they are quiet, then there is no reason for the government to release the information. Remember that this question was in response to why the government would willingly de-classify classified information.



Considering the quantity of material that was seized during the first week and following of the attack, yes I have no difficulty whatsoever beliving that items got lost in the shuffle. Lost meaning, of course, that they are sitting on a shelf sans tracking number, not that have physically disappeared.



Come on now, I just finished answering both of those questions. If you don't understand my explanation, that's one thing, but don't just ask them as if they hadn't been the subject of the last two pages.



No, that's just the paranod people who think that way. The average person does not think the government is out to get them, nor do they think the government is interest in them in particular. The job of the government is to protect the country first, its interests second, and the civilians third. The government lies, of course; no government could exist without lying. If you wish to question it, great, go for it, but unless you are putting together a coherent, logical, and objective argument, don't expect to be taken seriously. Casting doubt isn't enough. If that was all it took, creationism would be considered as powerful as evolution, since its only purpose is to cast doubt in evolutionary theory.

It wasn't just for the sake of a bill, its much much biger then that. This brings me to my next question.

Who profited from the 911 attack?



The only credit i give is to the CIA for training and funding Bin Laden and the Alkaida in the first place. And flying all the Bin Laden's relatives out of the country instead of questioning them. And how about when they were showing Bin Ladin's video on 'respected tv stations' there were two different guys on there!

Okay, but what I am looking for is something that states how and why the FAA didn't follow procedure during 9/11. I hope you agree that not every situation is going to be handle in the smae manner; after all, circumstances apply. Having read a few accounts myself, I can see were the confusion concerning this might have arisen, however I am not going to speculate until I see what the actual charge is. Right now I just got a very vague "I'm sure they did something wrong". Does anyone have a link as to this claim that procedures (and which proceedures) where ignored?



Then let's finish one thing before we start another. If we do not, then we will go around for pages, and then you will blithely claim that your questions were never answered, thus wasting all the time that I am spending here in a topic I have admitted is of less than great interest to me.



Okay, well, again, I will need a account of this, so that I can check into it. Off-hand, I can think of several reasons why the crew wouldn't radio for help, the first few being that they were either dead, threatened, or a combination of the two.



Osama bin Laden has been a name in the political world for a long time now. Heck, I remember Oliver North claiming that Osama had a price on his head, which is why he had to hire a bodyguard. Yes, the government would definitely have a file on him.

As for everything else, again, let's stick to one question at a time.



The difference between your opinion and mine, however, is that you are starting with a conclusion, whereas I am starting with evidence. Let's say that we come upon a crime scene where a person has been shot and no evidence has been left behind. If I were to start with a conclusion, say that a leperchaun was popping out of a dimensional hole, throwing a piece of lead incredibly hard at the victim, then disappearing again, then really, the crime scene would support my conclusion. If, on the other hand, I started with the evidence, I would come to the conclusion that a person shot the victim with a gun. Further investigation would be needed, however my theory would tend to be regarded as the most probable.

Similarly, You are starting with a conspiracy, and claiming the government is thusly hiding the video tapes. You point to the hidden video tapes as proof of this. It's a bit circular. The government is hiding the missing tapes because its a cosnpiracy. Its a conspiracy because the government is hiding the missing tapes.

The point of all this was to point out the methodology, not specifically to question tapes or whatnot. It is the logic (or lack thereof) of an argument that tends to lose conspiracy theoriest their credibility.



Let's not be so simplistic. The government cannot, despite what many would claim, simply bash in a door and seize whatever they want in the name of national security, no more so than they could do so in the past (the eighties was when the big hoopla over the government invading peoples privacy was in the common mind). The Patriot Act makes it very clear under which circumstances certain rights can be abridged, and under which they cannot.

" No, that's just the paranod people who think that way. " quote

I am not paranoid about the government out to get me. I am nobody of importance for me to think that way. I have never stated that in any post i have ever made just becuase i dont trust our government doesnt make me paranoid. I do however feel the government could care less about the american people. And when i say government i dont mean the entire US government only those in positions of power.
Like i said keep having blind faith in you great goverment and see how you end up. I am sure the german citzens thought their government had the countries and their best interest at heart. with your rational of thinking i am sure you probably would have supported them too. I know nothing i say can change your mind and nothing you say will change mine so i will leave it at that.

Mean the U.S. Government, as opposed to specific people, and I'll agree that you aren't being paranoid. In regards to the general importance of any individual citizen, or a given quantity for that matter, does anyone here truly believe that citizens are the primary concern of any government? Has anyone made that claim, without using it as a straw-man argument (i.e. the government should be primarily concerned about people, but it isn't, therefore it is wrong)?

Frankly, its a given that individuals don't rate at the top of the list of a government's priorities. Everyone has a particular political value, some greater than others, but few so great that it overshadows internal deal and policies.




The German government did have their countries best interest at heart, and they did indeed raise them from a beaten and broken mud patch to the single most effective and efficient war machine in world history. That I disagree with their philosophy does not, in any way, take away from that.

Regardless, once again I ask you to take a look at your statement: "Nothing you can say will change mine" is a statement derived from blind faith. It is an open admission that, no matter what is presented, you will never waiver from your beliefs. Now, I have made it clear that conspiracy arguments are an area in which I am close-minded, however note that I have always pointed out that it is the methodology, not the arguments, nor the possibily of being correct, that I object to. In other words, I have no problem listening to any possibility you wish to propose, however, if you present a fallacy, I will point it out, just as I have done here. You have made a straw-man argument, and are using it to justify your blind faith, because, according to you, that is what I am doing.

Well, your straw man has been called. Do you have any other reason to accuse me of having blind faith?

"quote Regardless, once again I ask you to take a look at your statement: "Nothing you can say will change mine" is a statement derived from blind faith. It is an open admission that, no matter what is presented, you will never waiver from your beliefs"

I stated nothing that YOU say will change my mind. I never said nothing will change my mind. If i was presented with the video's that we are requesting that would be sufficient evidence to change my mind about what really occurred. You sure think alot of yourself to think that your mere opinion should be sufficient to change someone beliefs. I like how you try and put words in my mouth to make it seem like I am close minded. I said i didnt believe it %100 percent so how is that blind faith? I never said it was a bomb or anything else. The only thing i said was that they should show the videos to ease people's minds inlcuding my own. I have only stated that it seems they are trying to hide something and nothing else. You must be confusing me within the other people on this board who you have been trying to discredit.

Well, you got me there, it is absolutely true that your statement was specifically meant for me and no one else. I apologize, I was wrong.

Having said that, did you understand my comments concerning your methodology?

the one question i have about all of this is how a fully loaded jet can buzz the washington dc area,including the white house,capital,and the cia building,without
setting off any alarm bells at all!surely thay had to know that there was an airplane flying around buzzing buildings before it crashed.

Buzzing buildings? You make it sound like they were lazily swooping up and down for hours. How long does it take for a ject to crash?

First off, the request also did specifically ask for release of the videotapes form the Sheraton National Hotel and the Citgo gas station.

As to your explanation that the FBI "misplaced" the videos, that is so utterly ridiculous that I can't believe you posted it. The FBI swooped in within minutes to confiscate any and all videos of the event. But then, they had an amazing collective case of "group brain freeze", mindlessly plopping the videos down onto any old shelf or table they walked by!! Oh yes, the most important videos ever taken in the history of the Pentagon, treated like a VIP ticket from Bubba's Diner advertising a two for one meal!!

Pentagon: "Hello, sir. No, I'm sorry, but we only catalog important videos. Would you like a copy of the annual 'Rumsfeld Family Backyard Bar-B-Q and Jamboree'? Or,, we can send you a video from our acclaimed High School Educational Series - hmmm...let's see..oh, here's one - how 'bout 'ICBM - The Misunderstood Missile'?

Ha ha turbo! It does defy logic doesn't it?