From the moment the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen? Years later, not everyone is convinced the 9/11 terrorist attacks are solely the work of terrorist. Go to any Internet search engine; type in any phrase about" September 11 2001 terrorist attacks" and you'll get thousands of links to web sites that texts content of alternative theories.
There are also thousands of published books about 9/11; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks. Alternative views about 9/11 are publicized daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other forums of media. Clear and blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and eyewitness accounts created a slew of theories.
What I hope to do in this thread is post sources where Individuals can read, watch, see and learn all the evidences about the attacks on Pentagon, World Trade Center and Flight 93, hoping that everyone can achieve a common conclusion of the events of 9/11.
Full Version: September 11 2001 terrorist attacks
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Conspiracies & Secret Societies
QUOTE(coldwhitelight @ May 20 2006, 10:50 AM) [snapback]1197265[/snapback]
From the moment the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen? Years later, not everyone is convinced the 9/11 terrorist attacks are solely the work of terrorist. Go to any Internet search engine; type in any phrase about" September 11 2001 terrorist attacks" and you'll get thousands of links to web sites that texts content of alternative theories.
There are also thousands of published books about 9/11; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks. Alternative views about 9/11 are publicized daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other forums of media. Clear and blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and eyewitness accounts created a slew of theories.
What I hope to do in this thread is post sources where Individuals can read, watch, see and learn all the evidences about the attacks on Pentagon, World Trade Center and Flight 93, hoping that everyone can achieve a common conclusion of the events of 9/11.
Good idea, it's the one thing this forum has been missing, i'm surprised there aren't other threads already concerned with these questions.
PS: How long has the search function been broken?
QUOTE
9/11: Debunking The Myths
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.
Published in the March, 2005 issue.
For background on this investigative feature, please click here.
FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?
Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.
Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.
To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS
THE PLANES
The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home. Nonetheless, conspiracy theorists seize on a handful of "facts" to argue a very different scenario: The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren't commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles. And the lack of military intervention? Theorists claim it proves the U.S. government instigated the assault or allowed it to occur in order to advance oil interests or a war agenda.
Where's The Pod?
CLAIM: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."
FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."
No Stand-Down Order
CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."
FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
Flight 175's Windows
CLAIM: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."
Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories--specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.
FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.
While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied--including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine--as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.
Intercepts Not Routine
CLAIM: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."
FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.
Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.
The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."
Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
Seismic Spikes
CLAIM:Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.
A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.
On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM:Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
THE PENTAGON
At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.
Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."
The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
Intact Windows
CLAIM:Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece--even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.
FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.
"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."
Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
FLIGHT 93
Cockpit recordings indicate the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 teamed up to attack their hijackers, forcing down the plane near Shanksville, in southwestern Pennsylvania. But conspiracy theorists assert Flight 93 was destroyed by a heat-seeking missile from an F-16 or a mysterious white plane. Some theorists add far-fetched elaborations: No terrorists were aboard, or the passengers were drugged. The wildest is the "bumble planes" theory, which holds that passengers from Flights 11, 175 and 77 were loaded onto Flight 93 so the U.S. government could kill them.
The White Jet
CLAIM: At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."
FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.
Roving Engine
CLAIM: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."
FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.
Indian Lake
CLAIM: "Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains," states a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article dated Sept. 13, 2001. "Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly 6 miles from the immediate crash scene." Commenting on reports that Indian Lake residents collected debris, Think AndAsk.com speculates: "On Sept. 10, 2001, a strong cold front pushed through the area, and behind it--winds blew northerly. Since Flight 93 crashed west-southwest of Indian Lake, it was impossible for debris to fly perpendicular to wind direction. ... The FBI lied." And the significance of widespread debris? Theorists claim the plane was breaking up before it crashed. TheForbiddenKnowledge.com states bluntly: "Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down."
FACT:Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater--not 6 miles--easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest--toward Indian Lake.
F-16 Pilot
CLAIM: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."
FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes--it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.
Published in the March, 2005 issue.
For background on this investigative feature, please click here.
FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?
Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.
Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.
To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS
THE PLANES
The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home. Nonetheless, conspiracy theorists seize on a handful of "facts" to argue a very different scenario: The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren't commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles. And the lack of military intervention? Theorists claim it proves the U.S. government instigated the assault or allowed it to occur in order to advance oil interests or a war agenda.
Where's The Pod?
CLAIM: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."
FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."
No Stand-Down Order
CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."
FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
Flight 175's Windows
CLAIM: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."
Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories--specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.
FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.
While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied--including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine--as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.
Intercepts Not Routine
CLAIM: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."
FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.
Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.
The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."
Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
Seismic Spikes
CLAIM:Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.
A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.
On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM:Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
THE PENTAGON
At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.
Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."
The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
Intact Windows
CLAIM:Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece--even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.
FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.
"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."
Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
FLIGHT 93
Cockpit recordings indicate the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 teamed up to attack their hijackers, forcing down the plane near Shanksville, in southwestern Pennsylvania. But conspiracy theorists assert Flight 93 was destroyed by a heat-seeking missile from an F-16 or a mysterious white plane. Some theorists add far-fetched elaborations: No terrorists were aboard, or the passengers were drugged. The wildest is the "bumble planes" theory, which holds that passengers from Flights 11, 175 and 77 were loaded onto Flight 93 so the U.S. government could kill them.
The White Jet
CLAIM: At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."
FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.
Roving Engine
CLAIM: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."
FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.
Indian Lake
CLAIM: "Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains," states a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article dated Sept. 13, 2001. "Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly 6 miles from the immediate crash scene." Commenting on reports that Indian Lake residents collected debris, Think AndAsk.com speculates: "On Sept. 10, 2001, a strong cold front pushed through the area, and behind it--winds blew northerly. Since Flight 93 crashed west-southwest of Indian Lake, it was impossible for debris to fly perpendicular to wind direction. ... The FBI lied." And the significance of widespread debris? Theorists claim the plane was breaking up before it crashed. TheForbiddenKnowledge.com states bluntly: "Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down."
FACT:Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater--not 6 miles--easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest--toward Indian Lake.
F-16 Pilot
CLAIM: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."
FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes--it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."
Source
If you haven't watched Loose Change I suggest you do. It really makes you think... 
QUOTE(coldwhitelight @ May 20 2006, 10:46 AM) [snapback]1197495[/snapback]
Nice find, I found a lot of the information very interesting, but I just can’t put full belif in such a mainstream magazine. It’s very productive, but why should I trust the theories of those people? I just feel a lot more retrospect from that of the common man, just because a worldwide magazine publishes it, won’t grasp my full ideology. (Same applies to extremist of 9/11 conspiracies), I’ll just say the government was behind the efforts of 9/11, I’m not sure about the actual crash.
QUOTE(Snowball @ May 20 2006, 05:18 AM) [snapback]1197394[/snapback]
Good idea, it's the one thing this forum has been missing, i'm surprised there aren't other threads already concerned with these questions.
PS: How long has the search function been broken?
PS: How long has the search function been broken?
Could you be a little more specific?
QUOTE(Master_Chief @ May 20 2006, 07:47 AM) [snapback]1197581[/snapback]
If you haven't watched Loose Change I suggest you do. It really makes you think...
I already saw the documentary.
QUOTE(xoisk @ May 20 2006, 08:30 AM) [snapback]1197629[/snapback]
Nice find, I found a lot of the information very interesting, but I just can’t put full belif in such a mainstream magazine. It’s very productive, but why should I trust the theories of those people? I just feel a lot more retrospect from that of the common man, just because a worldwide magazine publishes it, won’t grasp my full ideology. (Same applies to extremist of 9/11 conspiracies), I’ll just say the government was behind the efforts of 9/11, I’m not sure about the actual crash.
I personal feel that everyone is entitle to their own opinion, and one should find out the truth for themselves, However It is important to understand Popular Mechanics has a long history of reporting on science, technology, engineering, aviation and military affairs. Virtually every alternative theory involving the magazine’s report of 9/11: Debunking The Myths published in the March 2005 includes claims regarding hard facts in these areas.
To understand this complex and controversial issue, Popular Mechanics chose to focus strictly on specific claims that can be checked against the facts. These include areas such as the structural integrity of steel girders exposed to fire, the radar system employed by NORAD in 2001 and the nature of the wreckage found in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks.
Popular Mechanics didn't attempt to speculate on broad political issues, those involved in the planning of the terrorist attacks or to reconstruct all the events of September 11. The magazine’s goal was simply to look at the evidence that alternative theorists themselves cite most frequently in attacking the mainstream view of 9/11. In each case, Popular Mechanics found that their claims are sketchy.
QUOTE(coldwhitelight @ May 20 2006, 10:22 PM) [snapback]1197974[/snapback]
Could you be a little more specific?
Yes. The PM article has been debated time and time again on these boards and a simple search on 'Popular Mechanics' would have given you 17 threads that have already discussed it.
QUOTE(Snowball @ May 20 2006, 03:04 PM) [snapback]1198135[/snapback]
Yes. The PM article has been debated time and time again on these boards and a simple search on 'Popular Mechanics' would have given you 17 threads that have already discussed it.
So?
This is a good site with links to support the evidence.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm
QUOTE
Six myths of 9/11
What you think you know about Sept. 11 but don’t
By David Plotz
Slate.com
Updated: 8:43 a.m. ET Sept 9, 2003
Sept. 10 - The Saudi government paid off al-Qaida in exchange for immunity from terror attacks. Saudi princes knew in advance about the Sept. 11 attacks. Most of the Saudi officials who assisted al-Qaida all died mysteriously soon thereafter. The revelations in Gerald Posner’s new book Why America Slept are an astonishing reminder of just how much we still don’t know about Sept. 11 and its planning.
BUT THERE IS also plenty that we think we know but don’t. I’m not talking about shoddy conspiracy theories (that Jews were warned not to show up for work at the World Trade Center, for example) believed by the ignorant and the paranoid, but widespread misconceptions held by everyday Americans. Here are six of the most common:
20TH HIJACKER
1. The misconception: Zacarias Moussaoui was the “20th hijacker.” In the first months after the attacks, federal officials — including Vice President Cheney — hinted that Moussaoui, who was taken into federal custody before Sept. 11, might have been the missing man on the Flight 93 hijacking team. Moussaoui’s indictment in Dec. 2001 also linked him to the Sept. 11 plot, trying to show parallels between Moussaoui and the Sept. 11 terrorists — flight training, joining a gym, mysterious funding from overseas, connection to ringleader Ramzi Binalshibh, etc.
What’s wrong with the story: There is no actual evidence that Moussaoui was supposed to be on Flight 93 or the other planes. Moussaoui had no contact with any of the Sept. 11 hijackers and took his flight training long after they did. According to Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding’s Masterminds of Terror, Binalshibh has said that while he contemplated Moussaoui as an understudy for 9/11, he was never part of the plot. Binalshibh said he was glad that he kept Moussaoui, who was not really trusted by al-Qaida, away from the other hijackers. (Incidentally, it is Binalshibh who was a failed hijacker: He couldn’t get a U.S. visa.) This does not excuse Moussaoui, a truly bad guy who was apparently preparing for some act of airplane terrorism.
(Bonus Moussaoui misconception: that he only wanted to learn how to steer jumbo jets, not take off or land. In fact, as this SlateExplainer notes, the opposite is true: Moussaoui only wanted to learn takeoffs and landings.)
FINAL MOMENTS
2. The misconception: We know how the hijackers seized the planes. Within days of Sept. 11, Americans believed they knew how the planes were grabbed: Terrorists had taken control by stabbing pilots, passengers, and flight attendants with box cutters and knives.
What’s wrong with the story: It’s incomplete and misleading. We don’t really know what happened on the planes. The cockpit voice recorder survived neither New York crash and was damaged beyond salvage in the Pentagon crash. The Flight 93 voice recorder doesn’t start until several minutes after the hijackers took the plane. What little we know about tactics and weapons comes from phones calls made by passengers and flight attendants. As Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out, the evidence is incredibly paltry. No one on United Flight 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center, reported anything about weapons or tactics. One flight attendant on American Flight 11, which also crashed into the World Trade Center, said she was disabled by a chemical spray, while another flight attendant said a passenger was stabbed or shot. On the Pentagon plane, American Flight 77, Barbara Olson reported hijackers carrying knives and box cutters but did not describe how they took the cockpit. And on United Flight 93, passengers reported knives but also a hijacker threatening to explode a bomb. The box cutter-knives story isn’t demonstrably false, but it serves to divert attention from the other weapons and to mask the fact that we don’t have any idea how the hijackings happened.
THE IRAQ CONNECTION
3. The misconception: Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. According to an August Washington Post poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans believe Iraq played a role.
What’s wrong with the story: For starters, the two captured planners of the 9/11 attacks, Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have both reportedly denied Iraqi involvement during interrogations. Next, those who argue for Iraq’s guilt rely on dubious claims. The first is an on-again, off-again Czech assertion that Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague. But American intelligence agencies now believe the meeting did not occur. Several conservative analysts — notably Laurie Mylroie and former CIA Director James Woolsey — have pushed the idea that the first World Trade Center bombing was an Iraqi intelligence operation, and thus Sept. 11 might have been too. They believe that Ramzi Yousef, the architect of the first bombing, was acting for the Iraqis, and since Yousef’s uncle is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Iraq should be suspect again. But no one has managed to show that Iraq sponsored Ramzi Yousef or the 9/11 terrorists.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence against Iraqi involvement is that the Bush administration hasn’t made a case for it. The president is desperate to link Iraq to al-Qaida. But so far, his team hasn’t managed to find anything tangible that connects the Hussein regime to Osama Bin Laden (much less to 9/11). The administration wants the nefarious alliance so much that if it had any evidence, it surely would have leaked it. This does not prove, however, that Iraq and al-Qaida never cooperated. The polls, in fact, may reflect a kind of commonsense logic: Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida share a pathological hatred of the United States, so it’s entirely possible that they collaborated, even if we don’t know how.
CROP-DUSTERS
4. The misconception: The Sept. 11 plotters planned to use crop-dusters for a biological or chemical attack.
What’s wrong with the story: On the surface, the case for crop-dusters is powerful. The federal government twice grounded crop-dusters after 9/11 because of suspicion they might be used for attacks. The original indictment of Moussaoui suggested that he and the 9/11 plotters were investigating crop-dusters. Workers at a crop-dusting company in Florida reported that Mohamed Atta and other Arab men repeatedly inquired about crop-dusters. A Department of Agriculture official named Johnelle Bryant claimed that Atta visited her in early 2000 and asked for a government loan to buy a plane that he would modify for crop-dusting.
But as Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out, the crop-dusting stories are squirrelly. A crop-dusting worker claimed Atta dropped by the weekend before 9/11, but Atta had already left Florida. Bryant pinpointed Atta’s visit to late April or early-mid-May of 2000 — but this was before Atta even arrived in the United States. When prosecutors revised the Moussaoui indictment in 2002, they also dropped all mention of crop-dusting. And in interviews with Al Jazeera’s Yosri Fouda, Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn’t mention any interest in a crop-dusting attack. They indicated that the plan was always to fly airplanes into buildings.
Some al-Qaida operatives may have inquired about crop-dusting, and one may even have sought a loan from Johnelle Bryant. (Some terrorism analysts speculate that before al-Qaida decided to seize airliners, it planned to buy a small plane, fill it with explosives, and crash it.) The crop-dusting story can’t be disproved, but no solid public evidence exists that the 9/11 plotters were interested in either crop-dusters or a biological or chemical attack.
INSIDER TRADING
5. The misconception: Terrorists or their supporters profited by speculating on airline stocks before 9/11. What’s wrong with the story: Terrorists may have profiteered, but the evidence is sketchy. As was widely reported after 9/11, the options market for United and American Airlines was unusually busy in the days before 9/11, with an extremely heavy volume of “put options” — bets that the airline shares would fall. By the end of September 2001, both the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the Securities and Exchange Commission had launched investigations into the unusual trading. Since then, they’ve been silent. Two years later, neither the exchange nor the SEC will comment on its investigation. Neither has announced any conclusion. The SEC has not filed any complaint alleging illegal activity, nor has the Justice Department announced any investigation or prosecution.
This does not mean terrorist wagering didn’t occur: It might well have. The absence of any complaint suggests the SEC found nothing illegal, but that’s not definite. The SEC and the Chicago board seal the records of their investigations and won’t offer any explanation — even if there is an innocent one — for the strange trading. So, unless the SEC decides to file a complaint — unlikely at this late stage — we may never know what they learned about terror trading.
EARLY WARNING SIGNS
6. The misconception: No one could have predicted the Sept. 11 attacks. Since 9/11, President Bush and his team have repeatedly insisted that the attacks were inconceivable. David Corn chronicles these claims in his new book The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. In May 2002, for example, Condoleezza Rice said, “I don’t think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center.” Ari Fleischer echoed her, “Never did we imagine what would take place on Sept. 11 where people use those airplanes as missiles and weapons.”
Intelligence officials didn’t take the suicide-plane schemes seriously because they believed there were other, more imminent dangers. But no one can say they weren’t warned.
What’s wrong with the story: In fact, there were tons of warnings of exactly this kind of attack. The recent congressional report on the 9/11 intelligence failures lists a dozen pre-9/11 indications that terrorists were plotting a suicide hijacking. For example, in 1994 Algerians hijacked an Air France airliner with the intention of crashing it into the Eiffel Tower. (They were tricked by French officials into landing in Marseilles to refuel, where they were overpowered.) In 1995, police in the Philippines uncovered an al-Qaida plot to fly a plane into CIA headquarters. (One of the plotters: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.) A year later, al-Qaida had the idea of flying a plane from outside the United States and crashing it into the White House. Two years later, al-Qaida planned to fly a plane from outside the United States and crash it into the World Trade Center. And so on.
Intelligence officials, who are endlessly juggling all kinds of different threats, didn’t take the suicide-plane schemes seriously because they believed there were other, more imminent dangers. But no one can say they weren’t warned.
What you think you know about Sept. 11 but don’t
By David Plotz
Slate.com
Updated: 8:43 a.m. ET Sept 9, 2003
Sept. 10 - The Saudi government paid off al-Qaida in exchange for immunity from terror attacks. Saudi princes knew in advance about the Sept. 11 attacks. Most of the Saudi officials who assisted al-Qaida all died mysteriously soon thereafter. The revelations in Gerald Posner’s new book Why America Slept are an astonishing reminder of just how much we still don’t know about Sept. 11 and its planning.
BUT THERE IS also plenty that we think we know but don’t. I’m not talking about shoddy conspiracy theories (that Jews were warned not to show up for work at the World Trade Center, for example) believed by the ignorant and the paranoid, but widespread misconceptions held by everyday Americans. Here are six of the most common:
20TH HIJACKER
1. The misconception: Zacarias Moussaoui was the “20th hijacker.” In the first months after the attacks, federal officials — including Vice President Cheney — hinted that Moussaoui, who was taken into federal custody before Sept. 11, might have been the missing man on the Flight 93 hijacking team. Moussaoui’s indictment in Dec. 2001 also linked him to the Sept. 11 plot, trying to show parallels between Moussaoui and the Sept. 11 terrorists — flight training, joining a gym, mysterious funding from overseas, connection to ringleader Ramzi Binalshibh, etc.
What’s wrong with the story: There is no actual evidence that Moussaoui was supposed to be on Flight 93 or the other planes. Moussaoui had no contact with any of the Sept. 11 hijackers and took his flight training long after they did. According to Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding’s Masterminds of Terror, Binalshibh has said that while he contemplated Moussaoui as an understudy for 9/11, he was never part of the plot. Binalshibh said he was glad that he kept Moussaoui, who was not really trusted by al-Qaida, away from the other hijackers. (Incidentally, it is Binalshibh who was a failed hijacker: He couldn’t get a U.S. visa.) This does not excuse Moussaoui, a truly bad guy who was apparently preparing for some act of airplane terrorism.
(Bonus Moussaoui misconception: that he only wanted to learn how to steer jumbo jets, not take off or land. In fact, as this SlateExplainer notes, the opposite is true: Moussaoui only wanted to learn takeoffs and landings.)
FINAL MOMENTS
2. The misconception: We know how the hijackers seized the planes. Within days of Sept. 11, Americans believed they knew how the planes were grabbed: Terrorists had taken control by stabbing pilots, passengers, and flight attendants with box cutters and knives.
What’s wrong with the story: It’s incomplete and misleading. We don’t really know what happened on the planes. The cockpit voice recorder survived neither New York crash and was damaged beyond salvage in the Pentagon crash. The Flight 93 voice recorder doesn’t start until several minutes after the hijackers took the plane. What little we know about tactics and weapons comes from phones calls made by passengers and flight attendants. As Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out, the evidence is incredibly paltry. No one on United Flight 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center, reported anything about weapons or tactics. One flight attendant on American Flight 11, which also crashed into the World Trade Center, said she was disabled by a chemical spray, while another flight attendant said a passenger was stabbed or shot. On the Pentagon plane, American Flight 77, Barbara Olson reported hijackers carrying knives and box cutters but did not describe how they took the cockpit. And on United Flight 93, passengers reported knives but also a hijacker threatening to explode a bomb. The box cutter-knives story isn’t demonstrably false, but it serves to divert attention from the other weapons and to mask the fact that we don’t have any idea how the hijackings happened.
THE IRAQ CONNECTION
3. The misconception: Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. According to an August Washington Post poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans believe Iraq played a role.
What’s wrong with the story: For starters, the two captured planners of the 9/11 attacks, Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have both reportedly denied Iraqi involvement during interrogations. Next, those who argue for Iraq’s guilt rely on dubious claims. The first is an on-again, off-again Czech assertion that Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague. But American intelligence agencies now believe the meeting did not occur. Several conservative analysts — notably Laurie Mylroie and former CIA Director James Woolsey — have pushed the idea that the first World Trade Center bombing was an Iraqi intelligence operation, and thus Sept. 11 might have been too. They believe that Ramzi Yousef, the architect of the first bombing, was acting for the Iraqis, and since Yousef’s uncle is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Iraq should be suspect again. But no one has managed to show that Iraq sponsored Ramzi Yousef or the 9/11 terrorists.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence against Iraqi involvement is that the Bush administration hasn’t made a case for it. The president is desperate to link Iraq to al-Qaida. But so far, his team hasn’t managed to find anything tangible that connects the Hussein regime to Osama Bin Laden (much less to 9/11). The administration wants the nefarious alliance so much that if it had any evidence, it surely would have leaked it. This does not prove, however, that Iraq and al-Qaida never cooperated. The polls, in fact, may reflect a kind of commonsense logic: Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida share a pathological hatred of the United States, so it’s entirely possible that they collaborated, even if we don’t know how.
CROP-DUSTERS
4. The misconception: The Sept. 11 plotters planned to use crop-dusters for a biological or chemical attack.
What’s wrong with the story: On the surface, the case for crop-dusters is powerful. The federal government twice grounded crop-dusters after 9/11 because of suspicion they might be used for attacks. The original indictment of Moussaoui suggested that he and the 9/11 plotters were investigating crop-dusters. Workers at a crop-dusting company in Florida reported that Mohamed Atta and other Arab men repeatedly inquired about crop-dusters. A Department of Agriculture official named Johnelle Bryant claimed that Atta visited her in early 2000 and asked for a government loan to buy a plane that he would modify for crop-dusting.
But as Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out, the crop-dusting stories are squirrelly. A crop-dusting worker claimed Atta dropped by the weekend before 9/11, but Atta had already left Florida. Bryant pinpointed Atta’s visit to late April or early-mid-May of 2000 — but this was before Atta even arrived in the United States. When prosecutors revised the Moussaoui indictment in 2002, they also dropped all mention of crop-dusting. And in interviews with Al Jazeera’s Yosri Fouda, Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn’t mention any interest in a crop-dusting attack. They indicated that the plan was always to fly airplanes into buildings.
Some al-Qaida operatives may have inquired about crop-dusting, and one may even have sought a loan from Johnelle Bryant. (Some terrorism analysts speculate that before al-Qaida decided to seize airliners, it planned to buy a small plane, fill it with explosives, and crash it.) The crop-dusting story can’t be disproved, but no solid public evidence exists that the 9/11 plotters were interested in either crop-dusters or a biological or chemical attack.
INSIDER TRADING
5. The misconception: Terrorists or their supporters profited by speculating on airline stocks before 9/11. What’s wrong with the story: Terrorists may have profiteered, but the evidence is sketchy. As was widely reported after 9/11, the options market for United and American Airlines was unusually busy in the days before 9/11, with an extremely heavy volume of “put options” — bets that the airline shares would fall. By the end of September 2001, both the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the Securities and Exchange Commission had launched investigations into the unusual trading. Since then, they’ve been silent. Two years later, neither the exchange nor the SEC will comment on its investigation. Neither has announced any conclusion. The SEC has not filed any complaint alleging illegal activity, nor has the Justice Department announced any investigation or prosecution.
This does not mean terrorist wagering didn’t occur: It might well have. The absence of any complaint suggests the SEC found nothing illegal, but that’s not definite. The SEC and the Chicago board seal the records of their investigations and won’t offer any explanation — even if there is an innocent one — for the strange trading. So, unless the SEC decides to file a complaint — unlikely at this late stage — we may never know what they learned about terror trading.
EARLY WARNING SIGNS
6. The misconception: No one could have predicted the Sept. 11 attacks. Since 9/11, President Bush and his team have repeatedly insisted that the attacks were inconceivable. David Corn chronicles these claims in his new book The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. In May 2002, for example, Condoleezza Rice said, “I don’t think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center.” Ari Fleischer echoed her, “Never did we imagine what would take place on Sept. 11 where people use those airplanes as missiles and weapons.”
Intelligence officials didn’t take the suicide-plane schemes seriously because they believed there were other, more imminent dangers. But no one can say they weren’t warned.
What’s wrong with the story: In fact, there were tons of warnings of exactly this kind of attack. The recent congressional report on the 9/11 intelligence failures lists a dozen pre-9/11 indications that terrorists were plotting a suicide hijacking. For example, in 1994 Algerians hijacked an Air France airliner with the intention of crashing it into the Eiffel Tower. (They were tricked by French officials into landing in Marseilles to refuel, where they were overpowered.) In 1995, police in the Philippines uncovered an al-Qaida plot to fly a plane into CIA headquarters. (One of the plotters: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.) A year later, al-Qaida had the idea of flying a plane from outside the United States and crashing it into the White House. Two years later, al-Qaida planned to fly a plane from outside the United States and crash it into the World Trade Center. And so on.
Intelligence officials, who are endlessly juggling all kinds of different threats, didn’t take the suicide-plane schemes seriously because they believed there were other, more imminent dangers. But no one can say they weren’t warned.
Source 1
Source 2
QUOTE(Snowball @ May 20 2006, 05:04 PM) [snapback]1198135[/snapback]
Yes. The PM article has been debated time and time again on these boards and a simple search on 'Popular Mechanics' would have given you 17 threads that have already discussed it.
Oh ya "Popular machanics". what a great f***ing source, give your head a shake. Don't believe a freaken word that rag says. It's bs.
QUOTE(The Silver Thong @ May 22 2006, 05:39 AM) [snapback]1200143[/snapback]
Oh ya "Popular machanics". what a great f***ing source, give your head a shake. Don't believe a freaken word that rag says. It's bs.
I didn't post the source or comment on it's reliability. In that case, is it alright if I don't give me head a shake? Maybe you could take your grievences up with the person that actually started the post.
QUOTE(The Silver Thong @ May 22 2006, 04:39 AM) [snapback]1200143[/snapback]
Oh ya "Popular machanics". what a great f***ing source, give your head a shake. Don't believe a freaken word that rag says. It's bs.
While Popular Mechanics is hardly a journal of architecture or engineering, it is fairly well known for its accurate reporting on mechanical and scientific achievements. Any particular reason that we should consider it a "f***ing source"? Anything to back up your claim that it is BS, other than your word on the subject?
QUOTE
U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe
N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001 In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.
The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."
Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe
N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001 In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.
The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.
"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."
Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.
I only posted page one of four of ABC news report on Operation Northwoods. Click on the source at the bottom of the post to read the other three pages.
Source
Here are a couple videos about the subject.
This one is about the Pentagon 757. There are some good quotes and shots. It is a good intro video on the subject.
Posted in another thread by username: 911revisited.
http://www.911revisited.com
This one is about the Pentagon 757. There are some good quotes and shots. It is a good intro video on the subject.
Posted in another thread by username: 911revisited.
http://www.911revisited.com
I came across this today, and wanted to post it, and this was the first 9/11 thread I saw
video of Fireman: "bomb in the building start clearing out"
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/220506bomb.htm
video of Fireman: "bomb in the building start clearing out"
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/220506bomb.htm
Eric Hufschmid’s documentaries about September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on America (9/11).
Is this a discussion to learn the truth here? Or somewhere else to do it? I mean - How simple of the question can it really be. Let's talk about it here. Is anyone going to ask a question as to 'How it could happen' RIGHT HERE????? So discuss.... Make it official. So Coldwhitelight, let's confirm. Is there truly something you wanted to talk about that would help you learn the truth as commonly as I would hope for. Wish for? I don't really talk to people about it anymore. & I understand your up for reading articles - links ect.
You said discussion.
You said discussion.
QUOTE(PFlack @ May 23 2006, 08:37 AM) [snapback]1202136[/snapback]
Is this a discussion to learn the truth here? Or somewhere else to do it?
The point of a discussion is to discuss.
QUOTE
I mean - How simple of the question can it really be.
Could you be a little more specific?
QUOTE
Let's talk about it here.
Fine.
QUOTE
Is anyone going to ask a question as to 'How it could happen' RIGHT HERE????? So discuss.... Make it official.
Ask a question, maybe someone might answer.
QUOTE
So Coldwhitelight, let's confirm. Is there truly something you wanted to talk about that would help you learn the truth as commonly as I would hope for. Wish for? I don't really talk to people about it anymore. & I understand your up for reading articles - links ect.
You said discussion.
You said discussion.
I want to ask many questions, but I will start by asking one.
In the aftermath of the 9/11/01 terrorist attack on the Pentagon, the F.B.I immediately seized at least 84 surveillance tapes from establishments around the surrounding area, then refused to release any of the videos to the viewing public. When in 2006 the government finally released 1 of the 84 videos under the freedom of information act, the surveillance video that was released is of questionable viewing. It is suspicious as to why the government released a video of sketchy quality and not one to silence the alternative 9/11 theorists.
The way I understand it, the tapes released were owned by the government as they were shot by government owned cameras (the security tapes at the Pentagon). They were held until recently for the trial of Moussaoui. The other tapes also confiscated as part of a criminal investigation still technically belong to the companies whose cameras shot the tapes. As such the government does not have to the right to release them. When done with them they may return them to the companies that legally own them and those companies can release or not release them as they see fit.
As answered above, many tapes are not owned by the goverment and not theirs to release. Also, you are assuming there are better videos available. It is possible that not much if anything usefull was captured on the other tapes. Specifically with the Citgo camera, it should have a low frame rate common to security cameras and would be used to capture license plates to prosecute driveoffs. If it could clearly see a building across the street, it would be useless in its intended purpose. That is not to say there is nothing on the tape, just that it is less likely. If anything of use is on there, then one would need to petition that Citgo station to release the tape when and if they get it back.
As for the "not one to silence the alternative 9/11 theorists", that is not why the tape was released. It was released in accordance with the FOI act request. With few exceptions, the government tends to ignore alternative theories.
QUOTE
It is suspicious as to why the government released a video of sketchy quality and not one to silence the alternative 9/11 theorists.
As answered above, many tapes are not owned by the goverment and not theirs to release. Also, you are assuming there are better videos available. It is possible that not much if anything usefull was captured on the other tapes. Specifically with the Citgo camera, it should have a low frame rate common to security cameras and would be used to capture license plates to prosecute driveoffs. If it could clearly see a building across the street, it would be useless in its intended purpose. That is not to say there is nothing on the tape, just that it is less likely. If anything of use is on there, then one would need to petition that Citgo station to release the tape when and if they get it back.
As for the "not one to silence the alternative 9/11 theorists", that is not why the tape was released. It was released in accordance with the FOI act request. With few exceptions, the government tends to ignore alternative theories.
I honestly dont know what to think anymore about 9/11... on the one hand I have my educated brain going dont by silly theres no conspiracy bad things happen way of the world but on the other hand my gut is saying theres something not right about the whole thing and when enough people question it you do start to wonder....
What I do find interesting is that sometimes people seem to interpret government investigation as coverup... Ok erm how do I explain this right.... say theres a rape or a kidnapping or something most crimes are solved with the evidence collected within the first 48hours, and when they are investigating the crime they dont have to stop and explain what their doing or disclose everything because it will harm the investigation either tip off the murderer or get the kidnapped victim killed etc... So why then in such a situation like 9/11 have such demands been placed on the investigators of 9/11 from practically the get go?
If you look at how the investigation into the London 7/7 attacks was conducted and compare it to have the 9/11 one(s) were there are obvious problems in both the intelligence system and the investigation techniques... If we had demanded information from the Met or MI5 they would have told us to feck off...and to a certain extent they still will now in order to protect assets etc etc
I just dont understand...anything
What I do find interesting is that sometimes people seem to interpret government investigation as coverup... Ok erm how do I explain this right.... say theres a rape or a kidnapping or something most crimes are solved with the evidence collected within the first 48hours, and when they are investigating the crime they dont have to stop and explain what their doing or disclose everything because it will harm the investigation either tip off the murderer or get the kidnapped victim killed etc... So why then in such a situation like 9/11 have such demands been placed on the investigators of 9/11 from practically the get go?
If you look at how the investigation into the London 7/7 attacks was conducted and compare it to have the 9/11 one(s) were there are obvious problems in both the intelligence system and the investigation techniques... If we had demanded information from the Met or MI5 they would have told us to feck off...and to a certain extent they still will now in order to protect assets etc etc
I just dont understand...anything
QUOTE(Episteme @ May 22 2006, 07:44 PM) [snapback]1201330[/snapback]
Here are a couple videos about the subject.
This one is about the Pentagon 757. There are some good quotes and shots. It is a good intro video on the subject.
Posted in another thread by username: 911revisited.
http://www.911revisited.com
i want to WARN people about the technique being used here(whether advertant or not)-- the video 911 revisited is a MUST WATCH it does a great job explaining the evidence for demolition and demonstrates the eye witness testimony collaborating it-- it then associates the 911 revisited with anther video which is a govt strawman that promotes the theory of a missle or no plane which is clearly "unimportant" as the main issue should be "why" the pentagon was left undefended for 38 minutes after a terrorist attack had been determined? or "who" placed the explosives in the wtc bldgs 1,2 and 7? -- do not make the mistake of watching the pentagon strawman diversion and disregaurding an important revelation from 911 revisited-- here is a googl link to view it(911 revisited) for free!!!--
link
QUOTE(frenat @ May 23 2006, 03:13 PM) [snapback]1202593[/snapback]
Also, you are assuming there are better videos available. It is possible that not much if anything usefull was captured on the other tapes.
There may or may not be videos of better quality available, however, there are conflicting accounts concerning nearby establishments security cameras that either overlook or are pointed in the direction of the pentagon. The accounts suggests that the terrorist attack on the Pentagon was recorded, but it is unresolved as to which establishment recorded the attack.
QUOTE
Specifically with the Citgo camera, it should have a low frame rate common to security cameras and would be used to capture license plates to prosecute driveoffs. If it could clearly see a building across the street, it would be useless in its intended purpose. That is not to say there is nothing on the tape, just that it is less likely. If anything of use is on there, then one would need to petition that Citgo station to release the tape when and if they get it back.
Cigto gas station has several security cameras aimed in the direction of the pentagon. Flight 77 flew directly over the establishment at an altitude of roughly 50 feet, less than 3 seconds from impact. The Cigto gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to record the moment of impact.
QUOTE
As for the "not one to silence the alternative 9/11 theorists", that is not why the tape was released. It was released in accordance with the FOI act request. With few exceptions, the government tends to ignore alternative theories.
Actually, part of the reason why the sketchy video of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon was released under the freedom of information act, is to silence the alternative 9/11 theorists.
Coldwhitelight - as for your first question, I believe the Pentagon as being a more powerful installation than the WTC towers. & As much footage and photos of what happened there, the Pentagon is still standing. So why not confiscate everything possible, so as to show terrorist (minds 
stupid assesss ) what "other" ANGLES they should attack the building with?????
Well, I wouldn't do it either. But as for the mourning of this one black woman who lost her husband in the event - I don't know. That was the hard part.....
stupid assesss ) what "other" ANGLES they should attack the building with????? Well, I wouldn't do it either. But as for the mourning of this one black woman who lost her husband in the event - I don't know. That was the hard part.....
QUOTE(PFlack @ May 24 2006, 11:39 AM) [snapback]1203793[/snapback]
Coldwhitelight - as for your first question, I believe the Pentagon as being a more powerful installation than the WTC towers. & As much footage and photos of what happened there, the Pentagon is still standing. So why not confiscate everything possible, so as to show terrorist (minds stupid assesss ) what "other" ANGLES they should attack the building with?????
Well, I wouldn't do it either. But as for the mourning of this one black woman who lost her husband in the event - I don't know. That was the hard part.....
stupid assesss ) what "other" ANGLES they should attack the building with????? Well, I wouldn't do it either. But as for the mourning of this one black woman who lost her husband in the event - I don't know. That was the hard part.....
Could you be a little more specific?
Well, as much information taken into account about the hieght of the building which - really isn't that tall - It's to understand whether or not they would do it again. It's easy to hit those two towers. Photos - newspaper photo's / civilian ect, you got alot to work with. But, the Pentagon still stands. It was a successful hint. But, really why give them anything to work with?? It's so low to the ground - you couldn't pull that off twice. Still, you were saying there is only one video of it. ( Probably not enough to reference for an 'operation' ) -But why give them the benefit to study it all from.
* & it was on the news the other day. This black woman lost her husband on that flight and demanded more videos which - pertaining to the subject - are restricted. Sad, but it's a matter of security - I wouldn't doubt that was the plan. Not to give them any ideas.
* & it was on the news the other day. This black woman lost her husband on that flight and demanded more videos which - pertaining to the subject - are restricted. Sad, but it's a matter of security - I wouldn't doubt that was the plan. Not to give them any ideas.
QUOTE(PFlack @ May 25 2006, 10:48 AM) [snapback]1205090[/snapback]
Well, as much information taken into account about the hieght of the building which - really isn't that tall - It's to understand whether or not they would do it again. It's easy to hit those two towers. Photos - newspaper photo's / civilian ect, you got alot to work with. But, the Pentagon still stands. It was a successful hint. But, really why give them anything to work with?? It's so low to the ground - you couldn't pull that off twice. Still, you were saying there is only one video of it. ( Probably not enough to reference for an 'operation' ) -But why give them the benefit to study it all from.
It is difficult to understand your post, but I have an idea of what your trying to type and I will try to answer.
Where dose it read in any of my post that the government should release surveillance analysis or blueprints of the Pentagon?
QUOTE
* & it was on the news the other day. This black woman lost her husband on that flight and demanded more videos which - pertaining to the subject - are restricted. Sad, but it's a matter of security - I wouldn't doubt that was the plan. Not to give them any ideas.
Imagine how awful it would feel if a member of your own family died during the terrorist attack on the Pentagon, then imagine how the actual individuals who lost loved ones during the 9/11 attack felt and continue to feel, to add to their sorrows, they are receiving little no answers as to why (or if) it occurred. Families are unable to receive closure on this issue because there are many unanswered questions regarding what happened on that day and the government is withholding evidence. Families want to know what happened, therefore chose to express grievance for their lost loved ones. The concerns expressed by family members should receive consideration by the government and hope the issue is resolved soon.
QUOTE(frenat @ May 27 2006, 07:09 PM) [snapback]1207746[/snapback]
Great site frenat! Thanks.
QUOTE
9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction
by William F. Jasper
May 2, 2005
An abundance of sensational and irrational conjecture about the September 11 terrorist attacks is being used to discredit any consideration of conspiracy in general. [UPDATE, May 23, 2005. Here are selected articles from The New American's archives challenging the ?official? position on 9/11: ?Did We Know What Was Coming?? in the March 11, 2002 issue of TNA; ?Foreknowledge and Failure? in our June 17, 2002 issue; ?Experts Challenge the 9/11 Report,? in our October 4, 2004 issue; and ?Agents Challenge 9/11 Commission? in our October 18, 2004 issue.]
"The truth is out there." So went the tagline of the popular TV sci-fi series, The X-Files. Sometimes it can seem that the truth is way "out there," as one tries to sift through the confusion of conflicting statements of government officials, mainstream media organizations, alternative media outlets, witnesses, experts, and so-called experts.
This is certainly the case regarding the terrorist events of September 11, 2001. Of the four coordinated events ? the two attacks on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the attack on the Pentagon, and the crash in rural Pennsylvania ? almost every significant official finding presented as fact has been subjected to challenge by a host of critics. The government has invited (even incited, it can be argued) suspicion by refusing to release evidence even to congressional committees and continuing the pattern of secrecy and coverup that we have seen in past administrations concerning such events as the 1991 Ruby Ridge shootout, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 1996 downing of TWA Flight 800.
However, many of those disputing the official version of the 9/11 attacks have chosen, oddly enough, to challenge some of the government's most solid evidence and to do so with flimsy evidence of their own, often accompanied with sensational, irrational conjecture. Some of the most popularly disseminated 9/11 scenarios assert, for instance, that the Pentagon and the Twin Towers were not hit by the hijacked commercial airliners, but by missiles and/or military planes.
A mushrooming array of books, videos, and Internet websites devoted to 9/11 presents an ever-multiplying and ever more wild assortment of theories and scenarios concerning virtually every aspect of the attacks. Some of them have gotten almost into the X-Files realm, proposing explanations so outlandish that one might expect to find out that the 9/11 terror attacks were really launched by aliens from outer space. In fact, as we will point out, at least one 9/11 conspiracy theorist argues that some influential human beings directing world events are actually extra-terrestrial shape-shifters.
All of this, of course, is being used to discredit as a "conspiracy theory wacko" anyone who challenges any part of the government's official line on the September 11 attacks, as well as anyone who questions the government's incremental police-state response to 9/11 in the name of "homeland security."
Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 discredits itself by mixing legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration with typical left-wing rants. Moore, an unabashed radical leftist, poisons the political well and makes it easier for the internationalists in the Republican Party to dismiss all principled opposition to the Bush administration's destructive policies as "Bush-bashing" or "Democrat propaganda." Likewise, many of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are self-discrediting, either because of the absurd nature of their claims or the oddball manner of their presentations ? or both. However, they invariably manage to sprinkle their rants with references to the new world order, the United Nations, world government, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Illuminati, etc. Hence, those of us who responsibly expose and oppose the one-world agenda of the Bush administration (as we did also with the Clinton administration, without fear or favor) are more easily marginalized as extremists and "conspiracy nuts."
It is not our purpose in this article to review, analyze, and refute all, or even most, of the bogus 9/11 theories and rumors circulating out there. Our objective is to expose a few of the hoaxes, in the interest of helping all Americans become more "streetwise" about the dangers and pitfalls of uncritically accepting stories from the "alternative media," as well as from the establishment media and official government sources.
The Pentagon Attack
Although each of the four terrorist incidents involving aircraft on September 11 is being subjected to vociferous challenges, the official version of the Pentagon attack has been the main target of the critics. The catalyst for most of the Pentagon-attack sleuths can be traced back to the incendiary propaganda of French author and radical socialist Thierry Meyssan, president of the virulently anti-American and pro-Communist French think tank Reseau Voltaire. In his best-selling book, L'Effroyable Imposture (The Frightening Deception), Meyssan launched the claim that American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. It has been translated into English and is sold in the U.S. as 9/11: The Big Lie. Meyssan has followed up with a second book, Pentagate.
Many of the organizations and websites "investigating" the 9/11 attacks promote and/or sell the Meyssan books. Dave vonKleist, narrator and producer of the video 911 In Plane Site, one of the most popular "expos鳢 of the September 11 events, explains in his video that it was Meyssan's 9/11 website, "Hunt the Boeing," that got him started investigating the matter.
Mr. vonKleist strangely refers repeatedly to Meyssan's books and website as information "released by the French," as though it were released by the French government or the French people collectively. In reality, Meyssan represents only a small fringe on the far left of French politics, and his 9/11 materials have been denounced as disinformation and hucksterism by political and media representatives spanning the spectrum of French political thought, including many of those who strongly oppose U.S. policies in response to the 9/11 terror attacks.
According to vonKleist, when he first saw "Hunt the Boeing," he had only "one goal in mind: to prove the French wrong." However, as he looked into Meyssan's evidence, he says, he became convinced that "the French" were right after all.
Although critics of the official version of the attack on the Pentagon disagree with the government's version on numerous points, perhaps the main ones, which we will examine here, concern allegations that: the hole in the Pentagon is too small to have been made by a Boeing 757; there is too little aircraft debris for a 757 crash; and flying a 757 into the Pentagon is virtually an impossible feat, especially for an inexperienced pilot like one of the hijackers.
"The impact holes are too small." vonKleist parrots Meyssan's false claim that the plane's entry "hole" in the exterior wall of the Pentagon was only 16 feet in diameter. His In Plane Site web page disingenuously presents a smoke-obscured photo which supposedly verifies this point, claiming: "Upon examining these photographs, one can clearly see a hole, which is only 16 feet in diameter. This begs the question: 'How can a Boeing 757 which is over 44 feet in height and 124 feet in width simply disappear without a trace into a hole that is only 16 feet in diameter? Also, why is there no external damage to the Pentagon where the wings and the tail section would have impacted with the outer wall?'" Like Meyssan, the vonKleist video 911 In Plane Site advances the theory that a missile is the most probable cause of the Pentagon damage.
But what are the facts? The Pentagon is a five-story, five-sided building complex comprised of five concentric rings, running from an interior Ring A to an exterior Ring E. The photo and video evidence support the conclusions of the 2003 Pentagon Building Performance Report produced by the American Society of Civil Engineers that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior fa硤e at the ground floor, creating a hole in Ring E approximately 90 feet wide. That's 90 feet ? not 16 feet.
A multitude of eyewitnesses saw the 757 swooping down toward the Pentagon, and many actually saw it hit. Dennis Behreandt, in his August 23, 2004 article for The New American, quoted some of these witnesses, so we won't repeat them here. However, an important expert witness whom we will mention in this regard is Allyn Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers, who arrived at the scene shortly after the blast. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building," he says. "I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them."
Some have discounted Kilsheimer's testimony because as a contractor for the Defense Department he is considered a "tainted" witness. However, it's difficult to discount on similar grounds Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin, USAF (retired), an expert witness who has proven his independence and willingness to challenge coverups in the past. One of the world's leading missile and military explosives experts, Gen. Partin was director of the U.S. Air Force Armaments Technology Laboratory, where he designed and tested many types of missiles, warheads, and ordnance against various building structures and armor.
Partin did not personally witness the crash, but he lives near the Pentagon, is very familiar with the building's structure, and began studying the evidence immediately after the event. Does he see any problems with the official Flight 77 crash scenario? "No, not at all," he told The New American. "I've seen the videos claiming that it was a missile, not a 757, that hit the Pentagon," he says, angrily dismissing the claim in scatological terms.
"When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11," Partin said. "If you look at a frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior [Pentagon] wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide. That's why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminum cylinder ? the plane fuselage ? is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed. The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it's going to penetrate quite a ways before it's spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces."
"Where's the wreckage?" One of the arguments that appears on the surface to have some merit, is the argument of negative proof: the stunning absence of crash debris. On his "Hunt the Boeing" web page, Meyssan shows a photo of the smoking Pentagon with a long expanse of lawn in the foreground evincing very little wreckage. The accompanying caption asks: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?" Meyssan's imitators have used a number of variations on this theme, presenting photos and video segments and demanding to know where the 757 wreckage is. Some websites feature a news clip of CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre standing outside the burning, smoking Pentagon on 9/11 shortly after the crash, telling viewers: "There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
VonKleist says that photographs "raise the question as to WHAT hit the Pentagon and what really happened that morning." He goes on to say:
Many of those who reject this line of inquiry respond with the question: "If the 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go?" Answer: "I don't know!" The question should be: "If a 757 hit the Pentagon, then where is it?"
As Gen. Partin points out, most of the plane penetrated into the Pentagon, burning and shredding as it went. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers study, the plane cut a diagonal swath 230 feet into the first floor, penetrating Rings E, D, and C. "Under these circumstances, you're just not going to end up with much airplane debris ? inside or outside [the building]," says Partin.
Also, while 9/11 skeptics cite the relatively small amount of wreckage as proof that Flight 77 couldn't have hit the Pentagon, many of them ignore what was found at the crash site: Flight 77's "black boxes" and passenger remains. Others claim that the black boxes and remains have been faked. VonKleist acknowledges in his video 911 In Plane Site that "there are those who ? ask the question, 'Well, if the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go?'" But he says, "I don't know where it went. For all I know, it could be sitting in 200 feet of water in the Atlantic Ocean."
"The attack required impossible piloting." Some prominent 9/11 skeptics claim that the flight path of the jet that hit the Pentagon would have been humanly impossible in a 757, while others admit it might be possible for an expert pilot, but not for hijacker Hani Hanjour, the inexperienced pilot believed to have commandeered Flight 77.
In Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, Eric Hufschmid says: "I would say it is absurd to believe an inexperienced pilot could fly such a plane a few millimeters above the ground. The flight path of this plane is enough to convince me that no human was in control of it. I think only a computer is capable of flying an airplane in such a tricky manner. If terrorists flew the plane, they would qualify as the World's Greatest Pilots since they did tricks with a commercial aircraft that I doubt the best Air Force pilots could do."
Ralph Omholt's "skydrifter" website claims: "No pilot will claim to be able to hit such a spot as the Pentagon base ? under any conditions ? in a 757 doing 300 knots. As to the clearly alleged amateur pilots: IMPOSSIBLE!"
"Impossible"? "No pilot will claim...?" Well, we did not have any difficulty finding pilots who disagreed. Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.
George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."
According to 9/11 "investigator" Dick Eastman, whose wild theories are posted on the American Patriot Friends Network and many other Internet sites, Flight 77 was part of an elaborate deception in which a remote-controlled F-16 "killer jet" actually hit the Pentagon, while the 757 swooped over the Pentagon and landed at Reagan National Airport! "With its engines off," says Eastman, Flight 77 silently "coasted" in to the airport and blended in with other air traffic. "There would be few people to see Flight 77 come through, and those who did would doubtless assume that it was yet another routine flight over Reagan National," he claims.
"That's so far-fetched it's beyond ludicrous," says Capt. Williams. "I've flown into Reagan [National Airport] hundreds of times and you can't just sneak in and 'blend in' without air traffic controllers knowing about it and without other pilots and witnesses noticing."
Besides, as Capt. Ron Bull points out, the Eastman scenario would require piloting skills far beyond what it would take to hit the Pentagon. "I've flown into Reagan National many times and my first trip in a 757 was no picnic," he says. "I had to really work at it, and that was after 25 years of experience flying big jets. Any scenario that has the 757 [Flight 77] taking a flight path over the Pentagon and landing at National unobserved is proposing something that is far more difficult ? and far more difficult to believe ? than flying the plane into the Pentagon. It's just not credible."
General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses ? including many people I know personally ? who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down ? which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record ? that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!"
But despite all the evidence to the contrary, let's suppose for a moment that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. Why hijack the plane and then crash it into the Atlantic Ocean, or fly it into Reagan National Airport, or do whatever else was done with it to make it "disappear"? Why hijack the plane to make it appear that it was used against a target and then not use it against any target? Why plant the black boxes and human remains at the Pentagon site? Wouldn't it make more sense, and be much simpler, to actually use the plane against the Pentagon?
World Trade Center Attacks
As with the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City have spawned a tremendous urban legend industry.
"It's the Flash, Stupid!" In the video 911 In Plane Site, Dave vonKleist claims to have found the smoking gun: a bright flash that can be seen in a slow-motion viewing of video footage at the very moment that the noses of the jetliners crashed into the buildings, or a split-second before impact. In his website essay, "It's the Flash, Stupid!," vonKleist asks, "What caused the flash?" He answers: "There are four possibilities that come to mind: a) a reflection; b)sparks from the fuselage striking the building; c) static discharge; d) some type of incendiary (bomb or missile)." VonKleist quickly disposes of a, b, and c and settles on a missile as the only logical explanation.
General Partin says vonKleist omits the most obvious explanation. "It's very simple," he told The New American, "When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon. That's obvious to anyone familiar with physics, chemistry, and what happens when aluminum hits a structure at a high rate of speed." And the proof of that analysis, the general points out, is in vonKleist's own video. "If you watch just a few frames after the nose flash, you'll see two smaller aluminum flashes as each engine strikes the building. That's all it is."
There's another major problem with the "missile flash." According to vonKleist, the missiles were fired from a pod on the belly of each of the jumbo jets. But, if that is the case, where is the flash from the ignition of the missile; why is there no missile exhaust flare seen on the video? Where is that flash?
The "missile pod." This brings us to the "pod" that vonKleist and others claim is visible in a photograph and in video footage of the underside of the fuselage of United Airlines Flight 175 just before it strikes the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists assert that this "pod" shows that the plane carried either a bomb or a missile. Popular Mechanics asked Dr. Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University, to examine the photo in question. Prof. Greeley concluded that the "pod" was merely the play of light on the fairing that houses the Boeing's landing gear. Gen. Benton Partin agreed with Professor Greeley. "There's no 'pod' there," Partin told The New American. "It's a smear from a high-speed target and a low-speed camera. At the instant of impact the film exposure at the nose approaches zero. Without the bright aluminum flash the nose impact wouldn't even be seen."
Demolition charges. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did. So why use planes? It seems they were a diversionary tactic ? a grand spectacle." So writes Randy Lavello in an article on www.prisonplanet.com, one of the Internet sites of shortwave radio broadcaster and video producer Alex Jones.
"The World Trade Center was not destroyed by terrorists. It was a controlled demolition, an inside job!" says "Geronimo Jones" in an article on the Internet site letsroll911.org.
"The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished," he claims.
This is also a major theme of the vonKleist video, 911 In Plane Site, which, like a number of other video productions, attempts to liken the World Trade Center collapses to the 1995 attack on Oklahoma City's Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Some of these 9/11 productions even cite Gen. Partin as an authority to back their theories about the Twin Towers. General Partin exposed the evidence that the OKC blast included internal demolition charges, in addition to the Ryder truck bomb.
But Partin says the OKC and WTC incidents are completely different. The Murrah building was only nine stories tall and made of heavy steel-reinforced concrete. And, since the Ryder truck was outside the building, the damage it caused was primarily from the shock wave of pressurized air. The Twin Towers, on the other hand, were 110 stories tall, supported by steel columns, and the planes ? which served as missiles ? dumped large quantities of high-energy, hot fuel.
"The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense," Partin told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely impacted the support columns. When they could no longer support the upper stories and the top started coming down, the dynamic loading caused a very rapid collapse, or 'pancaking,' that would have very nearly approached free-fall rate. No demolition charges were needed to accomplish this."
Edward Peik, vice president of Alpine Environmental, Inc. of Chelmsford, Mass., agrees. Peik, a civil engineer, with 40 years of engineering experience in government and industry, grew up in New York City and is familiar with the structure of the Twin Towers. "I was at home watching all of this unfold on TV" on 9/11, he told The New American. "My first reaction was, 'My God, they've got to get everybody out of there right away, because it's going to come down fast!' I called my son Ron, who is also an engineer. We were both beside ourselves because we knew that they wouldn't stay up very long. As soon as fire hits steel, it loses strength fast and those towers had relatively lightweight steel beams spanning large distances. The building was supported by the steel outer walls. When the upper part of the building started coming down, the floors below could not support the weight crashing down on them. It was a vertical domino effect."
The opinions of Partin, Peik, and several other structural experts we consulted agree with the official consensus that the WTC towers collapsed as a result of the severe damage caused by the planes and the ensuing fires, not as a result of controlled demolition. General Partin says that he was contacted by vonKleist, who wanted him to support his position, which Partin was not willing to do.
A Profusion of Confusion and Delusion
The cover story of the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics is entitled, "Debunking 9/11 Lies: Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Hard Facts." The magazine assembled an impressive lineup of more than 300 experts to examine 16 claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. We think that Popular Mechanics did a credible job regarding the Pentagon attack and the alleged missile pods, but we have not investigated all of the 16 conspiracy theories they dismiss.
We certainly do not agree with Popular Mechanics' rabid editorializing against "conspiracy theory." In the space of a few paragraphs, the magazine's editors use the words "conspiracy," "conspiracy theory," and "conspiracy theorists" over and over again, to harshly ridicule the idea of conspiracy. However, the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" have made it easy for Popular Mechanics and others to relegate all talk of conspiracy to the loony category. The Popular Mechanics broadside proves our point that we must be careful with facts. It proves that the propagation of bad information about conspiracy can be, and will be, used to dismiss the notion of conspiracy in general.
"Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia," says Popular Mechanics. "Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media." Unfortunately, that is true. David vonKleist, for instance, features on his In Plane Site website a glowing endorsement from David Icke, the New Age guru who peddles fantastic conspiracy theories claiming that George W. Bush and other world leaders are actually reptilian shape-shifters from another galaxy. Some of the other 9/11 "authorities" are only slightly less lurid.
Recently, a colleague told me a tragic story about his sister-in-law, who had succeeded in getting her spouse to attend church occasionally with her (though not as a member of that church), only to have a prominent, visiting church leader spout off from the pulpit as gospel some of the discredited 9/11 conspiracy theories discussed above. The spouse was so incensed by the obvious falsity and ridiculousness of the cleric's statements that he vowed never to attend the church again, or to believe anything anyone connected with the church says. This is not the only example we could cite illustrating why it is so important to be sure of one's facts, as well as one's sources.
It is very difficult to reestablish believability once we have discredited ourselves by promoting information that turns out to be misinformation ? or even worse, intentional disinformation. But what is even more tragic is that every time we err in this regard we not only affect our own personal credibility, but the credibility of all of our colleagues in the freedom fight who have labored long and hard to overcome the smears and ridicule of our opponents.
Opinion polls repeatedly have shown that most Americans view the major media as biased and untrustworthy. Similarly, polls show that Americans tend to be suspicious of government. This is healthy skepticism, based on experience and common sense: we have learned firsthand that government officials and the media frequently lie. However, this same skepticism must also be applied to alternative information sources, whether they be talk radio, the Internet, newsletters, magazines, or word of mouth.
One of our first guidelines should be based on the old adage, "Consider the source." What is the track record of the source? Have they been reliable in the past? Do they have a well-earned reputation for truth and getting the facts straight? Or have they been known to sensationalize, censor, ignore, color, crop, or even falsify the facts to advance a hidden agenda?
This publication's agenda is expressed on the front cover of every issue: "That freedom shall not perish." And we recognize that freedom is not possible without a rigorous, continuous search for, and absolute fidelity to, the truth. We are committed to that purpose, and we think it is a worthy goal to which all Americans constantly should recommit themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distorting Similes
In "Getting the Facts Straight" (The New American August 23, 2004), Dennis Behreandt notes that although Thierry Meyssan "asserts that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not an airplane, he does not cite even a single witness claiming to have seen a missile. His only 'evidence' for the missile theory are descriptive similes used by witnesses who attested to seeing a plane but who compared the plane to a missile. For instance, he quotes USA Today reporter Joel Sucherman, who saw the plane as it raced toward its target. According to Sucherman, 'whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction. It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle ? almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked on its target and staying dead on course.'" Likewise, Meyssan played fast and loose with the testimony of other witnesses who spoke metaphorically. Behreandt logically concluded: "Either Meyssan does not understand the use of metaphor in English, or he is being disingenuous."
The same can be said for many of Meyssan's imitators, who repeat his misuse of witness testimony. The same problem has reappeared in the case of the World Trade Center collapse. Witness testimony referring to the way the buildings came down like a controlled demolition have been presented as statements of belief that the collapse was in fact a controlled demolition.
by William F. Jasper
May 2, 2005
An abundance of sensational and irrational conjecture about the September 11 terrorist attacks is being used to discredit any consideration of conspiracy in general. [UPDATE, May 23, 2005. Here are selected articles from The New American's archives challenging the ?official? position on 9/11: ?Did We Know What Was Coming?? in the March 11, 2002 issue of TNA; ?Foreknowledge and Failure? in our June 17, 2002 issue; ?Experts Challenge the 9/11 Report,? in our October 4, 2004 issue; and ?Agents Challenge 9/11 Commission? in our October 18, 2004 issue.]
"The truth is out there." So went the tagline of the popular TV sci-fi series, The X-Files. Sometimes it can seem that the truth is way "out there," as one tries to sift through the confusion of conflicting statements of government officials, mainstream media organizations, alternative media outlets, witnesses, experts, and so-called experts.
This is certainly the case regarding the terrorist events of September 11, 2001. Of the four coordinated events ? the two attacks on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the attack on the Pentagon, and the crash in rural Pennsylvania ? almost every significant official finding presented as fact has been subjected to challenge by a host of critics. The government has invited (even incited, it can be argued) suspicion by refusing to release evidence even to congressional committees and continuing the pattern of secrecy and coverup that we have seen in past administrations concerning such events as the 1991 Ruby Ridge shootout, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 1996 downing of TWA Flight 800.
However, many of those disputing the official version of the 9/11 attacks have chosen, oddly enough, to challenge some of the government's most solid evidence and to do so with flimsy evidence of their own, often accompanied with sensational, irrational conjecture. Some of the most popularly disseminated 9/11 scenarios assert, for instance, that the Pentagon and the Twin Towers were not hit by the hijacked commercial airliners, but by missiles and/or military planes.
A mushrooming array of books, videos, and Internet websites devoted to 9/11 presents an ever-multiplying and ever more wild assortment of theories and scenarios concerning virtually every aspect of the attacks. Some of them have gotten almost into the X-Files realm, proposing explanations so outlandish that one might expect to find out that the 9/11 terror attacks were really launched by aliens from outer space. In fact, as we will point out, at least one 9/11 conspiracy theorist argues that some influential human beings directing world events are actually extra-terrestrial shape-shifters.
All of this, of course, is being used to discredit as a "conspiracy theory wacko" anyone who challenges any part of the government's official line on the September 11 attacks, as well as anyone who questions the government's incremental police-state response to 9/11 in the name of "homeland security."
Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 discredits itself by mixing legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration with typical left-wing rants. Moore, an unabashed radical leftist, poisons the political well and makes it easier for the internationalists in the Republican Party to dismiss all principled opposition to the Bush administration's destructive policies as "Bush-bashing" or "Democrat propaganda." Likewise, many of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are self-discrediting, either because of the absurd nature of their claims or the oddball manner of their presentations ? or both. However, they invariably manage to sprinkle their rants with references to the new world order, the United Nations, world government, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Illuminati, etc. Hence, those of us who responsibly expose and oppose the one-world agenda of the Bush administration (as we did also with the Clinton administration, without fear or favor) are more easily marginalized as extremists and "conspiracy nuts."
It is not our purpose in this article to review, analyze, and refute all, or even most, of the bogus 9/11 theories and rumors circulating out there. Our objective is to expose a few of the hoaxes, in the interest of helping all Americans become more "streetwise" about the dangers and pitfalls of uncritically accepting stories from the "alternative media," as well as from the establishment media and official government sources.
The Pentagon Attack
Although each of the four terrorist incidents involving aircraft on September 11 is being subjected to vociferous challenges, the official version of the Pentagon attack has been the main target of the critics. The catalyst for most of the Pentagon-attack sleuths can be traced back to the incendiary propaganda of French author and radical socialist Thierry Meyssan, president of the virulently anti-American and pro-Communist French think tank Reseau Voltaire. In his best-selling book, L'Effroyable Imposture (The Frightening Deception), Meyssan launched the claim that American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. It has been translated into English and is sold in the U.S. as 9/11: The Big Lie. Meyssan has followed up with a second book, Pentagate.
Many of the organizations and websites "investigating" the 9/11 attacks promote and/or sell the Meyssan books. Dave vonKleist, narrator and producer of the video 911 In Plane Site, one of the most popular "expos鳢 of the September 11 events, explains in his video that it was Meyssan's 9/11 website, "Hunt the Boeing," that got him started investigating the matter.
Mr. vonKleist strangely refers repeatedly to Meyssan's books and website as information "released by the French," as though it were released by the French government or the French people collectively. In reality, Meyssan represents only a small fringe on the far left of French politics, and his 9/11 materials have been denounced as disinformation and hucksterism by political and media representatives spanning the spectrum of French political thought, including many of those who strongly oppose U.S. policies in response to the 9/11 terror attacks.
According to vonKleist, when he first saw "Hunt the Boeing," he had only "one goal in mind: to prove the French wrong." However, as he looked into Meyssan's evidence, he says, he became convinced that "the French" were right after all.
Although critics of the official version of the attack on the Pentagon disagree with the government's version on numerous points, perhaps the main ones, which we will examine here, concern allegations that: the hole in the Pentagon is too small to have been made by a Boeing 757; there is too little aircraft debris for a 757 crash; and flying a 757 into the Pentagon is virtually an impossible feat, especially for an inexperienced pilot like one of the hijackers.
"The impact holes are too small." vonKleist parrots Meyssan's false claim that the plane's entry "hole" in the exterior wall of the Pentagon was only 16 feet in diameter. His In Plane Site web page disingenuously presents a smoke-obscured photo which supposedly verifies this point, claiming: "Upon examining these photographs, one can clearly see a hole, which is only 16 feet in diameter. This begs the question: 'How can a Boeing 757 which is over 44 feet in height and 124 feet in width simply disappear without a trace into a hole that is only 16 feet in diameter? Also, why is there no external damage to the Pentagon where the wings and the tail section would have impacted with the outer wall?'" Like Meyssan, the vonKleist video 911 In Plane Site advances the theory that a missile is the most probable cause of the Pentagon damage.
But what are the facts? The Pentagon is a five-story, five-sided building complex comprised of five concentric rings, running from an interior Ring A to an exterior Ring E. The photo and video evidence support the conclusions of the 2003 Pentagon Building Performance Report produced by the American Society of Civil Engineers that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior fa硤e at the ground floor, creating a hole in Ring E approximately 90 feet wide. That's 90 feet ? not 16 feet.
A multitude of eyewitnesses saw the 757 swooping down toward the Pentagon, and many actually saw it hit. Dennis Behreandt, in his August 23, 2004 article for The New American, quoted some of these witnesses, so we won't repeat them here. However, an important expert witness whom we will mention in this regard is Allyn Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers, who arrived at the scene shortly after the blast. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building," he says. "I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them."
Some have discounted Kilsheimer's testimony because as a contractor for the Defense Department he is considered a "tainted" witness. However, it's difficult to discount on similar grounds Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin, USAF (retired), an expert witness who has proven his independence and willingness to challenge coverups in the past. One of the world's leading missile and military explosives experts, Gen. Partin was director of the U.S. Air Force Armaments Technology Laboratory, where he designed and tested many types of missiles, warheads, and ordnance against various building structures and armor.
Partin did not personally witness the crash, but he lives near the Pentagon, is very familiar with the building's structure, and began studying the evidence immediately after the event. Does he see any problems with the official Flight 77 crash scenario? "No, not at all," he told The New American. "I've seen the videos claiming that it was a missile, not a 757, that hit the Pentagon," he says, angrily dismissing the claim in scatological terms.
"When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11," Partin said. "If you look at a frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior [Pentagon] wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide. That's why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminum cylinder ? the plane fuselage ? is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed. The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it's going to penetrate quite a ways before it's spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces."
"Where's the wreckage?" One of the arguments that appears on the surface to have some merit, is the argument of negative proof: the stunning absence of crash debris. On his "Hunt the Boeing" web page, Meyssan shows a photo of the smoking Pentagon with a long expanse of lawn in the foreground evincing very little wreckage. The accompanying caption asks: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?" Meyssan's imitators have used a number of variations on this theme, presenting photos and video segments and demanding to know where the 757 wreckage is. Some websites feature a news clip of CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre standing outside the burning, smoking Pentagon on 9/11 shortly after the crash, telling viewers: "There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the
VonKleist says that photographs "raise the question as to WHAT hit the Pentagon and what really happened that morning." He goes on to say:
Many of those who reject this line of inquiry respond with the question: "If the 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go?" Answer: "I don't know!" The question should be: "If a 757 hit the Pentagon, then where is it?"
As Gen. Partin points out, most of the plane penetrated into the Pentagon, burning and shredding as it went. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers study, the plane cut a diagonal swath 230 feet into the first floor, penetrating Rings E, D, and C. "Under these circumstances, you're just not going to end up with much airplane debris ? inside or outside [the building]," says Partin.
Also, while 9/11 skeptics cite the relatively small amount of wreckage as proof that Flight 77 couldn't have hit the Pentagon, many of them ignore what was found at the crash site: Flight 77's "black boxes" and passenger remains. Others claim that the black boxes and remains have been faked. VonKleist acknowledges in his video 911 In Plane Site that "there are those who ? ask the question, 'Well, if the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go?'" But he says, "I don't know where it went. For all I know, it could be sitting in 200 feet of water in the Atlantic Ocean."
"The attack required impossible piloting." Some prominent 9/11 skeptics claim that the flight path of the jet that hit the Pentagon would have been humanly impossible in a 757, while others admit it might be possible for an expert pilot, but not for hijacker Hani Hanjour, the inexperienced pilot believed to have commandeered Flight 77.
In Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, Eric Hufschmid says: "I would say it is absurd to believe an inexperienced pilot could fly such a plane a few millimeters above the ground. The flight path of this plane is enough to convince me that no human was in control of it. I think only a computer is capable of flying an airplane in such a tricky manner. If terrorists flew the plane, they would qualify as the World's Greatest Pilots since they did tricks with a commercial aircraft that I doubt the best Air Force pilots could do."
Ralph Omholt's "skydrifter" website claims: "No pilot will claim to be able to hit such a spot as the Pentagon base ? under any conditions ? in a 757 doing 300 knots. As to the clearly alleged amateur pilots: IMPOSSIBLE!"
"Impossible"? "No pilot will claim...?" Well, we did not have any difficulty finding pilots who disagreed. Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.
George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."
According to 9/11 "investigator" Dick Eastman, whose wild theories are posted on the American Patriot Friends Network and many other Internet sites, Flight 77 was part of an elaborate deception in which a remote-controlled F-16 "killer jet" actually hit the Pentagon, while the 757 swooped over the Pentagon and landed at Reagan National Airport! "With its engines off," says Eastman, Flight 77 silently "coasted" in to the airport and blended in with other air traffic. "There would be few people to see Flight 77 come through, and those who did would doubtless assume that it was yet another routine flight over Reagan National," he claims.
"That's so far-fetched it's beyond ludicrous," says Capt. Williams. "I've flown into Reagan [National Airport] hundreds of times and you can't just sneak in and 'blend in' without air traffic controllers knowing about it and without other pilots and witnesses noticing."
Besides, as Capt. Ron Bull points out, the Eastman scenario would require piloting skills far beyond what it would take to hit the Pentagon. "I've flown into Reagan National many times and my first trip in a 757 was no picnic," he says. "I had to really work at it, and that was after 25 years of experience flying big jets. Any scenario that has the 757 [Flight 77] taking a flight path over the Pentagon and landing at National unobserved is proposing something that is far more difficult ? and far more difficult to believe ? than flying the plane into the Pentagon. It's just not credible."
General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses ? including many people I know personally ? who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down ? which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record ? that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!"
But despite all the evidence to the contrary, let's suppose for a moment that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. Why hijack the plane and then crash it into the Atlantic Ocean, or fly it into Reagan National Airport, or do whatever else was done with it to make it "disappear"? Why hijack the plane to make it appear that it was used against a target and then not use it against any target? Why plant the black boxes and human remains at the Pentagon site? Wouldn't it make more sense, and be much simpler, to actually use the plane against the Pentagon?
World Trade Center Attacks
As with the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City have spawned a tremendous urban legend industry.
"It's the Flash, Stupid!" In the video 911 In Plane Site, Dave vonKleist claims to have found the smoking gun: a bright flash that can be seen in a slow-motion viewing of video footage at the very moment that the noses of the jetliners crashed into the buildings, or a split-second before impact. In his website essay, "It's the Flash, Stupid!," vonKleist asks, "What caused the flash?" He answers: "There are four possibilities that come to mind: a) a reflection; b)sparks from the fuselage striking the building; c) static discharge; d) some type of incendiary (bomb or missile)." VonKleist quickly disposes of a, b, and c and settles on a missile as the only logical explanation.
General Partin says vonKleist omits the most obvious explanation. "It's very simple," he told The New American, "When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon. That's obvious to anyone familiar with physics, chemistry, and what happens when aluminum hits a structure at a high rate of speed." And the proof of that analysis, the general points out, is in vonKleist's own video. "If you watch just a few frames after the nose flash, you'll see two smaller aluminum flashes as each engine strikes the building. That's all it is."
There's another major problem with the "missile flash." According to vonKleist, the missiles were fired from a pod on the belly of each of the jumbo jets. But, if that is the case, where is the flash from the ignition of the missile; why is there no missile exhaust flare seen on the video? Where is that flash?
The "missile pod." This brings us to the "pod" that vonKleist and others claim is visible in a photograph and in video footage of the underside of the fuselage of United Airlines Flight 175 just before it strikes the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists assert that this "pod" shows that the plane carried either a bomb or a missile. Popular Mechanics asked Dr. Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University, to examine the photo in question. Prof. Greeley concluded that the "pod" was merely the play of light on the fairing that houses the Boeing's landing gear. Gen. Benton Partin agreed with Professor Greeley. "There's no 'pod' there," Partin told The New American. "It's a smear from a high-speed target and a low-speed camera. At the instant of impact the film exposure at the nose approaches zero. Without the bright aluminum flash the nose impact wouldn't even be seen."
Demolition charges. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did. So why use planes? It seems they were a diversionary tactic ? a grand spectacle." So writes Randy Lavello in an article on www.prisonplanet.com, one of the Internet sites of shortwave radio broadcaster and video producer Alex Jones.
"The World Trade Center was not destroyed by terrorists. It was a controlled demolition, an inside job!" says "Geronimo Jones" in an article on the Internet site letsroll911.org.
"The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished," he claims.
This is also a major theme of the vonKleist video, 911 In Plane Site, which, like a number of other video productions, attempts to liken the World Trade Center collapses to the 1995 attack on Oklahoma City's Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Some of these 9/11 productions even cite Gen. Partin as an authority to back their theories about the Twin Towers. General Partin exposed the evidence that the OKC blast included internal demolition charges, in addition to the Ryder truck bomb.
But Partin says the OKC and WTC incidents are completely different. The Murrah building was only nine stories tall and made of heavy steel-reinforced concrete. And, since the Ryder truck was outside the building, the damage it caused was primarily from the shock wave of pressurized air. The Twin Towers, on the other hand, were 110 stories tall, supported by steel columns, and the planes ? which served as missiles ? dumped large quantities of high-energy, hot fuel.
"The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense," Partin told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely impacted the support columns. When they could no longer support the upper stories and the top started coming down, the dynamic loading caused a very rapid collapse, or 'pancaking,' that would have very nearly approached free-fall rate. No demolition charges were needed to accomplish this."
Edward Peik, vice president of Alpine Environmental, Inc. of Chelmsford, Mass., agrees. Peik, a civil engineer, with 40 years of engineering experience in government and industry, grew up in New York City and is familiar with the structure of the Twin Towers. "I was at home watching all of this unfold on TV" on 9/11, he told The New American. "My first reaction was, 'My God, they've got to get everybody out of there right away, because it's going to come down fast!' I called my son Ron, who is also an engineer. We were both beside ourselves because we knew that they wouldn't stay up very long. As soon as fire hits steel, it loses strength fast and those towers had relatively lightweight steel beams spanning large distances. The building was supported by the steel outer walls. When the upper part of the building started coming down, the floors below could not support the weight crashing down on them. It was a vertical domino effect."
The opinions of Partin, Peik, and several other structural experts we consulted agree with the official consensus that the WTC towers collapsed as a result of the severe damage caused by the planes and the ensuing fires, not as a result of controlled demolition. General Partin says that he was contacted by vonKleist, who wanted him to support his position, which Partin was not willing to do.
A Profusion of Confusion and Delusion
The cover story of the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics is entitled, "Debunking 9/11 Lies: Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Hard Facts." The magazine assembled an impressive lineup of more than 300 experts to examine 16 claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. We think that Popular Mechanics did a credible job regarding the Pentagon attack and the alleged missile pods, but we have not investigated all of the 16 conspiracy theories they dismiss.
We certainly do not agree with Popular Mechanics' rabid editorializing against "conspiracy theory." In the space of a few paragraphs, the magazine's editors use the words "conspiracy," "conspiracy theory," and "conspiracy theorists" over and over again, to harshly ridicule the idea of conspiracy. However, the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" have made it easy for Popular Mechanics and others to relegate all talk of conspiracy to the loony category. The Popular Mechanics broadside proves our point that we must be careful with facts. It proves that the propagation of bad information about conspiracy can be, and will be, used to dismiss the notion of conspiracy in general.
"Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia," says Popular Mechanics. "Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media." Unfortunately, that is true. David vonKleist, for instance, features on his In Plane Site website a glowing endorsement from David Icke, the New Age guru who peddles fantastic conspiracy theories claiming that George W. Bush and other world leaders are actually reptilian shape-shifters from another galaxy. Some of the other 9/11 "authorities" are only slightly less lurid.
Recently, a colleague told me a tragic story about his sister-in-law, who had succeeded in getting her spouse to attend church occasionally with her (though not as a member of that church), only to have a prominent, visiting church leader spout off from the pulpit as gospel some of the discredited 9/11 conspiracy theories discussed above. The spouse was so incensed by the obvious falsity and ridiculousness of the cleric's statements that he vowed never to attend the church again, or to believe anything anyone connected with the church says. This is not the only example we could cite illustrating why it is so important to be sure of one's facts, as well as one's sources.
It is very difficult to reestablish believability once we have discredited ourselves by promoting information that turns out to be misinformation ? or even worse, intentional disinformation. But what is even more tragic is that every time we err in this regard we not only affect our own personal credibility, but the credibility of all of our colleagues in the freedom fight who have labored long and hard to overcome the smears and ridicule of our opponents.
Opinion polls repeatedly have shown that most Americans view the major media as biased and untrustworthy. Similarly, polls show that Americans tend to be suspicious of government. This is healthy skepticism, based on experience and common sense: we have learned firsthand that government officials and the media frequently lie. However, this same skepticism must also be applied to alternative information sources, whether they be talk radio, the Internet, newsletters, magazines, or word of mouth.
One of our first guidelines should be based on the old adage, "Consider the source." What is the track record of the source? Have they been reliable in the past? Do they have a well-earned reputation for truth and getting the facts straight? Or have they been known to sensationalize, censor, ignore, color, crop, or even falsify the facts to advance a hidden agenda?
This publication's agenda is expressed on the front cover of every issue: "That freedom shall not perish." And we recognize that freedom is not possible without a rigorous, continuous search for, and absolute fidelity to, the truth. We are committed to that purpose, and we think it is a worthy goal to which all Americans constantly should recommit themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distorting Similes
In "Getting the Facts Straight" (The New American August 23, 2004), Dennis Behreandt notes that although Thierry Meyssan "asserts that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not an airplane, he does not cite even a single witness claiming to have seen a missile. His only 'evidence' for the missile theory are descriptive similes used by witnesses who attested to seeing a plane but who compared the plane to a missile. For instance, he quotes USA Today reporter Joel Sucherman, who saw the plane as it raced toward its target. According to Sucherman, 'whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction. It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle ? almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked on its target and staying dead on course.'" Likewise, Meyssan played fast and loose with the testimony of other witnesses who spoke metaphorically. Behreandt logically concluded: "Either Meyssan does not understand the use of metaphor in English, or he is being disingenuous."
The same can be said for many of Meyssan's imitators, who repeat his misuse of witness testimony. The same problem has reappeared in the case of the World Trade Center collapse. Witness testimony referring to the way the buildings came down like a controlled demolition have been presented as statements of belief that the collapse was in fact a controlled demolition.
Source
QUOTE(frenat @ May 27 2006, 02:09 PM) [snapback]1207746[/snapback]
This looks impressive at first glance refuting point by point, but this website does not offer any link to support his claims. I'm not that impressed. I'm going to take a cloer look at it, while watching the film.
I still fully believe 9/11 was an inside job and at the least, they let it happen to their advantage.
Whatever the government want's us to believe, will be percieved reality.
The fact is that the human brain in decision making based on logic is only as good as the information that was put in. Like putting in the wrong values to an algebra equasion will result in the wrong answer. If you were conditioned to have faith in the system, which all American have (fact), you will give the system the benifit of the doubt. If you have learned your whole life of covert ops, government orchestrated terrorism, assisnations, conducted by our very own government you would have less faith in them to tell you the truth. My point is that Americans have been fed Bull$H!+ their whole lives, so how can they expect to come to the correct conclusion on their own. Their conclusion can only be as accurate as the information they have absorbed.
Most people don't know that multiple bombs were recovered from the Federal Building in Oklahoma. The truck bomb was the destraction. It was an inside job to, and so was the 1993 WtC bombing! If you only knew what we are up against you would take me serious.
QUOTE
Bush wrong to use pretext as excuse to invade Iraq
With the CIA out of the picture, the Joint Chiefs of Staff saw a grand opportunity for the military to launch an all-out war against Cuba. But they needed a pretext. The answer was Operation Northwoods: The Joint Chiefs would secretly launch a war of terror on the U.S. public — then blame it on Castro.
According to long-hidden top-secret documents I obtained from the National Archives, Operation Northwoods called for innocent people to be shot on U.S. streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk; for waves of terrorism in Washington, Miami and elsewhere. Using phony evidence to blame Castro, the Joint Chiefs would get their needed pretext.
Each member of the Joint Chiefs signed off on the plan. Then the chairman hand-carried it to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara — who promptly rejected it.
Two years later, U.S. generals were looking for another pretext to go to war, this time in Vietnam. In the summer of 1964, President Lyndon Johnson sought to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam's civil war. The decision was made to launch hit-and-run attacks against coastal North Vietnamese targets while a slow-moving destroyer, the USS Maddox, sat just off the shore in international waters. Knowing the North Vietnamese would associate the nearby warship with the attacks, the Pentagon likely hoped to provoke a retaliatory strike against the vessel — the perfect pretext for a declaration of war.
Indeed, North Vietnamese patrol boats fired torpedoes at the ship — but missed. The Maddox sailed safely away. McNamara ordered the largely useless coastal attacks to continue and sent the ship back to its original dangerous position.
Two nights after the first attack, the USS C. Turner Joy, escorting the Maddox, sent messages to Washington indicating the ship was under attack. It was later found that no such attack took place; the messages were blamed on nervous crewmembers and radar "ghost images." But it was the excuse Johnson and McNamara sought. They pressed Congress for a declaration of war. Captured by the moment's hysteria, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. An incident that never took place became the pretext for expanding a war that would claim the lives of more than 50,000 Americans as well as a million-plus Vietnamese.
"Many of the people who were associated with the war were looking for any excuse to initiate bombing," recalled George Ball, at the time a State undersecretary. "The sending of a destroyer up the Tonkin Gulf was primarily for provocation. ... There was a feeling that if the destroyer got into some trouble, that it would provide the provocation we needed."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-...n-bamford_x.htm
With the CIA out of the picture, the Joint Chiefs of Staff saw a grand opportunity for the military to launch an all-out war against Cuba. But they needed a pretext. The answer was Operation Northwoods: The Joint Chiefs would secretly launch a war of terror on the U.S. public — then blame it on Castro.
According to long-hidden top-secret documents I obtained from the National Archives, Operation Northwoods called for innocent people to be shot on U.S. streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk; for waves of terrorism in Washington, Miami and elsewhere. Using phony evidence to blame Castro, the Joint Chiefs would get their needed pretext.
Each member of the Joint Chiefs signed off on the plan. Then the chairman hand-carried it to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara — who promptly rejected it.
Two years later, U.S. generals were looking for another pretext to go to war, this time in Vietnam. In the summer of 1964, President Lyndon Johnson sought to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam's civil war. The decision was made to launch hit-and-run attacks against coastal North Vietnamese targets while a slow-moving destroyer, the USS Maddox, sat just off the shore in international waters. Knowing the North Vietnamese would associate the nearby warship with the attacks, the Pentagon likely hoped to provoke a retaliatory strike against the vessel — the perfect pretext for a declaration of war.
Indeed, North Vietnamese patrol boats fired torpedoes at the ship — but missed. The Maddox sailed safely away. McNamara ordered the largely useless coastal attacks to continue and sent the ship back to its original dangerous position.
Two nights after the first attack, the USS C. Turner Joy, escorting the Maddox, sent messages to Washington indicating the ship was under attack. It was later found that no such attack took place; the messages were blamed on nervous crewmembers and radar "ghost images." But it was the excuse Johnson and McNamara sought. They pressed Congress for a declaration of war. Captured by the moment's hysteria, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. An incident that never took place became the pretext for expanding a war that would claim the lives of more than 50,000 Americans as well as a million-plus Vietnamese.
"Many of the people who were associated with the war were looking for any excuse to initiate bombing," recalled George Ball, at the time a State undersecretary. "The sending of a destroyer up the Tonkin Gulf was primarily for provocation. ... There was a feeling that if the destroyer got into some trouble, that it would provide the provocation we needed."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-...n-bamford_x.htm
That's right, contrary to American popular opinion, the facts say the Gulf of Tonkin never actually happened the way we were told it did. The president lied the American people into Vietnam. People still argue with me about this. Vietnam was about the control of drugs in the golden triangle.
Back on topic, the Northwoods document shows how when the ends justify the means, American citizens are expendable pawns.
Here's what Northwoods purposed (excerpts from original document):
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the attached Memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to a request* of that office for brief but precise description of pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.
1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized.
2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.
a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) <