Pentagon Theories

[Unfit4Command]

A while ago I started writing a paper about various conspiracy theories dealing with the Pentagon, but suddenly quit working on it once I got really busy with school. But finally over thanksgiving break I was able to finish it.

It's a paper talking about almost every CT dealing with the Pentagon I could find online. The grammar probably sucks but it's just the first draft.

Anyways, if you want to read it, you'll have to download it from here:
http://storeandserve.com/download/610073/Pentagon_Theories.doc.html
Sorry for the lousy hosting service, this is just the best free one I could find.

I started writing this only for one Conspiracy Theorist in one of my classes at school to read at first, but decided to put it online as well once I discovered how many people believe something other than Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. There's probably some errors, so if you decide to read this, please tell me. Thanks. :)

[Kopji]

Hi and welcome.
Not to be presumptuous, but your link is probably too much trouble to access. Many of us have attention span issues with CT topics.

[Anti-sophist]

Pretty comprehensive. Lots of pictures. I deal with the no-planers alot on colboard, so this could be useful if it was online as html instead of in a doc.

Here are a few you've missed:
1) FDR-based conspiracy theories (altimeter, animation, specifically)
2) The tail section. You dealt with the windows, but not the tail. No-planers have switched to the lack of damage from the tail. No broken windows, etc.


This also reminded me of a theory I've never heard of before, courtesy of a very 'special' no planer on loosechange:

A missile or drone hit the pentagon, flight 93 landed in cleveland, and flight 77 crashed in shankesville. Hey, at least it's original

[Unfit4Command]

Pretty comprehensive. Lots of pictures. I deal with the no-planers alot on colboard, so this could be useful if it was online as html instead of in a doc.

Here are a few you've missed:
1) FDR-based conspiracy theories (altimeter, animation, specifically)
2) The tail section. You dealt with the windows, but not the tail. No-planers have switched to the lack of damage from the tail. No broken windows, etc.


This also reminded me of a theory I've never heard of before, courtesy of a very 'special' no planer on loosechange:

A missile or drone hit the pentagon, flight 93 landed in cleveland, and flight 77 crashed in shankesville. Hey, at least it's original

Flight 77 crashed at shanksville? Never heard that one before, I've heard the theory of Flight 11, 175, and 77 being landed, and all of the passengers of those planes were loaded onto Flight 93 which was later crashed.

Thanks for reminding me about the tail section theory, I could just add a little to the part about it in the non-broken windows area of the paper.

As for the FDR conspiracy theories, those are hard to address since there's really not much to say about them. Eye witnesses saw a plane, the Pentagon damage is consistant with an aircraft crash, that's all there is to it.

Yeah, I tried to add as many pictures as possible just because they seem to make things like this easier to read.

Since this is my first paper I've ever put online, I'm not really sure how to make it HTML, or know of a better place to host it. If anyone has any info on that, it would be greatly appreciated. :)

[Anti-sophist]

As for the FDR conspiracy theories, those are hard to address since there's really not much to say about them. Eye witnesses saw a plane, the Pentagon damage is consistant with an aircraft crash, that's all there is to it.
Yea, that's fine and dandy if you are rational. That's not the way they work. If they can find a _single_ anomaly, that means the neocons did it. It doesn't matter that their anomaly is in direct contradiction with a giant mountain of evidence and be explained by a much simpler theory (ie, their own ignorance, for one). If the altimeter on the FDR says 400 feet, that's an anomaly. It doesn't matter that 100s of people saw it, that the FDR was actually found in the pentagon, that hundreds of people picked up parts, that remains of passengers were found, etc, etc. Since the altimeter says 400 feet, the neocons did it.

I'm still working on my FDR paper though, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[Unfit4Command]

Yea, that's fine and dandy if you are rational. That's not the way they work. If they can find a _single_ anomaly, that means the neocons did it. It doesn't matter that their anomaly is in direct contradiction with a giant mountain of evidence and be explained by a much simpler theory (ie, their own ignorance, for one). If the altimeter on the FDR says 400 feet, that's an anomaly. It doesn't matter that 100s of people saw it, that the FDR was actually found in the pentagon, that hundreds of people picked up parts, that remains of passengers were found, etc, etc. Since the altimeter says 400 feet, the neocons did it.

I'm still working on my FDR paper though, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Do you plan on putting your FDR paper online? I would wouldn't mind reading that since I haven't done a major amount of research into the subject.

[Anti-sophist]

I will when it's finished. It's gonna be awhile since I need to get an authortative response to the altimeter issue.

Here's some of it:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65369
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047

[Unfit4Command]

I will when it's finished. It's gonna be awhile since I need to get an authortative response to the altimeter issue.

Here's some of it:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65369
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047

Looks good so far, a lot of useful info. Thanks a lot for showing me those threads.

[defaultdotxbe]

Since this is my first paper I've ever put online, I'm not really sure how to make it HTML, or know of a better place to host it. If anyone has any info on that, it would be greatly appreciated. :)
i can convert it to HTML and host it on my site if you dont mind, let me know if you want me to do this

[defaultdotxbe]

hope you dont mind but i did it anyway

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pentagon.htm


heres a PDF too, it came out quite a bit smaller than the .doc for anyone who wants to download it
http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/Pentagon_Theories.pdf

[Unfit4Command]

hope you dont mind but i did it anyway

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pentagon.htm


heres a PDF too, it came out quite a bit smaller than the .doc for anyone who wants to download it
http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/Pentagon_Theories.pdf

Oh, thanks a lot. I would have said yes anyways. :)

-edit-
hmmm...a lot of the pictures in the doc file just look like black squares to me. I wonder why it would do that...

[defaultdotxbe]

-edit-
hmmm...a lot of the pictures in the doc file just look like black squares to me. I wonder why it would do that...
probably just taking a while to download, i get that alot too, once it finishes loading everything they should be fine, they all look fine on my computer

[Bell]

Oh, thanks a lot. I would have said yes anyways. :)

-edit-
hmmm...a lot of the pictures in the doc file just look like black squares to me. I wonder why it would do that...

NWO really should equip their personal with fast, modern computers. Like Intel II for example.

[Unfit4Command]

probably just taking a while to download, i get that alot too, once it finishes loading everything they should be fine, they all look fine on my computer

Yeah it works now. The problem for me was just that the document wasn't loading right on firefox for some reason.

Thanks again.

[jaydeehess]

I understand that the position of the aircraft is determined by the FDR recording of VOR/DME data. Is this correct? If so then I know that DME is accurate to +/- 600 feet. Thus the position according to the DME could in fact be up to 600 feet farther from the Pentagon than the plane's true position.

VOR also has an inherent error.

These could expain why the FDR puts the plane to the left of the light pole damage and why the data stops so soon.

jdx completely ignores this as far as I know

[jaydeehess]

This also reminded me of a theory I've never heard of before, courtesy of a very 'special' no planer on loosechange:

A missile or drone hit the pentagon, flight 93 landed in cleveland, and flight 77 crashed in shankesville. Hey, at least it's original


He and Killtown have been getting into it over at LC since KT claims no plane crashed at Shankesville.

However the other CT (I believe I know who you refer to, why not mention his name?) did state to me that what he found out at Shankesville convinced him the Flight 93 landed at Cleveland.

This illustrates the logic processes involved. I asked him how anything he learned in Shankesville could prove that Flight 93 landed anywhere, much less at a specific location, Cleveland.

You see one report was given on 9/11 that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland and because of THAT this CT takes anything at all that he can twist into it not being Flight 93 that crashed in Shankesville as being evidence that it landed in Cleveland. True logic would dictate that proving that Flight 93 did not crash in Shankesville only proves that it is not at the crash scene and it cannot say anything about its actual whereabouts.

If it is the same person , he was at the crash site and is using an aerial photograph to estimate the size of the impact crater and trench by comparing it to the width of the nearby road. He did not however measure the roadway despite the fact that doing so would have taken 2 minutes witha tape measure. Instead he estimates it then uses that esitimation to estimate the size of the trench and crater and sees nothing wrong with piling on estimation errors in such fashion.

[Oliver]

I don´t know if this eyewitness-video is new but
i will add it to the conversation nevertheless...


FCVRkAkC8n4

This one fits also in here:

Ts9lSnghLgA

[chippy]

I hope that the people who claim that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland know that the only evidence suggesting that such a thing happened was an erroneous Associated Press report that was found to be incorrect minutes after it was posted. Somebody mistakenly didn't remove it from their news web page, even though he or she meant to remove it, and it remained on the web page for a year or so....the individual responsible for the mistake has publicly admitted to the mistake and said that the story was wrong and is not to be believed.

So yeah, the only good evidence is a faulty news story. Nice evidence.

[gtc]

I'm resurrecting this long dead thread to see if anyone has any new Conspiracy Theories to share about the Pentagon crash - either theories they find plausible or theories that they have simply heard.

I'm particularly hoping JihadJane will share her/his thoughts as discussion of the Pentagon is sending this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130632) about Gordan Brown off topic.

P.S. Does the document in the o/p still exist anywhere?

[JihadJane]

I'm resurrecting this long dead thread to see if anyone has any new Conspiracy Theories to share about the Pentagon crash - either theories they find plausible or theories that they have simply heard.

I'm particularly hoping JihadJane will share her/his thoughts as discussion of the Pentagon is sending this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130632) about Gordan Brown off topic.

P.S. Does the document in the o/p still exist anywhere?


I was asked (more than once!): "Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon, yes or no?"

I don't know.

[bynmdsue]

I was asked (more than once!): "Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon, yes or no?"

I don't know.

what does the evidence tell you?

[Bell]

what does the evidence tell you?

No no no!

That's what a new investigation has to proof! :rolleyes:

[jhunter1163]

No no no!

That's what a new investigation has to proof! :rolleyes:

This thread needs a lolcat saying "Investigatin... ur doin it wrong"

Definitely time for kitties or recipes.

[gtc]

I was asked (more than once!): "Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon, yes or no?"

I don't know.

Thank you.

I'd be interested to hear what your thoughts are on the topic. If you care to share.

[JihadJane]

what does the evidence tell you?

It's years since I've read much about Flight AA 77. I was more interested in where the Pentagon was hit than what hit it, why it was undefended and why the plane was not intercepted. At the time it seemed like the "what" controversy had been deliberately started by the lovely Mr Rumsfeld.

Witness reports and physical evidence appeared to indicate that a Boeing 757 had hit the building and that it was flight AA 77.

[gtc]

It's years since I've read much about Flight AA 77. I was more interested in where the Pentagon was hit than what hit it, why it was undefended and why the plane was not intercepted. At the time it seemed like the "what" controversy had been deliberately started by the lovely Mr Rumsfeld.

Witness reports and physical evidence appeared to indicate that a Boeing 757 had hit the building and that it was flight AA 77.

Thanks.

[defaultdotxbe]

P.S. Does the document in the o/p still exist anywhere?
yes, the link in the OP still works, although the mirror i had is gone

[X]

It's years since I've read much about Flight AA 77. I was more interested in where the Pentagon was hit than what hit it, why it was undefended and why the plane was not intercepted. At the time it seemed like the "what" controversy had been deliberately started by the lovely Mr Rumsfeld.


Well, a very simple answer (which may not be entirely correct) is that America screwed up.

They thought they were invulnerable to attack. They thought it couldn't happen. This was understandable (do you go around anticipating a jet slamming into your house/office/etc?) but, as it turned out, wrong.

Caught with their pants down, so to speak.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Well, a very simple answer (which may not be entirely correct) is that America screwed up.

They thought they were invulnerable to attack. They thought it couldn't happen. This was understandable (do you go around anticipating a jet slamming into your house/office/etc?) but, as it turned out, wrong.

Caught with their pants down, so to speak.

And then there's the fact that the air traffic controller went to tell her boss that aa77 was hijacked, but her boss wouldn't take the time to listen because he was busy discussing the aa11 hijacking.

[double_o]

And then there's the fact that the air traffic controller went to tell her boss that aa77 was hijacked, but her boss wouldn't take the time to listen because he was busy discussing the aa11 hijacking.

Wasn't that UA175?

[Darth Rotor]

I was asked (more than once!): "Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon, yes or no?"

I don't know.
Thank you, J Jane.

Between an Air Force Colonel who was their, and with whom I spoke in person, and two good personal friends in the Army who were in a meeting at the Pentagon when the plane hit, and spent the rest of their day dealing with it, let me set your mind at rest: a big airplane did indeed hit the Pentagon.

Even modest research will tell you that it was American Airlines flight 77, and you can even look up a list of passengers American Airlines eventually provided, if you wish to know.

Captain Burlingame was the pilot in command of American Airlines flight 77.

You could also do yourself the courtesy of looking up the name Hal Bidlack. An Air Force LT Col. He was there that day. He has stated such on the 9-11 CT forums. An eyewitness.

It's funny, you'll spend time looking up all manner of things reported to you second hand in the media about the Iraq war, or torture, or the plight of an Iraqi. You'll buy what you read. You won't believe what is reported about American Airlines 77 on September 11, 2001.

Call me skeptical, but I think you've got some problems with consistency.

"Why it was undefended"

America wasn't at war, or so America thought at the time, collectively. Normal peacetime ops. The attack was a surprise, from within US airspace, not from without, which was what NORAD and the interceptor architecture was built for. Surprise attacks are often successful due to, wait for it, surprise.

"Why the plane was not intercepted"

Simple. The transition from simple ATC flight following to finding non squawkers all over the US didn't happen in a nanosecond. In the time gap, the limited interceptor assets could not get sent to a valid target in time to preemptively shoot down any and every airliner determined to be a possible threat.

Air Command and Control isn't a video game, J Jane. America had not been in a posture of 24/7 fighters aloft for a very long time by September 2001. Hell, even when the Cold War was on, fighters weren't in the air 24/7 over the CONUS. Some alerts were met in the air, some with a 5 of 15 minute ready alert.

When you are guessing and playing catch up to a surprise attack, the clock keeps ticking. There is no time out. There is no save point. No reset.

DR

[JamesB]

It's years since I've read much about Flight AA 77. I was more interested in where the Pentagon was hit than what hit it...

Are you familiar with the Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy?

[JimBenArm]

Well, mine is more of a hypothesis than a theory. It goes like this:
"The Pentagon is a five-sided office building in the Washington, D.C. area, near the Reagan airport."
I need a $25,000 grant to continue my research on this.

[Dave Rogers]

Do you have any ideas about Brontosauruses?

Dave

[DavidJames]

Do you have any ideas about Brontosauruses?

DaveNo, but I've heard a theory ;)

[defaultdotxbe]

have you ever seen the pentagon and a brontosaurus in the same place at the same time? do the math!

[WildCat]

Witness reports and physical evidence appeared to indicate that a Boeing 757 had hit the building and that it was flight AA 77.
"Appeared", past tense? What do you think the evidence "appears" to support now?

[PhantomWolf]

And then there's the fact that the air traffic controller went to tell her boss that aa77 was hijacked, but her boss wouldn't take the time to listen because he was busy discussing the aa11 hijacking.

I know double o but I'm going to as well.

I know that when Boston got hold of NY to tell them about 11, they were told that they were busy dealing with a hijack (175) and Boston assumed they meant 11. I also know that when NY tried to get hold of the FAA Bosses in regard to 175, they were all in a meeting dealing with 11, but I haven't heard anything about 77 being an issue, especially since Indy wasn't involved with 11 and they all thought that 77 had crashed until they learned of 11 and 175 about 30 minutes later. Can you referance a source, or is it just confusion over flight numbers?

[JihadJane]

Surprise attacks are often successful due to, wait for it, surprise.



The 911 attacks weren't surprise, unexpected attacks, despite what people such as Kindasleezy Rice might have claimed at the time.

"Appeared", past tense? What do you think the evidence "appears" to support now?

It's in the past tense because I stopped following Pentagon stuff because the whole controversy appeared to be a deliberately encouraged hoax, a red herring set up to distract and discredit 911 skeptics.

[Bell]

The 911 attacks weren't surprise, unexpected attacks, despite what people such as Kindasleezy Rice might have claimed at the time.

Indeed, Al Qaeda knew what was coming.

[WildCat]

It's in the past tense because I stopped following Pentagon stuff because the whole controversy appeared to be a deliberately encouraged hoax, a red herring set up to distract and discredit 911 skeptics.
Oh, do elaborate...

[stateofgrace]

The 911 attacks weren't surprise, unexpected attacks, despite what people such as Kindasleezy Rice might have claimed at the time.
.

So the many warnings of an Al Qaeda attack were real?

The declaration of war, by Al Qaeda, on the US was real?

PS, this is derailing this thread, start a new one if you wish.

[JamesB]

It's in the past tense because I stopped following Pentagon stuff because the whole controversy appeared to be a deliberately encouraged hoax, a red herring set up to distract and discredit 911 skeptics.

Or, employing Occam's razor, it is also possible just that the "911 skeptics" are made up largely of paranoid fantasists prone to jumping to wild conclusions not based in fact, who descredit themselves as a result of this.

I am just throwing this out there for your consideration...

[JihadJane]

Or, employing Occam's razor, it is also possible just that the "911 skeptics" are made up largely of paranoid fantasists prone to jumping to wild conclusions not based in fact, who descredit themselves as a result of this.

I am just throwing this out there for your consideration...

Most people are remarkably easy to manipulate, not just fantasy, gossip-column stereotypes.

[stateofgrace]

Most people are remarkably easy to manipulate, not just fantasy, gossip-column stereotypes.

Unlike you who said

The 911 attacks weren't surprise, unexpected attacks, despite what people such as Kindasleezy Rice might have claimed at the time.


So................

So the many warnings of an Al Qaeda attack were real?


The declaration of war, by Al Qaeda, on the US was real?

PS, this is derailing this thread, start a new one if you wish.



Were the warnings real? Or part of the same fantasy?

[UNLoVedRebel]

I know double o but I'm going to as well.

I know that when Boston got hold of NY to tell them about 11, they were told that they were busy dealing with a hijack (175) and Boston assumed they meant 11. I also know that when NY tried to get hold of the FAA Bosses in regard to 175, they were all in a meeting dealing with 11, but I haven't heard anything about 77 being an issue, especially since Indy wasn't involved with 11 and they all thought that 77 had crashed until they learned of 11 and 175 about 30 minutes later. Can you referance a source, or is it just confusion over flight numbers?

I was remembering it from the movie based on the 9/11 commission report, the one hosted by Kevin Costner. I don't own the movie and I was going solely by memory. Maybe someone here owns it and can help me out.

ETA: On Native Soil. That's the movie. I'm not a very good googler.

[JamesB]

Most people are remarkably easy to manipulate, not just fantasy, gossip-column stereotypes.

Manipulation implies some plan by a nefarious third party, there is also the fact that most people, and this does include the fantasists, are just stupid in their own right.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
-Hanlon's Razor-

[UNLoVedRebel]

Most people are remarkably easy to manipulate, not just fantasy, gossip-column stereotypes.

Except for the research that shows fantasy, gossip-column stereotypes are the easiest to manipulate.

www.aejmc.org/_scholarship/research_use/jmcq/07sum/stempel_text.pdf

[A W Smith]

It's years since I've read much about Flight AA 77. I was more interested in where the Pentagon was hit than what hit it, why it was undefended and why the plane was not intercepted. At the time it seemed like the "what" controversy had been deliberately started by the lovely Mr Rumsfeld.

Witness reports and physical evidence appeared to indicate that a Boeing 757 had hit the building and that it was flight AA 77.

Why would we need to defend it jane? has it got gold in it like fort knox? perhaps a whole ****load of munitions? some radioactive material? does it have biological weapons or nerve gas?

NO!! it has NONE of tha above. its an EFFIN OFFICE BUILDING!! The largest office building in the world. Care to target a specific individual like Rummy? or Cheney? Good luck with that!! Find out what wing their in. or even ring. they may be or may not even be there. Look what percentage of the frickin building was totaled when a jumbo jet crashed into it at 500mph jane. less that 20%!! Truthers need to get their heads out of their ***.

[dtugg]

It's in the past tense because I stopped following Pentagon stuff because the whole controversy appeared to be a deliberately encouraged hoax, a red herring set up to distract and discredit 911 skeptics.

Yep, Thierry Meyssan, Dylan Avery, whoever made In Plane Site, Ranquis, Cap'n Bob, et al, are all working for Dick Cheney or somehow, unbeknownst to them, encouraged by him in order to discredit "real truthers". That is so much more likely than the obvious answer that these people are complete idiots. Disinfo shills! You've figured it all out! Congratulations!

[Corsair 115]

Caught with their pants down, so to speak.


And it's not as if Sept. 11, 2001, was the first time that happened. Dec. 7, 1941, would be another example.


Most people are remarkably easy to manipulate, not just fantasy, gossip-column stereotypes.


As Bart Simpson once observed, the ironing is delicious.

[chillzero]

Off topic posts moved. Please post on topic.

[CORed]

I've heard the theory of Flight 11, 175, and 77 being landed, and all of the passengers of those planes were loaded onto Flight 93 which was later crashed.

That must have been one crowded plane.