Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


New 9/11 Footage to Show Pentagon Plane Hit
May 16, 2006 10:08 AM   Subscribe

It's going to be as fake as the moon landings! The BBC reports that the US defense department is to release a video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 11 September. We've touched on this before, but will this close the conspiracy case for Flight 77?
posted by Meccabilly (242 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
oh wow i'm eager to see it.
i've always wondered what could possibly be the arguments in hiding this.
(besides the obvious conspiracy reasons)
posted by zenzizi at 10:12 AM on May 16, 2006


...will this close the conspiracy case for Flight 77?

No, because people ♥ conspiracy theories...
posted by SweetJesus at 10:13 AM on May 16, 2006


Well the boys in the AV dept have had 5 years near enough to work on it.... ;)
posted by Meccabilly at 10:14 AM on May 16, 2006


I ♣ people who ♥ conspiracy theories.
posted by eriko at 10:16 AM on May 16, 2006


There are those who think a couple of steps ahead.
posted by leapingsheep at 10:16 AM on May 16, 2006


I would love to see this particular conspiracy theory quieted. Like there aren't enough rotten, evil, corrupt true things to investigate.
posted by tula at 10:17 AM on May 16, 2006


So are we supposed to discuss the impending release? Wouldn't the actual video be a better post?
posted by smackfu at 10:18 AM on May 16, 2006


I tried to keep radio silence untill the mothership had released the video, but the voices told me not to.
posted by Meccabilly at 10:19 AM on May 16, 2006





hehe hehe FIRE!!
posted by bukharin at 10:22 AM on May 16, 2006


They probably hired these guys.
posted by NationalKato at 10:23 AM on May 16, 2006


wow. you know, it's pretty amazing to think how quickly the pentagon got fixed.
posted by Busithoth at 10:26 AM on May 16, 2006


CNN reports.
posted by NationalKato at 10:28 AM on May 16, 2006


Looks like it might be a bit before we see the video itself. The Judicial Watch website, which is posting the video, seems to be down at the moment. No doubt a DoD-orchestrated DOS attack.
posted by slogger at 10:30 AM on May 16, 2006


Or someone flew a jet airliner into their server.
posted by NationalKato at 10:32 AM on May 16, 2006


Judicial Watch filed the freedom of information request in 2004, but the Pentagon refused to release the video because it was part of the investigation involving al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui, the group said.

Oh really, enhancement technology will identify that one beige pixel as Zacarias Moussaoui?
posted by rolypolyman at 10:33 AM on May 16, 2006


Like there aren't enough rotten, evil, corrupt true things to investigate.

Oh there may be many and it's likely that they are in plain sight and legalized. Yet replace "government" with "terrorist" or "whatever" , step the blame-game aside for a while and a conspiracy theory can become a nice collection of facts ; indeed it didn't occour to me that the debries of the plane could be under the collapsed part of Pentagon, hidden under the rubble. It's interesting to see how one superficial analysis can lead to wrong conclusions, expecially if one wants to prove an hypothesis by omitting relevant , but not immediately evident facts.

The question remains, why were the frame of the alleged remaining video NOT immediately showed ? Poisoning the well is a plausible explanation, as some people think that if one person was wrong in advancing an hypothesis, therefore he is unlikely to be right or is wrong when another one is advanced. Which is false.
posted by elpapacito at 10:34 AM on May 16, 2006


jesus what have they been rendering it on, a 486?!
posted by keswick at 10:37 AM on May 16, 2006


NationalKato: "Or someone flew a jet airliner into their server."

No, a missle!
posted by Plutor at 10:37 AM on May 16, 2006


Wasn't the lynchpin of the flight 77 theory that there was no airplane debris?

Don't forget that this guy was on Flight 77. He looks suspicious, but I can't put my finger on why....

posted by illovich at 10:37 AM on May 16, 2006


indeed it didn't occour to me that the debries of the plane could be under the collapsed part of Pentagon, hidden under the rubble

Stop letting crazy people on the internet lie to you...
posted by SweetJesus at 10:41 AM on May 16, 2006



It’s just one of those things. I don’t think the much of the assertions around flight 77 hold water, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions. F’rinstance: why hold the footage for so long?
If it’s a matter of security (e.g. you don’t want to give ‘the enemy’ a damage assessment) then why release it?

Conspiracy or fuckup, transparency would alleviate a lot of grief on this issue.

I liken it to the Kennedy assassination and losing Kennedy’s brain.
Fed: “Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy.”
Mr. A: “Ok. What happened to Kennedy’s brain”
Fed: “It was a lone gunman.”
Mr. A:“Ok. Fine. Where’s the brain though?”
Fed: “Look wacko, it was Oswald. There was no conspiracy.”
Mr. A: “I’m fine with that. But how did you lose the brain?”
Fed: “It wasn’t Martians or anything...there was no...”
Mr. A:“That’s not in dispute. What I’d like to know is what happened to the central piece of forensic evidence in one of the highest profile murder cases in United States history?”
Fed: “Mrphgkgkakfg.”
Mr. A: “I’m sorry?”
Fed: “Bluhh.”
Mr. A:“Uh, I’m not catching that.”
Fed: “Muh. Brain. Buh. Buh. Buh.”
Mr. A: “Are you even looking for it?”
Fed: “Blooowwosfdhhfgarhgwr!!! Oswald.”
*gesticulates*
Mr.A:“What the hell is going on!?”

General Public: “All right conspiracy nut, move along.”

Same dance here. Ask what’s going on with the tapes or point to any particular that doesn’t jibe and you are immediately lumped in with the “it was a missle” crowd or some other such agitprop nonsense.

Some people love conspiracy theories. But most people just want a straight answer and justice done.

Say, what happened to all that money from the S&L scandal?
“Brrghesrrnennded!!!”

Uh huh. Neil Bush, something something?

He’s in jail now, right?
posted by Smedleyman at 10:48 AM on May 16, 2006 [2 favorites]


Nothing can change the mind of a conspiracy theorist. It's like showing fossil evidence to a creationist. "God just put that in the ground to test our faith" There are still people who think the moon landings were faked. It's undignified and wasteful to treat conspiracists as people with serious questions that deserve to be addressed. They're nutbars and will remain nutbars till the day they die.
posted by slatternus at 10:49 AM on May 16, 2006


Stop letting crazy people on the internet lie to you...

Said a guy called SweetJesus.

Ooooook. It's aaaaallright ! You're simply beautiful in every single waaaay *sings**smiles* *walks away slowly, veeeery slowly*
posted by elpapacito at 10:49 AM on May 16, 2006


“Brrghesrrnennded!!!” EXACTLY ! But you should evaluate this other ... BUH
posted by elpapacito at 10:50 AM on May 16, 2006


Looks like it might be a bit before we see the video itself. The Judicial Watch website, which is posting the video, seems to be down at the moment. No doubt a DoD-orchestrated DOS attack.

No, you don't get it. See, Judicial Watch has been demanding information related to the Plame and NSA scandals and posting it on their website. The release of the video is a DoD-orchestrated DOS attack!
posted by dhartung at 10:51 AM on May 16, 2006


From the CNN link:
The video requested by Judicial Watch was taken from security cameras at the Pentagon, the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, and Virginia Department of Transportation traffic cameras.

Jill Farrell, Judicial Watch's director of media affairs, told CNN she would not know which video will be released "until we see it."
Surely, if there is no basis for withholding the video, it must all be released? I guess expecting the media to make sense it a little naive of me..
posted by Chuckles at 10:53 AM on May 16, 2006


Said a guy called SweetJesus.

Ooooook. It's aaaaallright ! You're simply beautiful in every single waaaay *sings**smiles* *walks away slowly, veeeery slowly*


And thus irony was codified...
posted by SweetJesus at 10:54 AM on May 16, 2006


Without the actual video being available this post is simply a collection field for static. Shame on you Meccabilly. I would have liked to see this covered here, but by the time the actual content is available for study it will be drowned among the incessant rehashing of arguments past.
posted by prostyle at 10:55 AM on May 16, 2006


i'm more excited to see this than x3!!! really...



ok... honestly, why can't the government let our lost rest in peace. this is ridiculous. if its real (and i'm sure it is) then its a dishonor to those who died to have held it for so long without showing it with the rest of the footage that day. i think i'll protest by pissing on their graves in Arlington when they kick the bucket.
posted by Doorstop at 10:56 AM on May 16, 2006


There's a substantially less-crazy-than-average new 9-11 conspiracy movie out:

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime

I post it here coz it had some pentagon-related whatnot towards the end, iirc.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:59 AM on May 16, 2006


Surely, if there is no basis for withholding the video, it must all be released?

They want assurances some internet guy isn't going to add Yakety Sax to any of the footage and put it up on YouTube. It's taking awhile to explain why that's inevitable, though a step-by-step examination of John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is helping a little.

And Kennedy's brain was in WTC 7.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:01 AM on May 16, 2006


Nothing can change the mind of a conspiracy theorist.

Exactly, totalizing conspiracy theories are not falsifiable, and therefore--like intelligent design/creationism--epistemologically unproveable.

While I'm really interested in seeing this video footage, it will do nothing but add fuel to the fire of the conspiracy theorists. Consider that there's already a cottage industry
dedicated to "proving" how the Zapruder film was faked, and you can see where conspiracist analysis of the Pentagon 9/11 footage will be headed.

I don’t think the much of the assertions around flight 77 hold water, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions.


I agree. A bunch of armchair structural engineers on the Internet are not going to produce any evidence that will be compelling enough to convince Joe Ponykeg that something is rotten in the state of America. Better to start with the easy questions about 9/11 that the government still hasn't answered satisfatorily; why was our quadzillion dollar air defense shield totally impotent that morning, and why did building #7 fall?

Flight 77 conspiracy theories are, to borrow a phrase Alex Jones used to describe David Icke (I know, I know, pretty loaded reference given the context), "the turds in the punchbowl" for anyone who might harbor any doubts about the orthodox accounts of 9/11.
posted by Lee Marvin at 11:07 AM on May 16, 2006


Judicial Watch coralized.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:16 AM on May 16, 2006


Joe Ponykeg

I picture a lone man with Chuck Norris' rippled physique, Richard Dean Anderson's face, and Billy Ray Cyrus' hair fighting, fighting for what he believes in. In one arm he carries the lid to a Weber grill. In the other, America's Hopes and Dreams wrapped in an iron fist.

He walks the countryside, always alone yet always with us. His cool blue eyes choked with road dust and bitter tears. He turns to face me and though the sunrise it at his back I can still see them glisten, a lone tear slowly arcing like a comet over his worn cheek.

"Friend," he says, his voice gravelled from cigarettes and a shouting match he just won with a petulant Expos fan, "Remember what you learned here today."

And I will. I fall to my knees, ignoring the stains of motoroil and blood that follow in his wake. I don't care about my stain resistant khakis anymore. How can I? Joe Ponykeg has brought me past all that. He's brought me back.

Back to America.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:22 AM on May 16, 2006 [2 favorites]


United 93 was shot down.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 11:32 AM on May 16, 2006


BY NORTH KOREA.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:33 AM on May 16, 2006


With a slingshot
posted by Skorgu at 11:33 AM on May 16, 2006


While I'm really interested in seeing this video footage, it will do nothing but add fuel to the fire of the conspiracy theorists. Consider that there's already a cottage industry
dedicated to "proving" how the Zapruder film was faked, and you can see where conspiracist analysis of the Pentagon 9/11 footage will be headed.


Somebody isn't paying attention to The News.
posted by kenlayne at 11:33 AM on May 16, 2006


the wait is killing me now hehe.
judicialwatch.org is still completely saturated.
no news elsewhere it seems..
posted by zenzizi at 11:35 AM on May 16, 2006



Somebody isn't paying attention to The News.

From that link:

"Among the new concerns to be documented in a presentation near the White House Monday: possible hanky-panky with the famous Zapruder film--maybe to disguise another shooter--and suggestions that a second brain was used in an autopsy coverup."

I stopped reading the article at 'Second Brain'.
posted by Meccabilly at 11:39 AM on May 16, 2006


Mr. A: “Seriously though, is the investigation...”
Fed: “Buh Buh Bughadty Buh second brain Buh.”
Mr. A: “...what?”
Fed: “Buh Buh Grrzzgh!’
Mr.A: “What’s going on?”
Fed: “BUH BUH BUHHH!! swift boat BUHHHHH!!!”
Mr.A: “Can anyone hear me? I just want a straight answer. Hello?”
Fed: BUH BUHHHHH!!!!!”
posted by Smedleyman at 11:48 AM on May 16, 2006


Better to start with the easy questions about 9/11 that the government still hasn't answered satisfatorily; why was our quadzillion dollar air defense shield totally impotent that morning, and why did building #7 fall?

1: Poor communcation between the FAA trying to account for hundreds of civilian aircraft and the USAF reluctant to intercept the wrong target seems to be sufficient.

2: Perhaps the 3 storey hole in the south face had something to do with it? #7 is primarily a mystery if you accept the myth that #1 and #2 fell "in their own footprint" (except for the bits that did major structural damage across a six lane highway.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:51 AM on May 16, 2006


Eye on the TV
'cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor
It happens to be

Like:
"Killed by the husband"
"Drowned by the ocean"
"Shot by his own son"
"She used the poison in his tea
[and / he] kissed [him / her] goodbye"
That's my kind of story
It's no fun til someone dies

Don't look me at like
I am a monster
Frown out your one face
But with the other
Stare like a junkie
Into the TV
Stare like a zombie
While the mother, holds her child
Watches him die
Hands to the sky cryin,
"Why, oh why?"

Cause I need to watch things die
From a distance
Vicariously, I
Live while the whole world dies
You all need it too - don't lie.

the rest is here... and it's so true...


The video is released now, for those of you waiting with bated breath to see it.
posted by twiggy at 11:52 AM on May 16, 2006


I guess if you were alive during the Kennedy Assassination, it would be bothersome to feel like you never knew what happened. A lot of what happened was classified immediately, from what I understand.

The most plausible explanation I've heard is that the assassination was actually done by Castro (maybe through Oswald) to get back at Kennedy for trying to assassinate him (which seems reasonable, IMO).

The fact that the guy who was charged with killing Kennedy was killed immediately afterwards probably raises the biggest questions.
posted by delmoi at 11:53 AM on May 16, 2006


Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
posted by Meccabilly at 11:55 AM on May 16, 2006


why was our quadzillion dollar air defense shield totally impotent that morning

Probably because... we didn't have one? I do remember after 9/11 condi rice going out campaigning to put in a ballistic missile shield, something the neo-cons have been jonesing for since the 1980s, and of course she was laughed out of congress.

As for any other kind of 'air defense sheild' we simply didn't have one. There were something like 3 or 4 fighter jets on duty ready to go inside the US at the time.
posted by delmoi at 11:56 AM on May 16, 2006


Fake as the moon landings
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:08 PM on May 16, 2006


The BBC reports that the US defense department is to release a video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon

I'm not gonna believe this until Jason Leopold corroborates it.

And then I'm gonna make an FPP about it. And then another, and another, until the damn thing's released, and then I'm gonna post a double to it.

WTF is up with the NotQuiteButAlmostBreakingNewsFilter lately?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:08 PM on May 16, 2006


The video is released now
WHERE?! :D judicialnews.org is still knocked out.
posted by zenzizi at 12:09 PM on May 16, 2006


I hate the 9/11 conspiracy theories with a passion. Mainly because they continue the trend of ignoring science -- because scientists and engineers are evil -- and instead going with outlandish theories. There's a popular mechanics article that refutes all the conspiracy theories out there. It's excellent, of course when you present this to a pro-conspiracy person they ignore it saying that all the experts were clearly paid off.

There's actually a candidate running in the Irish General Election wanting the US Government to come clean, he also believes Bird Flu doesn't exist.
posted by daveirl at 12:09 PM on May 16, 2006


huh. judicialwatch.org that is.
posted by zenzizi at 12:10 PM on May 16, 2006


There's a popular mechanics article that refutes all the conspiracy theories out there.

I doubt it refutes all of them. There are a lot.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:11 PM on May 16, 2006


It's frustrating that all the major news sites report the tape as released, but none actually have it available to view.
posted by blastrid at 12:15 PM on May 16, 2006


The Popular Mechanics article.
posted by Mr_Zero at 12:16 PM on May 16, 2006


This thread would not be complete without a link to the #2 video on video.google.com: 9/11 Loose Change 2nd Edition ... a conspiracy theory documentary...

It's actually well done enough that some of it makes you go "um.. wait.. that IS kind of weird"... but I still take it with a ginormous grain of ultra powerful salt because I'm so generally put off by anything that can be pegged as "conspiracy theory"...
posted by twiggy at 12:21 PM on May 16, 2006


It's frustrating that all the major news sites report the tape as released, but none actually have it available to view.


People of the press need to be told what to say. They type those statements down and then announce those statements. I understand this can take some time.
posted by Mr_Zero at 12:21 PM on May 16, 2006


Because thay had Larry McDonald on board
posted by Megafly at 12:24 PM on May 16, 2006


CNN's front page has a single frame from the video. That's all I've been able to find.
posted by chuma at 12:25 PM on May 16, 2006


KirkJobSluder:
Exactly.

and kudos to robocop is bleeding.

I don't think my first post accurately reflected my thoughts on 9/11 conspiracies, so I'll try to (briefly) clarify.

While I don't doubt that our government is capable of some pretty awful stuff, I don't think that 9/11 was an "inside job". If anything, it's because not enough people in government were doing their jobs that 9/11 occurred.

What I do find troubling about the federal government's role in 9/11 is the lack of candor and transparency offered by the fed in helping to explain to Americans how 9/11 occurred. If we're really living in a "post-9/11 world" (as Bush couldn't stop reminding us in the months after the attack) then job #1 is getting everyone on the same page (particularly within the government) about how the first attacks occurred so the proper changes can be implemented to prevent a second attack (I know the Dept. of Homeland Security was supposed to be in the spirit of what I'm suggesting, but it's become generally regarded as a complete mess). I take the President's presence on national television last night, admitting that our nation's southern border is--five years after 9/11--nearly wholly unsecured, to be a pretty clear sign that the phrase "post-9/11 world" is code for "superficial changes that will make you feel more secure while all of the fundamental infrastructural shortcomings from the 'pre-9/11 world' continue to exist".

That's why the 9/11 Commission was so frustrating; in hindsight, it seemed designed from the outset to obfuscate 9/11-related failures within the federal goverment and private industry. I realize that the government's never very eager to publicly scrutinize itself, but I think that the profundity of 9/11 deserved an all-too-rare moment of honest self-criticism and introspection. Instead, all we got was country music-fueled jingoism and one long pep rally for war.
posted by Lee Marvin at 12:26 PM on May 16, 2006


BBC
has the video
posted by Meccabilly at 12:28 PM on May 16, 2006


“As for any other kind of 'air defense sheild' we simply didn't have one.”

Good thing the Soviets never found out that SAC NORAD was all a sham.

And even if it wasn’t, before 9/11 there was nothing in place to cover something like this.

My ass. Either it was a colossal screw up in which case the question about why we’re shoveling all this money into it is valid, or something else happened.

But all we get is: “The events of September 11, 2001 provide evidence of NORAD’s continued relevance to North American security. By quickly adapting its traditionally outward-looking focus to meet new threats posed by terrorists to the interior of the continent, NORAD provides a potent military response capability to civil authorities to counter domestic airspace threats.”

That’s an answer? Bullshit.
Continued relevance? It’s like a fire insurance policy that doesn’t pay off when your house burns down.

Oh, but that’s a conspiracy theory. I mean if the insurance company didn’t pay you they must have a good reason. You should just keep paying them. Because it’s crazy not to have fire insurance.

Miligram scientist voice: “Please continue.”
Mr. A: “So does that mean if the Soviets attacked us like this we wouldn’t have known about it?”
MSV: “I am in control. Please continue.”
Mr. A: “Where is my tax money for air defense going then? Has it been fixed? What the hell happened on 9/11 then?”
MSV: “Please continue.”
posted by Smedleyman at 12:30 PM on May 16, 2006


ok i've watched it on CNN.
i see a tiny bit of a plane(?) on the right and next frame BOOM
but absolutely nothing convincing. nothing at all.
if there is nothing to see /why/ would have it been hidden?
posted by zenzizi at 12:33 PM on May 16, 2006


I do remember after 9/11 condi rice going out campaigning to put in a ballistic missile shield.

Nope, the missile defense shield (which apparently consists of a giant baseball mitt) and picking fights with China were the Bush administration's defense priorities in 2001 before September 11.

you know, it's pretty amazing to think how quickly the pentagon got fixed

The first people moved back into their offices less than a year after the attack. It was built quickly, too. They broke ground on September 11, 1941, exactly 60 years before the 2001 attack, and finished about 16 months later.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:34 PM on May 16, 2006


im very eager to see this video... lots of stuff that doesn't add up about the pentagon.

this arab hijacker who could barely fly performs a hair pin turn (which should have stalled a plane that size) in order to hit the sea facing side (re-enforced to deal with naval guns) of the pentagon which happened to be empty due to renovations? Sure was kind of him.

also, this movie (conspiracy theory!! oh noes) has some interesting analysis of the wreckage. FF to 18:30 and then to 20:37.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 12:34 PM on May 16, 2006


Anyone who liked that Loose Change movie should watch the one I linked up-thread. It is a lot less all-over-the-place.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:37 PM on May 16, 2006


People bitwise OR conspiracy theories?

stupid Firefox...
posted by staggernation at 12:41 PM on May 16, 2006


Okay I just watched it and I have a few questions regarding where the fuck is the plane?
posted by jon_kill at 12:45 PM on May 16, 2006


There appears to be a missile, though...
posted by ZippityBuddha at 12:49 PM on May 16, 2006


Wow, how underwhelming. Not sure that really qualifies as "video." The plane is visible in exactly one frame.
posted by schoolgirl report at 12:51 PM on May 16, 2006


If that BBC cut is indeed what they released, it is the exact same footage as before. From the exact same location and security camera. With the exact same small, white blur of an indefinable object in a single frame followed by an explosion in the next. If they really wanted to nuke these conspiracy theories off the face of the earth, they could have done it a long time ago: The FBI confiscated a video from a nearby gas station attended by Jose Velasquez, and from the Sheraton Hotel roof. These videos have not yet been released.

Was United 93 not doing well enough in the theaters? This is pathetic.
posted by prostyle at 12:52 PM on May 16, 2006


There's a popular mechanics article that refutes all the conspiracy theories

It argues against them, it doesn't refute them. It goes something like this:
"Moonbat whacko insane people say that the hole in the pentagon was not big enough to be caused by a plane. Well, it was, because we say so. Psychotic freedom hating liberal fuckwads who sin against appointed-by-God Bush go on to say that kerosene won't melt skyscrapers. Well, this kerosene did, and anyway it just had to soften these weak spots we found in a drawing. Which it could do. Because we say so. Terrorist sympathizers who hate America, God and you in that order claim that there were no bodies at the scene. Well, a guy says there were, and he speaks truth and the lack of any other evidence lies, because we say so. Ideologically unsound liberal riff-raff who deserve only painful death say that there's no sign of a plane at the scene. Well, here's a picture of a small crumpled-looking something, which is sufficient evidence of a plane. Because we say so. And the same guy who says he saw bodies also says he saw some plane things."
Now that's refute-o-riffic!
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:53 PM on May 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


It looks like Kennedy's brain hits the Pentagon before exploding into a fireball.
posted by mazola at 12:57 PM on May 16, 2006


No... emperor... clothes... has.

I have a nagging suspicion that this doesn't count as "proof" of anything. If this is the best proof they have, then it bolsters the conspiracy theorists arguments, doesn't it? I can't wait to see how freep melts down.
posted by jon_kill at 12:59 PM on May 16, 2006


People think video and think 30 frames per second but I think these are 2 fps security cameras so they aren't really video.
posted by smackfu at 12:59 PM on May 16, 2006


Terrible video quality, it looks as much like a single white line crashing into the building as it does a plane (I'm now convinced that the cabal of Higinbotham, Baer, Alcorn, and Bushnell are to blame for 9/11). Even more amusingly/damningly the datestamp at one point clearly reads Sep. 12, 2001 at 17:37:22, which seems like more than a simple Timezone-was-set-wrong-fuckup, but this is the government we're talking about...
posted by togdon at 1:00 PM on May 16, 2006


this is the same video we've all seen before... it's just the "director's cut," with additional ending footage of the building burning.
posted by dopamine at 1:02 PM on May 16, 2006


Good thing the Soviets never found out that SAC NORAD was all a sham.

What? NORAD was designed to keep a look out for long-range high-altitude bombers over-the-horizion, not hijacked aircraft. They have a plan for it in the event it happens, but it's not what it was designed for.

What exactly are you looking for NORAD to do? Launch magic missiles out of Cheyenne Mountain? They're just a giant command and control center.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:02 PM on May 16, 2006


People think video and think 30 frames per second but I think these are 2 fps security cameras..
yes. but why the hell keep them hidden all this time then?
posted by zenzizi at 1:03 PM on May 16, 2006


Prostyle: Yeah, I'm confused at this too. This is the same footage they showed shortly after 9/11, but nothing new. Where is the new footage? Is there any new footage?
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:05 PM on May 16, 2006


What a load of dissapointment.
posted by IronLizard at 1:05 PM on May 16, 2006


They're just a giant command and control center.
A very blind one, apparently. Their SOP is to scramble at the slightest hint of a hi-jacking. This goes so far as to include 'unruly passengers' or deviated flight paths.
posted by IronLizard at 1:07 PM on May 16, 2006


How is this different from the previously available footage?

As for the question about the lack of plane debris, I think it's been said about four million times that the impact and heat from the crash would essentially melt a plane. I didn't see any wings lying around the World Trade Center site, either.
posted by swerve at 1:08 PM on May 16, 2006


How is this different from the previously available footage?

The previous one wasn't video, it was frames from a video. I think the gov't gets off on that kind of distinction.
posted by smackfu at 1:12 PM on May 16, 2006


So, we're agreed. It was a missile.
posted by jon_kill at 1:12 PM on May 16, 2006


Does anyone have access to a downloadable version? Or somewhere I can easily single out frame by frame.
posted by Shutter at 1:18 PM on May 16, 2006


As far as I can tell, that's not new at all. Unless you count the guy wandering into the frame well after the Pentagon is burning.
posted by Shutter at 1:20 PM on May 16, 2006


HOW can there even be a conspiracy regarding this event (Pentagon being struck)?

Isn't there a FLIGHT MANIFEST and radar tracking of the flight?

Like, what about the people on the fucking plane? If it DIDN'T crash into the Pentagon, where are we supposed to think the plane went? Did it just disappear? Did someone cover up the "hidden" crash site?

WTF?
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 1:20 PM on May 16, 2006


Hold on, everybody. Mr Curmudgeon has written some words in all upper case, so we have to stop and read his post with extra attention and sensitivity. Also, they make his opinion more right, so take that into consideration as well.
posted by jon_kill at 1:24 PM on May 16, 2006


We are talking about conspiracy theories here, right? ALL CAPS is pretty standard fare, dude.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 1:25 PM on May 16, 2006


Like, what about the people on the fucking plane?

They're in Area 51, with Kennedy's third brain and that carburetor that makes cars get 100 MPG.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:25 PM on May 16, 2006


hey jon_killl, mr.curmudgeon was obviously quoting SCIENCE!
posted by triv at 1:26 PM on May 16, 2006


They're in Area 51, with Kennedy's third brain and that carburetor that makes cars get 100 MPG.

I KNEW IT!!!
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 1:28 PM on May 16, 2006


They should give the footage to Chloe O'Brian. She could make it MUCH clearer.
posted by ImJustRick at 1:29 PM on May 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


People who believe irrational things will find reasons to cling to those irrational beliefs no matter how much evidence to the contrary you show them. In they;re world you're just trying to "trick" them.
posted by Artw at 1:32 PM on May 16, 2006


Surely, this will put to rest all of the ongoing 911 conspiracy theories.
posted by psmealey at 1:37 PM on May 16, 2006


Smedleyman: Good thing the Soviets never found out that SAC NORAD was all a sham.

That is a really interesting issue, and it demands some real analysis. I certainly don't have any answers, but..

It is likely that the Soviets feared being nuked into the stone age, rather than having their aircraft shot down. I'd suggest that NORAD's role has always really been detection; which is enough, if you have ICBMs.

The silliness of bomber interception still goes on, but I suspect it has been all about propaganda since the mid-60's. The number of incoming bombers is known long before interceptors are scrambled, so everybody knows it is just pantomime before they even get close.
posted by Chuckles at 1:45 PM on May 16, 2006


Does anyone have access to a downloadable version? Or somewhere I can easily single out frame by frame.

But it wouldn't be VIDEO anymore. What are you thinking!
posted by Chuckles at 1:51 PM on May 16, 2006


IMO the point is, IF it shows absolutely nothing new, WHY hide it in the first place?
didn't I read earlier it was because of Moussaoui's trial? wtF?
posted by zenzizi at 1:54 PM on May 16, 2006


I've got an idea, instead of responding to Curmudgeon's points, lets mock him, and hope no one notices that we've ignored them.
posted by markr at 1:57 PM on May 16, 2006


Their SOP is to scramble at the slightest hint of a hi-jacking. This goes so far as to include 'unruly passengers' or deviated flight paths.

It may be standard procedure, but it isn't very practical. Check out this video posted in the recent Absolutely, positively getting there overnight post. At any one time there are at least 3,000 flights over North America. Every day, all day (it drops a little under 1,000 in the middle of the night).
posted by Chuckles at 2:01 PM on May 16, 2006


comment 101!!! comment 101!!!
posted by shmegegge at 2:24 PM on May 16, 2006


Slightly off-topic, but that Loose Change doc linked above cites some numbers about unusually high put options for the major carriers in the week leading up to 9/11. Have any credible sources debunked it? I mean, I know enough statistics to work on the assumption it's just a fluke in the fluctuation of such things, but has anyone remotely credible touched that claim?
posted by joe lisboa at 2:27 PM on May 16, 2006


Rigorous Intuition: The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
posted by hortense at 2:45 PM on May 16, 2006


anyone else not see a large 757? I still see a missle.
posted by Kifer85 at 2:51 PM on May 16, 2006


It's interesting that both 'conspiracy theories' - Kennedy & 9/11- stem from our incredulity that an amateur(s) could have pulled off something so audacious and seemingly impossible.

I mean, what do you say about these 9/11 guys? What they managed to pull off was really something. As did LHO.
posted by Flashman at 3:05 PM on May 16, 2006


I don't know why people feel the need to argue with conspiracy people. Even if you convince them, they'll just latch onto the next thing. Let them have their fun. Especially on the net, where you can just ignore them.
posted by smackfu at 3:06 PM on May 16, 2006


“What exactly are you looking for NORAD to do?...They're just a giant command and control center.”

...command and control maybe? Follow standard operating procedures? (as IronLizard sed) See, if there’s a plane, and suddenly the transponder signal is lost and it veers away from it’s flight path - that’s bad. And normally people get extremely interested in where that plane might be going. And have fighters following it, and such.
This time, flight 77, not so much.
Why?
No conspiracy theory - just - why?

“Isn't there a FLIGHT MANIFEST and radar tracking of the flight?”

Was there radar tracking of the flight? Apparently that’s impossible for both the FAA and NORAD.


“Like, what about the people on the fucking plane?”
Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed president Kennedy.

“If it DIDN'T crash into the Pentagon, where are we supposed to think the plane went?”
Oswald used a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle with a six-round magazine serial number C2766.

“Did it just disappear? Did someone cover up the "hidden" crash site?”

The fact that the limousine was cleaned out at hospital, Connally's suit was dry-cleaned, Oswald's Marine Corps service record file was lost, President Kennedy's brain was missing, Connally's Stetson hat and shirt sleeve gold cufflinks went missing, and the forensic autopsy photos are missing has no bearing on anything - only Lee Harvey Oswald matters and anyone who denies Oswald acting alone killed Kennedy is crazy. How can there even be a conspiracy theory regarding this event?

“That is a really interesting issue, and it demands some real analysis. I certainly don't have any answers, but..”

Here’s the thing. I know some things about NORAD. Nothing special, nothing that can’t be known without research.
The issue does demand some real analysis, and - no offense - I don’t want answers from you Chuckles. Whether your answers are brilliant or lousy, you’re not responsible.
And the people who are and can give some answers - aren’t.

It’s just a big hole as to why hijack SOPs weren’t followed.

Anyone remember Payne Stewart?

Oh, yeah, but there was a drill that day. It’s all just a strange coincidence the National Reconnaissance Office was running a drill. In which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. In Washington.
That plus NORAD’s running a training excercise (Vigilant Guardian).

Ok - fine. So then? Apparently military personnel - what? Can’t tell the difference? Were confused? But then a real potentially hijacked plane just flies around for 45 minutes after two others hit the twin towers? That's pretty confused.

Ok, so everyone at NORAD and the FAA is a fuckup. Can’t tell the real world from an exercise. (And putting aside questions A. How did - if they did - the hijackers know 9/11 was due for all kindsa training and B. If they didn’t - strange coincidence?).

We do have an Air Force, right? They have radar of some kind? I can run from Andrews AFB to the Pentagon in under 2 hours. They have F-16 that can cover that in under 1 minute. They let a known hostile into Washington airspace? (Assuming they were aware of what everyone else and their brothers was aware of - so was it still wargames when CNN was showing the two burning buildings?)

I’m not advancing a theory - I’m asking questions and asserting that the right questions are being obfuscated by this “conspiracy” bullshit.
It goes without saying that no one is taking responsibility, but we should know what went wrong, how, and why, as much as we should know if our cops are on the take.

I expect them to protect the country from attack. That’s why we give them our money. If I was jerking off while I was supposed to be on duty I would have been busted for dereliction of duty. That’s without someone coming in and killing a bunch of my people.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:07 PM on May 16, 2006


“What they managed to pull off was really something. As did LHO.”

Clearly LHO stole Kennedy’s brain.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:09 PM on May 16, 2006


but has anyone remotely credible touched that claim?

After watching Loose Change about a month ago, I've done some research of my own..

I can't find an article that doesn't fall into:

A) Conspiracy!!
or
B) Buh, buh, buh.. BUH! Nothing to see here!!

I have found several sources verifying the put options, but no clear explanations, and no mention of any official investigation into the matter.

As far as I can tell, somebody, in fact, a lot of people, knew something was about to happen. I'm not making any conspiracy claims, but it certainly is interesting to think about.
posted by Raoul.Duke at 3:13 PM on May 16, 2006


I mean, what do you say about these 9/11 guys? What they managed to pull off was really something.
"FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt."
posted by prostyle at 3:46 PM on May 16, 2006


but I still take it with a ginormous grain of ultra powerful salt

I think you need some Refined Deeprock Salt for that.
posted by beth at 4:03 PM on May 16, 2006


I don't know if anybody up there has posted links to the video yet, but Salon has copies of the video on their site.
posted by MythMaker at 4:13 PM on May 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


It’s all just a strange coincidence the National Reconnaissance Office was running a drill. In which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. In Washington.

Also the training drills that were being run simultaneously with the London bombings.

Now, whenever these facts are brought up the responses tend to be:

a) proof of government conspiracy!
b) take off the tin-foil hat!

when it has seemed to me that it is plausible that the attackers had access to the training schedules and scheduled the attacks to coincide with them. How hard could that info be to get? Even if they are classified, you only need one bought-off contractor.
posted by sonofsamiam at 4:19 PM on May 16, 2006


My favorite comment of this thread:

"in order to hit the sea facing side (re-enforced to deal with naval guns) of the pentagon"


The sea facing side? What sea is southwest of the pentagon?
posted by JekPorkins at 4:20 PM on May 16, 2006


Oh, yeah, that looks like a big old jet plane to me. Yup.

Better not disagree, lest somebody think I'm crazy. Nope.

It was a jet and nobody could find anything like seats, luggage, turbines, landing gear, because, you know, jets are so tender and gentle that they could never withstand the impact.

And that's why it penetrated, what? Three of the building's rings?

Remember - never disagree with the official story, or you're just playing into their trap.

/extreme enraged sarcastic loathing
posted by rougy at 4:23 PM on May 16, 2006


This is like when Geraldo broke in to Al Capone's mystery vault.
posted by airguitar at 4:24 PM on May 16, 2006


Shouldn't we all reserve judgement until we hear what Guy Goma says about this?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 4:27 PM on May 16, 2006


Perhaps they're planning to release 3 additional frames every 5 years, so that by the time the whole video is available, everyone responsible will be dead.
posted by fairmettle at 4:28 PM on May 16, 2006


there are lots of good questions going unanswered, for what reason... i don't know, but at least some people are scrutinizing the "facts" instead of just believing what is being told to them by a govn't with an interesting history. whenever i try and find information to debunk some of these questions all i come across are websites run by people who just ridicule everything being said without providing details of why they know for sure the questions have already been answered. we should change our national anthem to "it's a small world after all" b/c the fact that we have photos of rummy shaking hands with saddam and presidential families with direct and undisputed ties to the family of the #1 terrorist on the planet, is just sickening. people around the world are being hogtied, drug off to secret prisons and tortured for having less damning evidence against them while we just write off the close ties of our administration with EVERY step of 9/11 as mere coincidence. a small world indeed.
posted by ggggarret at 4:39 PM on May 16, 2006


for those of you asking for direct video links, they are here on the pentagon's web site.
posted by sergeant sandwich at 4:40 PM on May 16, 2006


To repeat a link posted above: This is well worth a quick read.

How odd that all seems.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:43 PM on May 16, 2006


“How hard could that info be to get? Even if they are classified, you only need one bought-off contractor.” - posted by sonofsamiam

I agree. Cogent thought.

And yeah, why doesn’t that idea tickle anyone?

I mean it could have been so-and-so’s brother in-law who sold classified what’s-its to Abdulah-whats-his-face.

I’d think we’d want the FBI get on that and maybe, y’know, charge someone for it?

It’s been how long? Have we heard anything on that front?
*crickets*
posted by Smedleyman at 4:50 PM on May 16, 2006


At the risk of sounding like a nut...

You can see in the frame just before the explosion that something has entered into view. The object is white, and protruding from the right side of the screen. It seems, though it's hard to tell because of distance and perspective, as if the object is slender and around 8-15 feet long. The next frame depicts the massive exposion. This frame is interesting because over the lawn of the pentagon, there is a hazy, white/greyish 'stream' following whatever did hit the building. It would be interesting to know if exhaust from a jet engine is actually visible at ground level, from that close, or if it is just something clearly visible from say, 32,000 feet away.

In any case, in the one frame that does depict a moving object, that object does not look like the nose of any passenger airplane I've ever seen.
posted by Raoul.Duke at 4:54 PM on May 16, 2006


Hortense picked an interesing link, thanks hortense.
posted by elpapacito at 5:22 PM on May 16, 2006


two things i been wondering from watching again..

1. what are the chances that both cameras would catch a bit of the "plane" on the right and the next frame the explosion post-contact.. that both the cams snap their interval one with a tiny bit of it and then none before the hit..

2. what is the HUGE flash that appears about 8 frames past explosion/contact on the cam nearest the building (it happens right when the red flames vanish in the gray smoke over the hit) ? it doesn't seem to appear on the furthest cam..
posted by zenzizi at 5:33 PM on May 16, 2006


oh and also again 3. WHY keep those tapes secret in the first place if they reveal next to nothing?
posted by zenzizi at 5:36 PM on May 16, 2006


Of course it doesn't provide answers, it was released by the American Government.
posted by fire&wings at 6:02 PM on May 16, 2006


Of course it doesn't provide answers, it was released by the American Government.

As opposed to some mythical government that does provide answers?
posted by JekPorkins at 6:11 PM on May 16, 2006


Scale, people.

Anything next to the Pentagon looks tiny, because the Pentagon is huge. Each exterior side is 921 feet long -- just a hair over three hundred yards.

The building stands 77 feet high. Total area of a side is over 70,000 square feet, or over 350,000 square feet of external facing for the entire building.

A Boeing 757-200 has a tail height of 44 feet, a wingspan of 124 feet, and a length of 155 feet. Or, if you wish, a 757-200 is just under one sixth the length of a Pentagon Wall, has a wingspan of one seventh of the length of the wall, and stand about sixth tenths as high at the tail, and less than a third as high as the fuselage.

You could have six 757-220 hit one face of the Pentagon at the same time without any of the aircraft making any contact with each other.

When the impact occurs, a fireball is seen to climb in the sky. In the frame linked above, it appears to be at least twice as high as the wall.

That fireball is over 150 feet high. That fireball is as tall as a fourteen story building. That fireball is just about as high as a 757 is long. That fireball is easily as wide as a 757. Heck, it's larger than a 757 is long in three dimensions.

Or, if you wish.

1) The Pentagon at maximum zoom on Google Maps. Note the scale in the lower left. Between the lines is fifty feet.

2) Lambert St. Louis International Airport, Gate C-16, at the same scale. The plane in the center is a TWA 757-200. To the right is a TWA MD-80 at C18, and a 767 at C20. To the left, at C-10, another 757.

3) The Pentagon one scale division is now 100 feet.

4) Lambert Airport, same scale. Now we can see the whole of the bend of the C concourse. To the left of our 757, we have our TWA MD-80, a 767, canted in to keep the taxiway open, and to the left of that, at C-24, a TWA 717-200. It looks like an MD-80, but shorter1 To the right, our other 757, then C8, C6 and C2 are empty. Yes, Lambert Gate Numbers aren't linear.

Across the terminal, (from left to right) we have an MD-80 at C1, a RJ at C3, a 717, in AA colors, at C13, a 73 at C17, and at the bottom, an MD-80 in AA colors pushing out of the D concourse.

5) The Pentagon with one scale division = 200 feet. We finally can see the whole Pentagon in the frame.

6) Lambert Airport. We now see the entire B and C concourses, the Metrolink station, part of the terminal building, part of the D concourse, Taxiway B, and at the very top of the fram, a regional jet taking off from Runway 12L -- scroll up to see the shadow.

As a quick count, we have 6 Saab 340s, 4, ATRs, I think ATR-72s, and two Embrare regional jets, probably RJ-140s, though -130s and -145s are also possible. Parked at C, we have sevenish MD-80s -- a bad frame splice mars the one at C-30, an RJ, two 717s, a 737, two 757s, and two 767s.

Meanwhile, we've got an RJ pulling in, probably going to C5, and the MD-80 pulling out of D, in particular, D2. Along D, we've got a couple more MD-80s and RJs.

The point: At the scale that fits the Pentagon, we're looking at 35 aircraft, two airport concourses (and part of a third) and part of the runway.

Do we now understand HOW FUCKING BIG THAT BUILDING IS?

Thank you. For homework, cut a scale image of a 757 out, and place against the Pentagon wall. Failing marks for failure to maintain scale.


[1] That's because it is a shorter MD-80. The original name of the plane was the MD-95. Of course, the MD-80 had the same problem -- the original name of the MD-80 was the DC-9-80.
posted by eriko at 6:20 PM on May 16, 2006 [3 favorites]


Great use of google maps to demonstrate scale, eriko.
posted by b1tr0t at 6:28 PM on May 16, 2006


Hortense picked an interesting link, thanks hortense.

Oh man, it goes so much further then you think! Coincidence stacked atop coincidence resting upon a mound of suspicion. If you liked that, this will blow your mind! Dig...

1) New York City has 11 letters

2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.

3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.

4) George W Bush has 11 letters.

This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting:

1) New York is the 11th state.

2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11.

3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11

4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers. 6 + 5 = 11

5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11

6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.

Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind:

1) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.

2) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.

3) The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11.

4) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers incident.

Now this is where things get totally eerie:

The most recognized symbol for the US, after the Stars & Stripes, is the Eagle. The following verse is taken from the Quran, the Islamic holy book:

"For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace."

That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran.

Coincidence? I fucking think not! The number eleven is out to get us. Keep your third eye peeled for the motherfucker.
posted by SweetJesus at 6:44 PM on May 16, 2006


MSV: “I am in control. Please continue.”
Mr. A: “Where is my tax money for air defense going then? Has it been fixed? What the hell happened on 9/11 then?”
MSV: “Please continue.”
posted by Smedleyman at 12:30 PM PST on May 16


Wait 'tlll Smedleyman finds out about the 2.3 trillion+ dollars that the Military part of the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex can't seem to find. Or about the crack research of "Plan B" last time the gang in charge was in charge. (Plan B - the rumsfeld wolfowitz production back before the 'net was popular....ya know when they asked for and got CIA docs and came up with an alternative version of what was going on in the CCCP)

The popping of the blood vessels should throw shrapnel for miles.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:44 PM on May 16, 2006


But this one goes to 11.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:48 PM on May 16, 2006


It’s been how long? Have we heard anything on that front?
*crickets*
posted by Smedleyman at 4:50 PM PST on May 16


Same can be said about the report on why WTC 7 went down.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:55 PM on May 16, 2006


sweetjesus: that's pretty easily played with numbers.

1. Your nick sweetjesus is 10 characters long = 10
2. Twin Towers is 10 characters long = 10
3. George Bush is 10 charaters long = 10 and I am omitting W because you are omitting H in Sweet Holy Jesus
4. Terrorists is 10 characters long = 10


and so on even if I have to concede your list is currently more impressive then mine, but you surely are connected somehow to George boy !

Plus the list that hortense linked doesn't use the "number trick" numerology bs we just used :)
posted by elpapacito at 7:06 PM on May 16, 2006


Smedleyman: Ok - fine. So then? Apparently military personnel - what? Can’t tell the difference? Were confused? But then a real potentially hijacked plane just flies around for 45 minutes after two others hit the twin towers? That's pretty confused.

Timelines of the FAA decision-making process suggest that the Indianapolis center was following SOP: loss of transponder signal = plane crash. What the response says to me is:
1: FAA operations were running at capacity and not able to respond to multiple crises.
2: Communication between control centers is poor.

To me the response also suggests the power of early perceptions in tainting the decision-making process. Fighters were mobilized for intercept, but were sent North out of the belief that the planes came from Boston.

The big problem I have with conspiracy theories is that they can't seem to avoid making the leap from. "The government is less than forthcoming about this," to "... because this is what really happened."

IMO there is a simple reflexive phenomena that helps to explain the gap in disclosure for both Kennedy and 9/11. Human beings are not naturally honest, nor are they rational. In the event of a major fuck-up, they reflexively try to reshape reality to protect their status. One of the biggest flaws in playing these "what if" games is assuming that human beings are rational agents.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:06 PM on May 16, 2006


sweetjesus: that's pretty easily played with numbers.

Point flew right over your head...
posted by SweetJesus at 7:15 PM on May 16, 2006


This happened in broad daylight in a large city. Didn't many, many people see a plane crash that day?
posted by flarbuse at 7:17 PM on May 16, 2006


Yes, they did. But they were brainwashed. Or something.
posted by JekPorkins at 7:20 PM on May 16, 2006


If we weren't talking about this airplane we'd be talking about the 5.5 ton of coke on a plane.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:31 PM on May 16, 2006



If we weren't talking about this airplane we'd be talking about the 5.5 ton of coke on a plane.


I love that book. Allow me to quote from my favorite Amazon review of it:
I read the first chapter of this book (you can download it free from www.madcowprod.com) and found the points Hopsicker attempts to make to be completely stupid.....certainly not convincing. He tries to make it seem odd that the hijackers picked Venice, Florida for their flight school location. He even contradicts himself. On page 24 he tries to say that Florida is nothing like Saudi Arabia (true enough) but then he says that locals leave in the summer because it gets hot. As if Saudi Arabia is not hot?

On Page 29, Hopsicker states that Venice, Fl is "Stuck in the sweltering middle of nowhere" but earlier on page 28 he says Venice is "sandwiched among the better-heeled resorts". So what is it?...in the middle of nowhere or a vacation destination. The truth is, Venice is not in the "sweltering middle of nowhere". It is on the beach and is only 18 miles from Sarasota and only an hour from Tampa. Mapquest will tell you that....but maybe Mapquest is part of a conspiracy?

So Hopsicker's week argument that it was somehow strange that the hijackers picked Venice, Fl as their training ground is complete nonsense. It seems like a logical place to me. It is in a beautiful place, it has a flight school capable of teaching commercial pilots, its not far from major international airports, and its not in a conspicuous place.

Another thing that is laughable about the first chapter is that Hopsicker spends a lot of time trying to prove that Atta was a bad guy....as if that is not obvious already! He tells us that Atta kills kittens. And we are supposed to be shocked? A guy flies a jet into a building killing thousands of people and we are supposed to be shocked that he also killed some kittens? Hopsicker goes on to say that the FBI said nothing about "Kitten Killer Atta". Perhaps they felt that the kittens didn't really contribute much to their case...just a wild guess.

He also finds it strange that police were guarding the airport in Venice two months after 9/11 and insinuates that they must have been covering something up. Come on.....I would think it was strange if the police weren't guarding the airport. They certainly stepped up security around the airports in other parts of the nation.

He also tries to make a conspiracy around people not wanting to talk after the attacks. As if the FBI was covering things up and put a gag order on them. I think usual protocol when law enforcement is conducting an investigation, is to not talk about a case because it may affect evidence.
Jesus, It's like a part-time job when the tin-foil hat club comes around...
posted by SweetJesus at 7:42 PM on May 16, 2006


Frankly this footage does absolutely nothing to dispel the conspiracies which intrigued me.

I thought it was strange that frames from the video showed an object so close to the ground (some thing I saw put it like 5 feet above the ground, no mean feat).
I thought it was strange that there weren't thousands of people who came out and said, "Jesus! Did you see that passenger plane just fly over half of DC?"
I thought it was strange that there wasn't more wreckage, although there clearly was some.
I thought it was strange that every video of the event was confiscated within hours - itself not strange - but none of them returned or made public until today.

As for anything else, I'm not sure, but those things still seem strange to me.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 8:02 PM on May 16, 2006


"Jesus! Did you see that passenger plane just fly over half of DC?"

The pentagon isn't in DC, it's in Northern Virginia, and it's almost directly in the path of where planes land at National Airport (I refuse to call it Reagan).

Look at this satellite image, and project the flightpaths from the airport (lower right) over the Pentagon.

I know people who heard and/or saw the plane fly over their houses and thought it was weird. A few seconds later, it got weirder. Thousands of people did hear and/or see it. I'm not sure what forum you think their individual accounts should be recorded on for your review.

I know people who saw the plane hit the building as they drove on 395. As far as I know, they haven't bothered to make websites dedicated to giving their account of it. Do you know why they haven't? Because they're not crazy idiots like the people who make the conspiracy theory websites.
posted by JekPorkins at 8:13 PM on May 16, 2006


My favorite comment of this thread:

"in order to hit the sea facing side (re-enforced to deal with naval guns) of the pentagon"

The sea facing side? What sea is southwest of the pentagon?
##

wow, i have to admit to some major ignorance. I looked it up and it turns out, the side that was impacted does not face the hudson.

However - the fact remains, this terrorist that could hardly fly executed a hair-pin turn (which should have stalled a plane that size) in order to hit a very recently renovated/reinforced section of the pentagon. from what im reading on snopes, it appears that was the only section renovated and reinforced. Thats still a HUGE fucking coincidence, unmitigated by the reason that particular section was reinforced.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 8:25 PM on May 16, 2006


However - the fact remains, this terrorist that could hardly fly executed a hair-pin turn (which should have stalled a plane that size) in order to hit a very recently renovated/reinforced section of the pentagon.

And that's a fact because....
posted by SweetJesus at 8:27 PM on May 16, 2006


I love that book.

What book? Looks like you are confused. Or trolling. Because the info about the airplane being detained is only one month old.

Nice attempt at a derail - we are talking about planes, not books.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:27 PM on May 16, 2006


What book?

The book that the author of the website wrote. You know, the one in the upper left hand corner called "Welcome to Terrorland" with Mohammed Atta's smiling mug. The one the website exists to promote.

That book.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:31 PM on May 16, 2006


That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran.

For what it is worth, there is no accepted standard ordering of books in the Koran. For example, the translation here tells us that 9.11 is:

"But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know"

Also, the entire civilised world outside the US - with the possible exception of Canada - would render September 11 as 11/9:

"And if We make man taste mercy from Us, then take it off from him, most surely he is despairing, ungrateful"

Now, if I just ignore the original Arabic for a while, surely "Us" means the US(A), "mercy" means "the gift of freedom & demahcracy", the "man" referred to is Iraq...

Kinda far-fetched, but better than the urban legend "quranic" quotation that you mentioned.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:34 PM on May 16, 2006


I'm sorry, but if you don't know that the name of the river is the Potomac, and you think that the Pentagon is fortified against a sea-based artillery attack, you probably have no business formulating or evaluating conspiracy theories. I mean, how on earth do you know anything about the flight path or the agility of the plane, if you don't even know that the Hudson River is not in DC?
posted by JekPorkins at 8:34 PM on May 16, 2006


sweetjesus - watch loose change. they interview the flight instructor who flew with the pilot who supposedly flew into the pentagon. he did not have nice things to say about his piloting skills.

they also talk about the specifics of the maneuver... its an impressive banking descent, but i don't know the exact geometry off the top of my head. They quote an experienced pilot who confirms that those kinds of maneuvers at those speeds would have put the plane into a stall.

and you can read here: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
where it talks about that particular section being reinforced.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 8:35 PM on May 16, 2006


I'm sorry, but if you don't know that the name of the river is the Potomac, and you think that the Pentagon is fortified against a sea-based artillery attack, you probably have no business formulating or evaluating conspiracy theories.

Hahaha, I missed that. That's hilarious! "Fortified against sea based artillery attack"! Hahaha. Why would ONE side of the Pentagon be fortified against artillery attack when it would be so easy to walk the shells up to the side that's not fortified? That doesn't even make sense on a layman-level.

That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Even better than Tony Snow and his dislike of hugging tar-covered babies.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:40 PM on May 16, 2006


jek - i was misinformed about the reasons that section of the pentagon was reinforced - ive admitted that. And if you will allow me - ill also admit i know little about geography 4000 miles away from me. (or 50 miles if you want me to be honest).

However the fact remains - first hand accounts confirm that the terrorist couldn't fly for shit, big ass planes aren't super nimble, and the pilot was kind enough to hit the reinforced side. None of those facts are diminished by my meager geography skills.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 8:41 PM on May 16, 2006


The book that the author of the website wrote.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:31 PM PST on May 16


I see. So you then have no actual issue with the claims about Titan Corporation, Mr. Chams et la?

Your issue is with claims that Mr. Atta spent time in Flordia and on the gambling boat operation owned by lobbist Jack Abmerhoff.

Well then, glad we have this all sorted out. That you have NO issue with the claims about the DC9.

Because here *I* was thinking the DC9 with 5.5 tons of coke was needing some form of 'look over here, there is a plane with snakes' distraction.

I'll go back to relaxing with a homebrew and let yopu go back to your quoting other people about a book that you have mostleiky not bothered to read for yourself, and instead trusing a reeview from some random whatever on the Internet.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:44 PM on May 16, 2006




Great post, George_Spiggott. That was the tone I picked up as well.

From memory, their refutation of the missing wreckage went something like, “Oh yeah? Well here’s a picture of a little bit of wreckage. And we found some more wreckage over yonder, so there.”

Plus, it refuted some points, but not all.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 8:45 PM on May 16, 2006


sweetjesus, that was entirely awesome!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:49 PM on May 16, 2006


Tryptophan-5ht, the fact remains - first hand accounts confirm, that a big ass plane hit the side of the pentagon.

The first hand accounts of the actual attack confirm that the terrorist could fly well enough to hit the side of a building the size of a small city. His flight instructor's opinion is not a firsthand account of what happened on 9/11.
posted by JekPorkins at 8:49 PM on May 16, 2006


Plus, it refuted some points, but not all.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 8:45 PM PST on May 16


Like how it was a UFO? (come on, someone has to remember the 'here is a video of some fast moving silver-y object ergo an alien UFO' series of pages)
posted by rough ashlar at 8:50 PM on May 16, 2006



Yeah, like the UFO theory.

;)
posted by uncanny hengeman at 8:56 PM on May 16, 2006


I see. So you then have no actual issue with the claims about Titan Corporation, Mr. Chams et la?

Yes, Titan is smuggling billions in coke in to the US based off a link-less paragraph off some guy's website who's selling his tinfoil hat book. You want me to prove him wrong? Well, I can't. Although, I actually work with a few people who work for Titan and they've never seemed too interested in blow to me. They've always seemed more interested in software engineering to me, but what do I know, you're the guy with the link to the nutty guy with a book and a web page.

Your issue is with claims that Mr. Atta spent time in Flordia and on the gambling boat operation owned by lobbist Jack Abmerhoff.

Well then, glad we have this all sorted out. That you have NO issue with the claims about the DC9.

Because here *I* was thinking the DC9 with 5.5 tons of coke was needing some form of 'look over here, there is a plane with snakes' distraction.


You, and that guy with the book and the website, are both fucking bonkers...
posted by SweetJesus at 8:56 PM on May 16, 2006


jek - are you being dense on purpose? He went out of his way to hit the reinforced side that was largely empty due to renovations. do you not see any significance in that?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:01 PM on May 16, 2006


are you being dense on purpose? He went out of his way to hit the reinforced side that was largely empty due to renovations.

How the fuck do you know he went out of his way? Your entire argument is based off an illogical, arbitrary assumption. You're fishing for red herrings.
posted by SweetJesus at 9:03 PM on May 16, 2006


Tryptophan-5ht, first, show me the flightpath you think he took. Next, tell me which side you think he would have hit had he not "gone out of his way" to hit the southwest side.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:07 PM on May 16, 2006


Yes

Glad we now have that sorted out.

You want me to prove him wrong? Well, I can't.

Bullshit. You are just a lazy fuck. Either the DC9 in question is owned by Titan Corporation or it is not. I'll even quote the web site as you are fixated on a book. "San Diego defense contractor Titan Corporation, already implicated in the fraudulent bankruptcy of a shadowy St. Petersburg FL company which owned the DC9 "Cocaine One" flight busted in Mexico"

Simple binary is or is not state.

You, and that guy with the book and the website, are both fucking bonkers...
posted by SweetJesus at 8:56 PM PST on May 16


Either the DC9 in question has OWNERSHIP by Titan Corporation or it doesn't.

Be a man, show how Daniel Hopsicker is wrong and how the DC9 with 5.5 tons of coke doesn't show Titan Corporation as the owner. Or, be a coward and keep posting your crap.

I'll be waiting, getting off fucking bonkers. (whatever a bonker is...)
posted by rough ashlar at 9:08 PM on May 16, 2006


330 degree turn at 530 mph descending 2000 feet in a big ass plane = out of his way.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:09 PM on May 16, 2006


He went out of his way to hit the reinforced side that was largely empty due to renovations. do you not see any significance in that?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:01 PM PST on May 16


"we" really don't know went on in 'his' mind.....An interesting co-inky-dink, yes. But 'this is what the thinking' was?
posted by rough ashlar at 9:10 PM on May 16, 2006


330 degree turn at 530 mph descending 2000 feet in a big ass plane = out of his way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he hadn't descended 2000 feet, he wouldn't have hit anything.

Now, show me where, geographically, you think he made the 330 degree turn at 530 mph that took him from a course that would have hit an unreinforced wall of the pentagon to the course he ended up on. Show me.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:12 PM on May 16, 2006


according to a commercial and air force pilot (russ wittenberg) that would have put the plane into a high speed stall.

and all this was allegedly executed by a man who could barely fly.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:13 PM on May 16, 2006


http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

page 26
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:18 PM on May 16, 2006


I'm sorry, you haven't shown me anything. Show me.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:22 PM on May 16, 2006


more about the skill employed to strike that particular section:
the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.
+++++++
Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill,
+++++++
Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.

posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:23 PM on May 16, 2006


Bullshit. You are just a lazy fuck. Either the DC9 in question is owned by Titan Corporation or it is not. I'll even quote the web site as you are fixated on a book. "San Diego defense contractor Titan Corporation, already implicated in the fraudulent bankruptcy of a shadowy St. Petersburg FL company which owned the DC9 "Cocaine One" flight busted in Mexico"

Implicated by WHO? That guy? Who fucking cares what that guys says. Give me a AP report. Fuck, give me a rawstory.com report. I don't have to prove that idiot-asshole wrong, you have to prove him right.

Either the DC9 in question has OWNERSHIP by Titan Corporation or it doesn't.

Prove to me it was! You're full of shit until you can support your claims. You got a serial number for that Titan coke plane? FAA registration number? I don't fucking think so. I'll search Lexus-Nexus tomorrow and see if I get any results if you give the coke-plane's distinguishing information.

But you won't, because you and your buddy are full of shit.

Simple binary is or is not state.

Thanks for the computer science lesson.

Either the DC9 in question has OWNERSHIP by Titan Corporation or it doesn't.

And your evidence is what? Oh, that's right, the link-less paragraph. What exactly was the name of that shadowy St. Petersburg coke-corp? Oh, that's right, it doesn't say.

Be a man, show how Daniel Hopsicker is wrong and how the DC9 with 5.5 tons of coke doesn't show Titan Corporation as the owner

Hahahahah... Alllright, but you do know what they say about attempting to prove a negative.

Or, be a coward and keep posting your crap.

Now you're just a dick... I'm cowardly for not proving your un-provable assertion wrong? Ha!

(whatever a bonker is...)

These
, but it's also a synonym for crazy - as in "batshit insane".
posted by SweetJesus at 9:24 PM on May 16, 2006


look, im not going to draw you a map. we've established what - twice now - that i such at geography. what do you want?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:24 PM on May 16, 2006


See, he was a better pilot than they thought he was.
But you still haven't shown me what part of the Pentagon he would have hit had he not turned, nor have you shown the flight path.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:24 PM on May 16, 2006


suck* (speliling too aprently)
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:26 PM on May 16, 2006


think about it for just a second. 330 degrees is just shy of a full circle. had he not turned, he would have hit very near his eventual crash site. wouldn't that suggest he was mighty particular about the impact site?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:35 PM on May 16, 2006


Tryptophan-5ht, you think about this for a second.. How do they know he circled the building?
posted by Chuckles at 9:37 PM on May 16, 2006


think about it for just a second. 330 degrees is just shy of a full circle. had he not turned, he would have hit very near his eventual crash site. wouldn't that suggest he was mighty particular about the impact site?

Are you a pilot? Have you ever flown a plane? How the hell do you know that?

You know, when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.

Well, not me, but certainly you.
posted by SweetJesus at 9:38 PM on May 16, 2006


um.. im not positive that he did circle the building. but are you disputing the 330 degree turn?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:39 PM on May 16, 2006


how the hell do i know that the end of a 330 degree rotation is near the starting point? this is gonna floor you - but 360 degrees is the exact SAME point start and finish.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:41 PM on May 16, 2006


You are the one asserting that there was this big 330deg turn around the building. How do we know that happened?
posted by Chuckles at 9:46 PM on May 16, 2006


Purported flight path analysis
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:46 PM on May 16, 2006


um.. im not positive that he did circle the building. but are you disputing the 330 degree turn?

No, I'm disputing that it can't be done - that's nuts.

360 degrees is the exact SAME point start and finish.

That's not what the Bildabergs have been telling me. They say a circle is 500 degrees.

Prove me wrong.

You are the one asserting that there was this big 330deg turn around the building. How do we know that happened?

9-11 Commission says so.
posted by SweetJesus at 9:49 PM on May 16, 2006


"Oh fuck, was that the Pentagon? Damn, now I have to turn around."
posted by smackfu at 9:50 PM on May 16, 2006




happy?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:52 PM on May 16, 2006


thanks sonofsamiam :)
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 9:52 PM on May 16, 2006


That is a nice drawing, but why do they think the pilot missed the pentagon to the east and circled back? What is the evidence that he didn't just fly straight into the building?
posted by Chuckles at 9:54 PM on May 16, 2006


Remember, the transponder had been off for a while at that point..
posted by Chuckles at 9:57 PM on May 16, 2006


*Sigh*

According to the 9-11 report, the plane began to turn 3:47 seconds before it hit the Pentagon. If it was traveling 500 miles an hour, that would mean it had to travel 163,495 feet before it hit the pentagon. That's more than a 30 miles turn.

What the fuck?
posted by SweetJesus at 9:59 PM on May 16, 2006


Be a man, show how Daniel Hopsicker is wrong and how the DC9 with 5.5 tons of coke doesn't show Titan Corporation as the owner. Or, be a coward and keep posting your crap.

HAHAHAHAH

What the hell does that have to do with 9/11?
posted by delmoi at 10:06 PM on May 16, 2006


What the hell does that have to do with 9/11?

Nothing, just my manliness..

Wait, that's not what we're talking about?
posted by SweetJesus at 10:08 PM on May 16, 2006


chuckles, to my understanding a transponder isn't necessary to track something on radar - it just helps.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:08 PM on May 16, 2006


I'm pretty confused about what we are talking about too.. It is entertaining though :)
posted by Chuckles at 10:09 PM on May 16, 2006


So there was a radar trace of the plane?

To be honest, I am losing track of what deviation from the standard account you are supporting. Aren't you arguing that there was no plane?
posted by Chuckles at 10:11 PM on May 16, 2006


chuckles, to my understanding a transponder isn't necessary to track something on radar - it just helps.

Air traffic control radars are not designed to pick up low flying aircraft.
posted by SweetJesus at 10:11 PM on May 16, 2006


Well, whatever, the loop could be explained by missing the pentagon and then turning around to try to hit it. Or to try to hit it from a better approach.

either way, there's a 1/5 chance of hitting any particular side, which is not much of a coincidence at all.
posted by delmoi at 10:14 PM on May 16, 2006


chuckles, all im saying is that the offical story makes no sense. my ***guess*** is that it was a military plane - which would explain the maneuverability and small impact hole.

sweetjesus - it wasn't low flying untill just before impact. remember, it dropped from 7,000 feet.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:16 PM on May 16, 2006


delmoi - occam
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:16 PM on May 16, 2006


But whatever "saw", the turn.. What makes you think that it couldn't tell a military plane from an airliner?
posted by Chuckles at 10:18 PM on May 16, 2006


eh... whatever. im pretty satisfied that i made my point.. doubt i changed any minds. cheers. also, yes, i suck at geography.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:19 PM on May 16, 2006


my ***guess*** is that it was a military plane - which would explain the maneuverability and small impact hole.

Whaaaa? Please, enlighten me on which military aircraft it was that crashed into the pentagon? Remember, AWACS may look similar to a 747, but it has that big satellite-dishy thing in the middle - people tend to notice that.

fucking a....

im pretty satisfied that i made my point..

Even thought your points makes no sense to anyone with the slightest idea of what they're talking about?
posted by SweetJesus at 10:21 PM on May 16, 2006


There are military planes that look just like airliners (except the colour..), KC-10 for example, but that would leave just as big a hole as any airliner. So, I think Tryptophan-5ht must mean a small military plane. :P
posted by Chuckles at 10:26 PM on May 16, 2006


Pay no attention to Alex Jones, but give a listen to journalist John Buchanan's well done rant.
posted by hortense at 11:00 PM on May 16, 2006


wouldn't that suggest he was mighty particular about the impact site?

The flight plan analysis that sonofsamiam linked to has a feasible explanation:
The 270 degree right turn had me puzzled, until I realized that it would provide a simple set of landmarks for the pilot. Just intercept the Potomac River north of town, follow it south until you see the Washington Monument or Capitol. We used to use white country churches to navigate low-level over North and South Carolina, since they stand out clearly against the green or brown background.

Upon passing the Washington Monument, the plan may have been for the pilot to make a right turn and dive into the building. A right turn at this point would have led the airplane to hit Pentagon on the Potomac River side where the Secretary of Defense has his office.

But being unfamiliar with flying large airplanes at high speeds, the pilot wouldn't have taken into account the large radius required to make the turn. This would explain the circuitous 270 degree turn that was made to the impact point.
The 270 degrees in the flight plan analysis comes from what looks like a Washington Post graphic, and the flight path is based on his experience landing large planes.

According to the 9-11 report, the plane began to turn 3:47 seconds before it hit the Pentagon. If it was traveling 500 miles an hour, that would mean it had to travel 163,495 feet before it hit the pentagon. That's more than a 30 miles turn.

It wasn't going 500 miles per hour while it was turning. From the 9/11 Report:
At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.
my ***guess*** is that it was a military plane - which would explain the maneuverability and small impact hole.

Then I'm confused about why you referenced a Snopes page that concludes that a 757 hit the Pentagon.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:45 PM on May 16, 2006


Don't pilots normally fly directly over the runway, then circle around and land?
posted by longbaugh at 12:05 AM on May 17, 2006


Beautifully animated Alex Jones Rant. Watch it you fools.
posted by statehighways at 12:42 AM on May 17, 2006




sweetjesus writes "Point flew right over your head..."


If so I hope it doesn't crash on anything..but I doubt hot air can crash.
posted by elpapacito at 3:31 AM on May 17, 2006


I still wanna know who was playing the stock market days before the crashes?
posted by dabitch at 4:06 AM on May 17, 2006


Look at the map. Look at the map. Look how close the plane gets to the Lyndon B. Johnson Memorial Grove (and the B. in this case actually stands for Bohemian, but that's another story). Do you know what they keep there?

Wrong. Ladybird Johnson's brain. Her powerful, mutant, still living brain.

It's obvious what happened. The heroic passengers had actually gained control of the plane (not like those pussies on 93) and were bringing it back to Reagan airport. When they went past the LBJ grove Ladybird's brain shot out a massive gravity control ray, swung the plane around, and hit the Pentagon with it like an otter opening an oyster on a rock.

But why, you ask, would Ladybird Johnson want to destroy the Pentagon?

Because that's where they keep Kennedy's fourth brain (the one that told them about hydrogen fuel cells). And Ladybird wanted to finish the job she started nearly 40 years before, back when she still had her robot body.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 4:32 AM on May 17, 2006


Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

Proof that the pilot wasn't whipping the plane around.

The standard rate turn is two minute circle. That is, two minutes, you turn 360 degrees. Thus, turning 270 degrees in two and a half minutes is easy.

Airplanes under IFR are expected to descend at a rate of 500fpm to 1500fpm, unless on final, where they're expected to fly the glide slope. at 1500fpm, 2.5 minutes, a 3750 foot descent would be expected. So, he did descend faster than normal, but by no means anywhere near the limits of the aircraft. Almost any jet aircraft can easily and safely descend at 3000 fpm, and if you're careful, can do so much faster and still be recovered, but the key here is VNE -- that's "Velocity, Never Exceed". Going faster than VNE results in things like "Hey, where did the wings go?" so descending faster than 3000fpm means you have to be careful of throttle settings and such.

3000fpm * 2.5min > 7000 feet. The turn is slower than a standard rate turn. Therefore, the maneuver is not only possible, it is well within the normal operating parameters of the aircraft.

Looking at that graphic above, and assuming it is at least close to accurate, I can tell you exactly what he was trying to do. He flew to DCA -- an easy to find thing, given that air navigation gear is built to find airports -- and then tried to make a two minute turn to the right. Indeed, what it looks like is a go-around from an aborted runway 19 landing. Of course, he blew right through the no-fly zone above the mall (P-56 on you Washington Sectional Chart), but when your goal is "Hit the Pentagon", you're not worried about Mr. FAA-Inspector pulling your ticket when you land.

He might have even been flying the backcourse from the Runway 1 localizer. There's no ILS on Runway 19, because of the prohibited area just north of the airport (P-56, basically, the Mall, the White House, and the Capitol.) -- runway 19 landings fly a localizer directed approach (LDA/DME RWY 19 approach plate, PDF) that follows the river to a point north of the airport, where they make a visual landing, or they fly a visual approach (River Visual RWY 19 approach plate, PDF) to the airport. It's a pretty landing if you've got a window seat on the left side of the aircraft.

He certainly wasn't flying legal -- a 757 can fly under 250kts IAS, and the regs say you don't exceed 250KIAS under 10,000 feet MSL. (Exception: if you can't fly at that speed, you can go faster. In general, the exception of "Unless it means you die" is always in play, since the pilot flying is ultimately responsible for the saftey of his craft.)

But the idea that the 757 -- a very fast and nimble plane, esp. compared to most other airliners -- can't make a 7000' descending turn in 2.5 minutes is insane. Not only could the aircraft make that maneuver, it could do a tighter turn.
posted by eriko at 5:00 AM on May 17, 2006


Oh, yeah.

1) Look at this satellite image, and project the flightpaths from the airport (lower right) over the Pentagon.

Note that the other two runways at DCA aren't used by airlines -- too short. Really, for commercial travel, DCA is a one runway airport, runway 1-19.

Note also that runway 19 landings follow the Potomac River to the airport, they don't fly the standard direct-ILS landings, because of the prohibited area in the way.

So, aircraft flying near the Pentagon happen only on days when the winds are coming from the south. In DC, this translates to "Frequently."

2) Turns out my scale posting, above, was my 1000th comment. Go me.
posted by eriko at 5:05 AM on May 17, 2006 [1 favorite]


Triple clue points to eriko for writing a super response , I suspect you liked Flight Simulator.
posted by elpapacito at 5:29 AM on May 17, 2006


Fuck, give me a rawstory.com report.

"The drug plane connection: Remember the drug plane -- the DC9 caught in Mexico hauling 5.5 tons of coke to the United States?.... the plane bore the logo of Skyway"

How about press releases over 'support' for a bogus patent?

"SkyWay Communications Holding Corp. (OTC BB: SWYC) and the Titan Corporation have entered into a teaming agreement for Titan to sell Skyways's high-speed airborne network services to the U.S. Government for use with selected military and homeland security applications."

You are the one claiming the Titan ties are bogus. So produce evidence that the story is bogus. Posting a review of a book isn't disputing the existance of the DC9 OR the ties that make the DC9 story something that others would like to ignore.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12621398/from/RL.3/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=titan+corporation+royal+sons
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/05/wilkes-skyway-and-more-corruption.html
posted by rough ashlar at 6:42 AM on May 17, 2006


I can tell you exactly what he was trying to do. He flew to DCA -- an easy to find thing, given that air navigation gear is built to find airports

*clap* *clap* A reasonable position. Thanks for that comment.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:43 AM on May 17, 2006


misc followups:

What everyone WANTED to see:

(faked, duh)

Interesting photoset, analysis disputable as always.

documents indicating there is a lot more footage still classified
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:32 AM on May 17, 2006


I don't get it. Witnesses saw the plane hit the buildling. Plane wreakage was found at the site. Families of those on said plane are missing their loved ones.

What more evidence do you need?

Where are the passengers???
posted by DieHipsterDie at 9:09 AM on May 17, 2006


Where are the passengers???
posted by DieHipsterDie at 9:09 AM PST on May 17


They stopped being passengers and became corpses?
posted by rough ashlar at 9:17 AM on May 17, 2006


Oops, never mind. They managed to id the remains of almost all the passengers.
posted by DieHipsterDie at 9:18 AM on May 17, 2006


Looking at that graphic above, and assuming it is at least close to accurate, I can tell you exactly what he was trying to do. He flew to DCA -- an easy to find thing, given that air navigation gear is built to find airports -- and then tried to make a two minute turn to the right. Indeed, what it looks like is a go-around from an aborted runway 19 landing. Of course, he blew right through the no-fly zone above the mall (P-56 on you Washington Sectional Chart), but when your goal is "Hit the Pentagon", you're not worried about Mr. FAA-Inspector pulling your ticket when you land.

Or... Flight 77 landed on runway 19 where a replacement military jet also took off, looped around, and crashed into the pentagon (see bottom).

Tell me sir: which is more likely?
posted by mazola at 9:41 AM on May 17, 2006


Eyewitness accounts including one witness saying, "it was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," and another witness, a pilot, identifying the plane as an American Airways 757. The second link also has a photo of what looks like part of an American Airlines plane on the lawn of the Pentagon. Here's another photo of what looks like plane parts on the lawn. Eyewitness accounts and photos of plane parts inside the Pentagon. More info.

Blurry enlargement of the still from the video that shows the plane (or "plane").

Investigators identified the remains "of 184 people who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon."

The Pentagon is 77' tall. The exterior width of a 757/200 is 12' 4".

Extensive recap of the evidence of the 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Original release of the security camera photos, from March 2002.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:07 AM on May 17, 2006


Where would you hide a 757 at DCA?

Because, you know, it needs to magically disappear right then. It can't take off again, because the airspace is closed. Lots of people would see that.

Furthemore, you need a military aircraft at DCA. This is very rare to incredibly rare. The military hangs out at Andrews AFB (KADW) and Davidson Army Airfield (KDAA)

So, which is more likely -- a 757 was hijacked and flown into a building, along with two 767s, and along with another 757 that was intentionally crashed into a field to prevent the aircraft from being retaken, as part of a large plot, or the US Government, which, as we know, does a Heckuva Job, managed to land a 757 at DCA, at the same time, launch a military aircraft, and fly it into the Pentagon, then manages to make that 757 disappear at one of the smallest airports in the land.


Tell you what. Show me where N644AA is. Unless, and until, you can explain where N644AA -- the AA 757-223 that took off that days as AA 77, IAD-LAX -- you have no case.

Where is that plane? Where are those people? We know *exactly* where that plane was 75 minutes before the impact.-- it was pulling out of the gate at Dulles International Airport. We know *EXACTLY* where that plane was at 8:56AM, it was turning around and heading back to Washington? Where is it now? Where are the 52 passenger, six crew, and six presumed hijackers? Why did Renee May and Barbara Olson make phone calls telling people -- including the Solicitor General and full BushCo member Ted Olson -- that the plane had been hijacked?

Where are they now? Where are Renee May and Barbara Olson? Where is Capt. Charles Burlingame? Where is his crew? WHERE ARE THEY?

WHERE IS N644AA? If that plane didn't hit the Pentagon, show me the plane. Then you have a case.

It is up to you to show me where that plane is. Your whole "theory" depends on N644AA not hitting the Pentagon. Show me that plane, and your theory is credible.

Otherwise, go away.
posted by eriko at 11:15 AM on May 17, 2006


eriko, I was just messin' with ya. These conspiracy theorists are kooks.
posted by mazola at 11:20 AM on May 17, 2006


Sidenote: it's amazing the lengths some people will go to to avoid the simplest explanation.
posted by mazola at 11:24 AM on May 17, 2006


Where was that particular aircraft in the days and weeks leading up to the crash? In service, or elsewhere? Just curious.
posted by IronLizard at 11:32 AM on May 17, 2006


I don't know about kooks.. Smedleyman's questions are very good ones, for example.

However, it is clear that an airliner crashed into the the pentagon. Questioning is a healthy exercise, but any other conclusion on that particular point is absurd.
posted by Chuckles at 11:47 AM on May 17, 2006


Clarification: not all conspiracy theories are kooky, but the one that claims Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon sure is.
posted by mazola at 12:05 PM on May 17, 2006


eriko: We know *EXACTLY* where that plane was at 8:56AM, it was turning around and heading back to Washington?

Um, do we? I was under the impression that this was after it had cut off the transponder and thus, dropped out of the eyes of Indianapolis air traffic control (which didn't have access to passive radar.)

Not that I doubt that particular plane hit the Pentagon. Between the crash scene evidence, radar tracking around DC, and visual confirmation by a military cargo plane the dots all connect. But I think understanding the timeline of Flight 77 and the gaps in our security needs to take into account the fact that the plane vanished from the air traffic control system, and controllers assumed the plane had crashed.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:58 PM on May 17, 2006


“One of the biggest flaws in playing these "what if" games is assuming that human beings are rational agents.” -posted by KirkJobSluder

Which is why men make governments and goverments have oversight and there’s checks and balances all the way ‘round.

The argument, from my pos, isn’t “9/11 = ‘X’ happening” but the check and accountability machine breaking down in favor of those irrational actors - individual humans leading to inconsistiency in feedback to the public. (Crucial to any free society).

How the hell long have Rumsfeld and Cheney, et.al been at the upper echelons of government anyway? 20 years? 30?
That’s supposed to be good for a Republic?

Whatever “really” happened on 9/11 the result was to throw into sharp relief that we’re not getting the government we’re paying for. And there is no accountability. And so no straight answers.
(and that seems to bolster your point KirkJobSluder)

sonofsamiam raised a good point -where did they (the hijackers) get their intelligence? Did they even know all this was going on? How did they do it?
Am I to believe that they just got on planes with box cutters or leathermen tools - or whatever paper you’re reading’s story is - and slammed the planes into buildings and thats it?

The reason people are playing “what if” is because there is a void in the information and accountability.

“FAA operations were running at capacity and not able to respond to multiple crises...Communication between control centers is poor.”

Those could be perfectly true. Those could be facts.
It’s not an answer though.
If my 16 year old kid comes home with whiskey on his breath and the car is smashed up and I ask him what happened and he tells me when hydroxyethane is absorbed through the stomach lining the human central nervous system is impaired and coordination suffers in dealing with rapid velocities, that’s perfectly factual, but I’m going to think he’s being cagey.

Why can’t/couldn’t the FAA respond to multiple crisises? Why was/is communication between centers poor? - I’ll go one better - NORAD just drilled on a scenario like this a year or two before 9/11 - why weren’t they prepared? Or jump back - why spend money on that kind of training if it’s flushed down the toilet?
So was communication poor because of the drills? Who ordered those? How did - if they did - the hijackers find out about them? Why did Cheney do what he was doing?

- and so forth. (It doesn’t dictate questions of conspiracy necessarily, but most certainly questions of competance.)

Same grilling you’d give your kid if he came home drunk having wrecked the car.

Except in this case the kid seems to be doing a song and dance and *insert applicable significant other* seems to be saying “well maybe a tree hit it” in the further fetched cases to “maybe it was parked and someone hit him” in the more reasonable - and so forth.
Ok, maybe - so why is the kid drunk? Who bought him the booze or what store sold it to him? (etc.)
Basic police-type stuff, just hasn’t been answered.

/I understand the pentagon was being reinforced to prevent the Lliogor from escaping as it had devoured Kennedy’s brain last time...?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:11 PM on May 17, 2006


/I’ll add - why would anyone assume - having just seen two buildings hit by planes in NYC that the transponder going off = plane crash when there was no confirmation of that?
If I’m in an engagement with an enemy and the fire stops, I’m not going to assume he’s left.
But granting that - why aren’t those asses in slings? No one wants to scapegoat anyone, but there had been drills and scenarios covering exactly this kind of event - and actually were in operation that day. So the FAA thought the plane went down, ok. NORAD did too? The Air Force as well? “Assume” shouldn’t have been in their vocabulary.
But ok, grant the chaos of the situation, the suckassiness of NORAD and our military.
That just bumps blame up a level (who’s training these people to assume?) and opens the can of worms as to how the hijackers knew (again - granting they did) all this training was going on.

/...I bet you’re wondering what it’s like to work for me, aren’t you? I’m not as bad as a D.I.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:22 PM on May 17, 2006


Oh, here's something interesting I hadn't seen before:

Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, conducted in Nov. 2000:



The Pentagon is less than a mile from Reagan National Airport and is daily in the flight path of small commuter planes.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:24 PM on May 17, 2006


This has been said before but the number one reason why none of these conspiracy theories will convince me is that they all hinge on a huge number of people doing everything right and nobody (important) noticing.

Now granted, many small actions can add up to a huge force but I find it hard to believe that the same Military Industrial Complex that can't secure Afghanistan, can't even win in Iraq, can't evacuate New Orleans properly, put Harriet Miers up for Supreme Court nomination ferchrissakes and through all that couldn't even screw over the US populace too badly with legislation is up to the job of a massive coverup involving thousands of people and carefully timed events.

Honestly, I don't believe that the same government that is so shockingly inept at easy, simple things is going to succeed at the greatest conspiracy in history.

This all smacks of Creationism writ sideways: we can't explain this, this and that, so clearly it was God A CONSPIRACY!!1

Yes, there are some freaky things that happened on 9/11 and there are still some unanswered questions but to go from "gee, there's some insider trading, and I as a complete layman don't understand how buildings collapse/planes steer/bureaucracies work" to the gay jewish UN building landing strips for aliens with mind-control rays is...quite a leap.

On preview:eriko you rock
posted by Skorgu at 2:27 PM on May 17, 2006


sonofsamiam--

I'm not normally kind of a pooh-pooher of conspiracy theories, but this raises my eyebrows: This guy was involved in that simulation of an airliner crashing into the Pentagon before retiring to become a civilian pilot. Most likely just a bizarre coincidence, but still kinda spooky.
posted by EarBucket at 3:07 PM on May 17, 2006


I guess the biggest thing that leads credence in all kinds of nutbar conspiracy theories is Bush's assertions to the contrary. Everything out of that man's mouth is a big fat lie.

I mean, c'mon, what *are* we supposed to believe when he says things like "Make no mistake about it: If we'd have known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings, we would have done everything in our power to stop it".
posted by mazola at 3:30 PM on May 17, 2006


I'm not normally kind of a pooh-pooher of conspiracy theories

Argh. Should be "I'm normally kind of. . .". Stupid internets.
posted by EarBucket at 5:16 PM on May 17, 2006


Smedleyman: having just seen two buildings hit by planes in NYC that the transponder going off = plane crash when there was no confirmation of that?

Sigh, I posted this link just about every time this discussion comes up, and it still seems that no one bothers to look at it. For someone who keeps wanting the questions answered, you seem to be unwilling to look at any of the evidence that deals with those questions. Here is the blow-by-blow:

8:24 First indication that American 11 had been hijacked.
8:46 American 11 Hits WTC North.
8:55 After transponder changes and a failure to communicate, the New York Center believes that United 175 had been hijacked.
8:56 American 77 Shuts down transponder.
9:01 New York contacts the Herndon, VA Command Center about United 175.
9:03 United 175 Crashes
9:05 Boston reviews early American 11 audio and catches the statement, "We have planes." This is the point at which the question becomes, "how many planes?"
9:20 Indianapolis is finally informed about the WTC crashes.
9:21 The bungled call in which the mistaken belief that a third craft out of Boston was heading towards Washington.
9:32 Radar contact for American 77 in Washington airspace. By then it was too late with fighters intercepting a phantom plane over Maryland.

So some interpretation:

Indianapolis could not have "just seen two buildings hit by planes in NYC" when American 77's transponder signal vanished. United 175 was still in the air at that point in time. NYC had just realized that United 175 was a probable hijack rather than just experiencing technical difficulties.

Things start happening at a furious pace between 8:45 and 9:05. 6 minutes for questions about United 175 to trickle up the system, then 2 minutes later United 175 crashes into the South Tower. The real gap in communication comes between 9:05 when "how many planes" starts getting circulated, to 9:20 when Indianapolis learns about the other two confirmed crashes.

The power of initial assumptions really hurts. After American 11, the assumption was that there was one plane in the system. After United 175, the assumption was that the attacks were all about Manhattan, and fighters directed to NYC airspace. After the transponder loss of flight 77, the assumption was electrical failure and a crash (part of the lag could be justified due to the scramble to field search and rescue.) Then there was theory of a third Boston plane that led fighters to be deployed North of Washington.

Bureaucracy really hurts in this case because information must trickle up and down the hierarchy. And there isn't enough time to make good decisions, much less field an effective defense.

There just wasn't enough time to do much of anything. 21 minutes decision time for American 11, 10 minutes for United 175. You could automate that decision, but at the risk of devastating friendly fire accidents.

So the FAA thought the plane went down, ok. NORAD did too? The Air Force as well? “Assume” shouldn’t have been in their vocabulary.

In the long history of civilian air disasters, there has been how many cases of planes crashing due to electrical and mechanical failure, compared to 4 crashes on 9/11? How many hijackings had followed the profile used on 9/11?

Any plan for transponder loss will be based on an assumption, a theory for what is the most probable explanation for that event. There are an infinite number of possibilities for why a plane might lose transponder contact: invisible pink unicorns teleporting it to another dimension, worm holes, the plane transmuted to salt water taffy. Instead we focus on the most probable: electrical failure, catastrophic loss, and since 9/11, hijacking.

Assumptions are going to be central to any form of human decision making. That's just the way it is, you might as well argue for a geocentric universe.

But yes, this is a possible critical flaw in the system as it exists. NORAD and the Air Force are dependent on civilian air control to inform it when any of the thousands of planes in U.S. airspace start acting funny.

And as for why does the FAA operate at capacity. Do you really need to have one of the basic laws of organizational behavior explained to you?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:07 PM on May 17, 2006


Good response.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:02 PM on May 17, 2006


I don't know KirkJobSluder, that's a lot of words.

It's easier to believe the gubment was screwin' us over. I don't know how, but THEY WERE SCREWIN' US OVER!
posted by mazola at 9:23 PM on May 17, 2006


As an adjunct to KirkJobSluder's point, from the 911 report:
Paragraph #2246 (on page 459)
121. In response to allegations that NORAD responded more quickly to the October 25, 1999, plane crash that killed Payne Stewart than it did to the hijacking of American 11, we compared NORAD’s response time for each incident.The last normal transmission from the Stewart flight was at 9:27:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time. The Southeast Air Defense Sector was notified of the event at 9:55, 28 minutes later. In the case of American 11, the last normal communication from the plane was at 8:13 A.M. EDT. NEADS was notified at 8:38, 25 minutes later. We have concluded there is no significant difference in NORAD’s reaction to the two incidents. See NTSB memo, Aircraft Accident Brief for Payne Stewart incident, Oct. 25, 1999; FAA email, Gahris to Myers,“ZJX Timeline for N47BA accident,” Feb. 17, 2004.
But, I still don't think that is adequate to address Smedleyman's questions..

On the other hand, in the abstract, we already know the answers. It is just that they require invalidation of the American national identity. I mean, Chomsky is right when it comes to ideas like Manufacturing Consent, and The Threat of a Good Example (apologies if including links is too pedantic for your sensibilities), but those ideas are simply unacceptable in the mainstream. The mainstream lumps those ideas in with the notion that Flight 77 didn't crash into the pentagon.

To come back to the point I was skirting around up thread. What strategic role were F-15s designed to fill? The public was sold the idea that they were standing guard against a spontaneous outbreak of total war in Europe.. Consider the amount of maintenance they require, the nature of the airbases they require, etc. I think you can make a solid case that they wouldn't perform very effectively in that environment. Doesn't that make them a tool of American imperialism? I don't know.. Certainly nobody wants to let the public know that fighter jets really aren't very effective at defending American airspace from the kind of threats that are actually likely to happen..
posted by Chuckles at 12:47 AM on May 18, 2006


Tell me…

Men of America….

Why did they wait?

4.5 years?

To show us this shitty frame?

National Security?

Have none of you paused to consider the weight of that excuse?
posted by rougy at 1:13 AM on May 18, 2006 [1 favorite]


And the Men Of America Say...

... I'm Convinced.
posted by mazola at 8:05 AM on May 18, 2006


Certainly nobody wants to let the public know that fighter jets really aren't very effective at defending American airspace from the kind of threats that are actually likely to happen.

I imagine it's for the same reason as the looney Ballistic Shield/Star Wars/etc bullshit keeps getting funded: nothing to do with actual defense, everything to do with giving money to the defense contract cronies.

Being effective does not seem to every be a primary goal of the US government, regardless the party in power.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:49 AM on May 18, 2006


I've been thinking about how missile defense figures into this conversation too. It does fit, I'm just not sure how.

I don't want to get specific about F-15s vs any other particular weapons system, but there is a subtlety here. F-15s appear to be very effective - tactically - at something. Israel likes them, apparently they were effective in the 1991 Gulf War. The fact that F-15s are effective at anything takes them out of the boondoggle category..

Well.. Half felicitously, I called them a tool of American imperialism, but is that why they were built? I guess that dependance isn't necessary at all. Built as boondoggle, but used for whatever they might be able to do.

If your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.. Is that a good analogy for American foreign policy?
posted by Chuckles at 11:07 AM on May 18, 2006


"At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."
posted by b1tr0t at 12:21 PM on May 18, 2006


« Older Bush out of favor in 47 out of 50 states....  |  From Dictatorship to Democracy... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments