Photoshopped.

-

I like that they look at the lamp posts popping out, and how they would have had to travel. I don't like that they fail to explore the complex physics of what the steel polls would do to the plane wings at that high rate of speed.

The generator unit being hit and spool unit not looks pretty solid.

I also like that they provide a convincing analysis of the one frame with the plane and smoking engine, but then they don't look a the other camera angle, or note what to expect from future camera angles that may be later released (which, matched up upon their release, would lend high credibility to this model).

Also, like in my very first post to the sift (narcissistic cross-link; http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=2812 ), this render shows how incredible the murderous pilot's luck/skill was to cause such a direct shot, through lamp posts and everything, striking the building perfectly at groundlevel and at incredible velocity.

(p.s. they could have layered in the actual satellite view from that day, as in my Purdue post, although that weird line in the lawn sure is distracting...)

I'm not one of those paranoid folks that hang around the Art Bell blogs talking about how they faked the lunar landings, so I'm not up-to-speed on the latest... so for you guys out there that think this was faked or covering something else, please educated me here...what the hell *did* happen to the Pentagon that day?

I'm confused as to how there could be a conspiracy here. A plane hit the Pentagon. There is zero way to dispute that unless you ingnore *all* the footage and physical evidence and eye witnesses. Why do we need to prove it happened with a computer model?

Rational Person: There's no evidence to support your paranoid claims.
Conspiracy Theorist: That just PROVES how good these guys really ARE!

Here you go swampgirl and cobalt... I am in NO WAY a proponent of the conspiracy theories surrounding the attack on the Pentagon, but from what I've gathered here are some of the main points leading people to believe there is a cover-up afoot;

- the "secrecy" surrounding videos of the crash; FBI agents secured a number of video tapes from nearby businesses that could have captured the event, and upon litigation for their release under the freedom of information act only the two 1-frame-per-second videos taken from the entrance gate were handed over. This has been explained as the request not being specific enough, and could be the FBI being overly cautious to release to the press footage they don't hold copyright to (they got in trouble for the JFK footage). As with anything held classified, people's imaginations tend to wander, and beliefs that they're hiding a terrible truth begin to form.

- the plane was not intercepted, and there was what appears to be a complete breakdown in what the FAA and the Airforce were supposed to do in this situation.

- the side of the Pentagon that was attacked was "under construction" and not fully staffed; also it was opposite the side occupied by the higher-ups, like Rumsfeld.

- the plane skips over the White House in favor of the larger Pentagon, and is then noted (I have not read the official accounts) to have quickly dove thousands of feet while banking a large turn in order to hit the Pentagon, and this maneuver would be difficult if not impossible in that aircraft, certainly for a pilot of little experience (again, this is what they say, and I don't know what the officially tracked flight path was).

- this huge plane was piloted extraodinarily well by the hijackers (as morbid and terrible as that is to say), and hit the building at practically ground level, after diving very low and clipping a number of highway lights, while flying 350mph, leveling off, and not hitting the ground.

- there is a line of dead grass in the lawn of the Pentagon before the attack that is only a few degrees off of tracking the direction in which the airplane struck (I thought this was an interesting coincidence, and is clearly visible in a video I submitted before, but has very reasonable explanations; http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=2812 )

- the appearance of the crash site: looking at pictures of the event, you don't see much of an airplane, nor any damage to the ground, nor much of a hole in the building (atleast at first, before fire crews begin tearing away damaged sections). This lead to accusations of a missile attack or a smaller airplane piloted remotely and precisely. This is the claim that this video is addressing; that the appearance of the site actually matches what could be expected in a computer model.

So there you go. Pretty lame, I know, but those are the big ones. If anybody knows ones I missed, I guess you could share them if you feel like it.

-

"... That offer Forensic dispute RESOLUTION" - I guess that solves this case once and for all! Good job Watson! Now if we can only recreate how those planes were hijacked and crashed into the towers, we'll have a closed case! Thank goodness for computer recreations. Hey! Maybe they can do a Forensic Engineering for where they hid the WMD's!?! :-P

Ok, so a bird will shred an engine, but this plane had no problem plowing through, not one, not two.. But like SIX lamp poles. And yet there are no fragments of PLANE WINGS in the photos next to any of the poles.

If the plane was going fast enough with enough energy and the wings are that strong, wouldn't the poles get sheared off at the top? Are aluminum wing struts that strong?

Regardless, check out Minetta's comments when he retired a few days ago.

He remarked that he was in the room with the guy that goes, Mr. Vice President, the plane is 30 miles out, do you want to give the order? Mr. Vice President 20 miles out... Mr. Vice President 10 miles out.

Here:
http://www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv
Mineta testified that he arrived at the PEOC at 9:20 a.m. and that Vice President Cheney was already present with his staff. The 9/11 Commission Report states that Cheney himself arrived at the PEOC at 9:58, a stunning 38 minute contradiction to Mineta's testimony.

Mineta's PEOC testimony was also edited out of the 9/11 Commission video archive.

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

---------
Lemme guess CSPAN is a conspiracy network. And the 9/11 Commission is run by Art Bell.

Show me where that is in your video.

i only wish my english would be good enough to join your discussion...

to sum it up: in my eyes the question is not if there really were any planes but rather if those planes (all of them) really were operated by terrorists. there are just so many weird circumstances...

i guess we´ll never find out the truth. at least as long as this small elite of american politicians benefit from keeping it secret, as with all the other suspicious events in their history

for all those that don't believe there's a conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks then open your eyes,check out this video on google video,its called "loose change" it explans everything and disproves all of the "official" explanations leaving you with no other choice then to see the truth,once you've watched this video,you can't argue with the fact that 9/11 was staged by the government of the united states of america!!!

Logistictian:

yes... you can. I'm not saying I do disagree, I'm just saying you can. remember, the "loose change" people are simply trying to prove their own theory while leaving out anything that contradicts it. everyone deserves the right to their own opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29

Of course, this PROVES nothing. But I'm as big a 9/11 skeptic as anyone, and I believe a plane crashed into the Pentagon.

There's a REASON that the Pentagon crash gets all the attention. Think about it - how much print space does the evidence confirming the demolition of the towers get, or the shooting down of Flight 93, or the orgies of improbable evidence (flight manual in back of car - check; passport that survived an impact that destroyed a black box - check; suicide letters that Islamic scholars said couldn't have been written by Muslims - check), or the insider trading on AA and UA stock? Very little, if any.

Instead, the public perception of 9/11 conspiracy theories is that of people who don't believe a plane crashed into the Pentagon, when it obviously did. When the 9/11 Truth Movement begins to gain more traction, expect the release of more evidence demonstrating that fact. All of a sudden, ALL 9/11 conspiracy theories - both stupid and sensible - lose credibility.

Having a bit of experiance with solidworks i can say that that there is alot thats not done that could have supported this arguement. I can only think that the creator of the video left out this evidence to support his own arguement, or wasnt skilled enough with the software to take advantage of these options, leaving doubt for the entire video.

Having seen the loose change video I would say that the "major damage area" in this video doesnt quite match up. The initial footage shows a hole rather clearly with no major damage from wing impact, which we know to carry the planes fuel.

Loose Change also did well to rebut any arguement that the plane parts were solid proof.

Like any theory this will probably never be proven, we can sift forever through the lies and still come up with nothing but alot of circumstancial evidence and blurry photos.

Wow, I've been watching this comment thread with some interest since I submitted the video a few days back. I can't believe the passion here! I also can't believe how so many people discard all logic in favour of their passions. It seems that many start their argument from a conclusion and then grasp for something, anything to support their beliefs.

I have to congratulate bamdrew for his summary of the situation as seen by the conspiracy side of things- it's as good a summation as I've seen. As for the assertion by Joemawlma that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I agree up to a point- at least until the facts start to intrude, and there has not been presented one single minutiae of fact presented by those on the conspiracy side. If I'm wrong then please, I beg someone to present it.

"Watson, when you have eliminated the impossible then whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth" -Sherlock Holmes

"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity)- Occam's Razor - William of Ockham

"I'm not interested in facts, only the truth"- Stephen Colbert

so if u belive it was a planethat hit the pentagon,then what about this,all the alledged "eye-witnesses" that say they saw a plane hit the pentagon,said that they saw it so clearly at like 30-40feet above their heads and cars,now,have u ever seen what happens to a car if a jet flies over it at such a low altitude-funnily,what suppossed to happen didnt happen at all to any of these cars at the pentagon.therealblankman-you said you havent seen any fact from the conspiracy side,check this-its been scientifically proven that jet fuel cannot burn the struts that where used on the construction of the twin towers to a molten state thus causing the towers to collapse,scientifically prove,any yet this was the official explanation released that this is why the towers collapsed,was because of the immense heat of the jet fuel yet that is scientifically impossible,also,y where all other camera angles of the pentagon crash confiscated by the fbi minutes after,if they have nothing to hide and it really was a plane then y not jus release these tapes and prove it once and for all that it was a plane and not a cruise missile,instead they released their five frame footage that has no plane visible,also note that of the eight black boxes that should have been recovered,only one was,which again was put down to jet fuel incinarating them yet that too is scientifally impossible because of the design of the black boxes,9 of the alledged hijackers of 9/11 are all actually still alive and well,and this one really cracks me up,the jet fuel of the plane that hit the pentagon appearantly completely incinarated a boeing 747 but yet 194 bodies where found and id'd by their dna,don't ya tink that a boeing 747 is slightly more durable to jet fuel than the human body,but sumhow all the bodies where intact and not incinerated like the plain,watch the loose change 2nd edition for more FACTS of what really happend

"Watson, when you have eliminated the impossible then whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth" -Sherlock Holmes

I do like this Quote, but I would argue that the video above hardly elimates anything. I would suggest that you keep an open mind to all possibilities, for with the proper software I can simulate any "instance" to make it look factual. Want me to do the Kennedy assassination? I too can make a magic bullet with the solidworks plugin.

See, I don't believe the Bush administration is competent enough to pull off the type of conspiracies described.

You have to have at least as much of an amazingly high level of faith in their ability to plan something like this, as one needs to simply believe that the Administration screwed up.

Exhibit A for the argument that "these amateurs can't plan/run things effectively": Iraq. Talk about horrible administration.

To address one single point you hear pop up now and again for less informed people (mainly because the excellent wikipedia article doesn't address it): "lack of air force interception".

After the Cold War the US no longer had interceptor units stationed to scramble at a moment's notice - by the time the bureacracy could activate itself to give the order to get the jets ready and scramble them, it would be too late.

Note to haggis: 93 wasn't 'shot down', but brought down following the struggle with the passengers.

-

in 1993 the story was black UN helicopters being shipped all over the United States, and money strips being put into dollars for malign government purposes

*1*
I read the article on scrambling. Note that the article itself states that scrambling is MUCH more common AFTER 9/11:
"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

Same article:
" "We considered it at that time to be a possible hijacking," air traffic manager Glenn Michael said.

The FAA notified NORAD 15 minutes later; three minutes after that, NORAD was told United Airlines Flight 175 had been hijacked. (Note: later sources say 18 minutes.)

The first two military interceptors, Air Force F-15 Eagles from Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts, scrambled airborne at 8:52 a.m., too late to do anything about the second jet heading for the Trade Center or a third heading toward the Pentagon. "

The Norad site doesn't convince me of anything malevolent - they screwed up, or didn't hurry (which, in itself, is a kind of screw up in this situation).

The fact that entire squadrons of planes weren't scrambled isn't a big shock - oh no, they didn't scramble from 'the most logical base.'

Generally speaking, you only have a pair of jets ready to go, and not necessarily at all bases. They sent up the first available planes. It's not like the jetliners can shoot back; sending up more jets wouldn't serve much purpose.

As for the tiresome, "oooh, they only flew at 25% of top speed," three things:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2, 900 mph at low altitude; Mach 2.5, 1,650 mph at high altitude (1,450 km/h / 2,655 km/h)
2. with the afterburner on, a jet fighter will shred jetfuel like a grunt about to be deployed to Iraq will drink booze
3. max range of planes is based on full fuel load; we don't know (A) if the planes had fuel fueld loads, and (B) the pilots didn't know how far they would be chasing the jetliners! (note that article about Stewart has a running theme: escorts kept swapping out b/c of need to refuel!)

*2*
Debris spread: depends on how you crash. 'Lawn dart', or skid?
I really don't see what hte issue is? Do they believe there should be a larger or smaller debris field in the case of a shoot-down?

You suggest that an 8 mile spread should be a cause for concern. After reading the claims, I started to wonder if an 8 mile spread wouldn't be more consistent with a shoot-down than a regular crash, but concluded that either is possible.

Here'a 1km debris field crash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981

That satisfies me that it's entirely possible.

Wiki has several lists - if you're not happy with that example, you can scour some more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters#Air_disasters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:In-flight_airliner_structural_failures

I really don't see any evidence to convince me not to think it came down through the efforts of the people onboard.

*****
This "wanttoknow" site is rather awkwardly designed; I can't tell if the documents are supposed to support or refute their claims. I mean, if the information is hidden there's a cover-up. The screw-ups are pretty well known, though. And they stem from the fact that US Intel had a 50+ year mission to make sure that there would be "no more Pearl Harbors," which was modified to "no atomic Pearl Harbors".

Their mission had not fundamentally shifted until after 9/11.
*****

*3*
And as for the President not being evacuated?
Yes, I can explain that, and I'll go beyond incompetence/panic.
Before doing that, I'll just explain what the incompetence argument means: you're dealing with an Administration which had a YEAR to plan for what to do in Iraq. They could've prepared more troops - there was no rush! - and handily had a robust force in place to secure all those weapons caches that the IEDs are coming from, not to mention to prevent the initial looting and all the other chaos.

Argument #2:
Dubya could've said, "sorry kids, gotta go." But he sat there like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming 18-wheeler.

Yeah, his agents could've been like, "go go go", but this isn't Red Alert 2 (great game, btw), but real life. If the C-in-C is staying put - and he's sitting in front of TV cameras - you're putting your career on the line if you're going to dart in and drag him out.

It was up to Dubya to move, and he didn't.

Besides, if you want to talk fighter escort, it would be likelier for the local Air National Guard to scramble to protect him than another site in the country, so you've got an additional layer of security right there, although I admit that's little more than idle speculation over classified security protocols.

Man, fisking takes forever.

btw, sterling comment as usual, deathcow.

Not meaning to get into any argument here, but the Loose change video is posted here:

http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=3516

At about 12 minutes in it explains a lot in great detail.. I'm not taking sides here btw.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Mooseman, could you be any more neutral? I'm convinced now that 9/11 is all Mooseman's fault. ;-)

THough this video is disturbing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7193024010983572797
This video compares the similarities to WTC and London bombing.

Now sure, people's nature is to find patterns in nature, etc. etc.
But same creepy 'training exercises' and the same day. The security and bomb sniffing dogs were removed from both places the weekend before, etc. Both attacks led to 'Patriot Act' type legislation.

Now you throw the Mumbai bombing into the mix, and it gets very scary.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2266068,00.html

-

Debris: I have seen things skid across long distances. Multiple that by the velocity of the plane and any other factors and it doesn't seem so unreasonable. Of course, I don't mean to say the passengers brought it down themselves; the madman at the controls did it. In my limited experience flying (virtual) planes, I wouldn't be surprised to see all sorts of ridiculously odd outcomes from collisions, crashes, and explosions.

If the USAF shot down 93, good on them - and there's no reason they shouldn't publicize it.

Dubya: that's based on my understanding of how the POTUS operates and of human nature.
If Dubya was dead, you could argue they didn't do their job, but he's not. A school is a much harder target to hit and I doubt the terrorists were flexible enough to re-plan their target in just three days.

The article mentions that when Bush first heard about it, "he believed the crash to have been a case of pilot error." Funny thing is, that's what I first heard - and I learned about 9/11 in a very similar setting: in a classroom, with someone whispering the news to me.

All I heard was, 'a plane hit the WTC.'

"Man, that's like the worst pilot EVER", I thought. I had ridden the subway while this was all going down, so I missed everything on TV. Not until after class did I go outside, see a TV, and absorb the real shock.

Having read the articles you presented, I know that a lot of people thoughtlessly absorb what's presented to them. I've been in journalism, I've been exposed to PR flaks and all that garbage. This is nothing new to me.

My understanding of 9/11 is that the US had a Massive Intelligence Failure, but the Bush Administration proceeded to use it as an excuse to justify all kinds of zany programs; I don't think they were organized enough to plan it directly, but they were certainly skilled enough to exploit it.

Damn jackals.

-

So I'm saying they weren't brave or smart enough to pull Dubya out of the classroom. What's your explanation?

My bad on when Bush heard about plane #2 vs. #1.

The PNAC quote is an accurate assessment of how hard it is to shake up the bureacracy's ingrained attitudes/focus. I would've said the same thing as PNAC, as would anyone else who's read up on the history of the CIA, NSA et al.

-The lecture-
The PNAC quotes aren't a big surprise, I think I read about that a while ago in Time.

The posting says that this guy humbly claims to offer no answers:
"Ian does not offer specifi answers .......... but for those who truly value the concept of democracy, it is imperative that they are aware of these extremely important but as yet unanswered questions."
Yeah, right. And yet he's claiming it's a "controlled demolition".
They got hit by planes to cover up the collapse? That's an incredible stretch of the imagination. Why go through all the trouble of getting the planes in the first place? If they miss are they still going to blow up the buildings? The logical pitfalls are staggering.

And the collapse destroyed/damaged the surrounding buildings. I don't see anything "controlled" about that.

Don't read anything unless it's by a "professor emeritus"? Oh come on now.

Yeah, I call tinfoil on that, sorry.

Pointing out the ad on the doubledecker had the word "terror" on it? Yeah, old news, I don't care, and it's distracting from your argument Ian.

Oh man. The Visor Consultants example? They guy completely ignores the fact that they made an intelligent selection (near American/Jewish businesses - in the clip he plays!) for their exercise. That means it's not a completely random station selection, so you can't just use stats to argue that this was an impossible coincidence.

Yeah, the London bombings distract from the G8; that was sort of the point. This guy's conspiracy theories are weak, even if held up to a lower standard.

I read up some more things while listening to the guy's talk, and you may find these interesting:
On the jet scrambles (the 21 minutes to the golfer's plane story is incorrect):
http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/2002_06_01_mckinneysucks_archive.html#77997492
In general on the Griffins book he cites:
http://www.911myths.com/html/omissions____chapter_1.html

The guys in the Administration are jerks and they bend the rules to their will (Cheney's secrecy with oilmen; not even a slap on the wrist for hunting w/o a license!, Rove's breaches of national security laws). They're operating above the law and if the US had any decency these men should be impeached and arrested immediately, but of course they're too rich and powerful for that to happen.

blackbox anyone?...someone want to explain why 99.9% of all black boxes have been recovered.. yet on 9/11 3 somehow were lost???... so suck a fat one... i still say no plane...

-

Ah, "how the secret service knew the president and the schoolchildren weren't in danger".
Do you seriously believe that if they had a conspiracy that diabolical they would let the Secret Service know about it?

Your faith in their ability to keep a secret is laudable, if questionable.

As for the "my bad", the posts are getting long and I have this annoying habit of not typing out what I'm thinking. This is what I omitted in my last comment re: Bush "this is what happens when a cokehead is elected president." Since The Supremes appointed him to the Oval Office I was worried he'd do something stupid. And there you have it.

On the campaign trail we suckered him into thinking/saying that the PM of Canada is Jean Poutine. We like our fries with gravy and cheese, but not *that* much.

And yes, if you assume that the London bombers did not use any logic but instead randomly selected their targets, then it *is* improbable. But it's reasonable to think they would've gone after a certain part of London, and the fact that the Visors did it too is more of an affirmation that he knew what he was doing as a security consultant.

In downtown Toronto they performed drills around the biggest most valuable skyscrapers. The drills take the better part of a day to conduct, so you have a pretty big window of probability interception to play with.

Black boxes, which are orange, are not magical. I'm not impressed my made-up statistics. What's your source on 99.9%?

-

Snake, I believe the facts. I like to look up actual verifiable things rather than suscribe to crazy theories.

I also did answer your questions but in the interests of brevity, I didn't feel like engaging in full-on Fisking. And when I say "cokehead" I am of course being a little facetious, but have you dealt with people who have dropped acid in the past? They totally zone out. It's funny, if it doesn't freak you out.

Read the links I provided you - here's a few more, they'll provide sufficient answers/rebuttals.

One for the passport - if it fluttered off while the box was crushed by the building collapsing, that would make perfect sense on so many levels:
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

Here's one on debris fields:
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html

Here's a goodie on intercepts:
http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html

You know what I find curious? Reading these websites - geez it takes forever to sift through this... good thing some people decided to sift through videos... <grin> - I've noticed that, in general, the theorists generally say they must be right, while the skeptics are generally more skeptical of everything - saying "to the best of our knowledge" when something's unclear, instead of holding things as gospel truth (exhibit A - the lecture-video you cited above - that man had the conviction of a preacher!).

-

In the Pentagon, the coroner (in relatively short time) confirmed, by DNA, all passengers (doh, except for one child that was not on the manifest). So they had a list of passengers and have medical proof they found every body in the Pentagon wreck.

But, they never found the BLACKBOX?

Odd? You buying that?

Snake, your attitudes been very trying. I've spent more time than most would reading through your links, instead of "clicking it off the screen because it doesn't correlate with (my) opinion", so please keep the ad hominem attacks to yourself.

I look at the site, and their arguments do the same preaching I commented on earlier. "ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - linked to the CIA, the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs"
Yes, it's cute to use a writing style trick to invert the meaning of the term conspiracy theorist to make yourself look right, but it doesn't make you right.

Stand-down? Insider trading? Controlled demolition? Oh come on - this is an insult to the term "documented proof".

In the end, your side arguments rest as much on Bush's incompetence as mine: I argue he sat there like an idiot because he is one. You argue he sat there like an idiot b/c he planned it all along.

If he planned it all along and sat there in a way to 'betray his prior knowledge', he would just as much an idiot since he should've been ready to "act" more surprised.

That's the fun and infuriating thing about these guessing games - you can so easily get into a loop of, "but that's just what they *want* us to think!"

Here's some more rational explanations for what happened. The towers did not "break the laws" of gravity:
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=5566

Black smoke: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html

Black boxes: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_boxes.html
Sorry joedirt, definitely found them on two flights; and no rational person will be surprised if you have trouble finding anything in the wreckage of the WTCs - literally tons of materials were pulverized into dust, as the video above reminds you.

-

It's cool Snake - I did address the passport issue, though.
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

I'll agree with you that the Admin is dishonest, however much we disagree on to what extent.

Krupo, you source on Blackboxes sucks. The say two, three AND all four boxes were found, the three boxes quote being for resonable sources. So, WTF are you saying? They did find the boxes but are lying about them?

Ok, clearly I said "Pentagon". All I talked about was Pentagon. So, the impact was bad enough to destroy BOTH the flight data recorder AND the voice cockpit recorder. Yes, Virginia, two boxes per plane.

"Actually painted bright orange, these recorders are equipped with "pingers" or radio and acoustic beacons that aid in their retrieval."

All I'm saying is one of these have to a lie. (a) The coroner release a report confirming DNA matches to all passengers on the manifest. Oops, later it was found out an infant was not on the manifest, so the coroner said they couldn't find that DNA, but they found ALL other DNA matches. (b) the Pentagon crash was so hot, and impact so damaging, that both blackboxes were damaged and unrecoverable. (The can forensically pull of at least some info of a damaged box). I blackbox found but TOO damaged.

So which official story is a lie?

For those interested, are these firemen lying?
http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/17860.htm

Honorary firefighter Mike Bellone claims he was approached by unknown bureau agents a short time after he and his partner Nicholas DeMasi, a retired New York firefighter, found three of the four "black boxes" among the WTC rubble before January 2002. Bellone is retired and was made an honorary New York fireman for his efforts after 911. DeMasi also recently retired from Engine Co. 261, nicknamed the "Flaming Skulls," after serving a brief stint after 911 with the fire department's marine unit.

"It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back,' said NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz. "I can't remember another case which we did not recover the recorders."

http://www.howstuffworks.com/black-box.htm

One thing the NTSB learned from experience: be careful where you put these things. Recorders used to be located near the point where the wings joined the fuselage, the theory being that this was the most heavily constructed part of the plane. Problem was, being heavily constructed, the parts of the plane falling on the recorders often crushed them. Now the recorders are put in the tail section so that, assuming your typical crashing plane goes in nose first, the forward part of the airframe absorbs most of the impact.
---
Crash impact - Researchers shoot the CSMU down an air cannon to create an impact of 3,400 Gs (1 G is the force of Earth's gravity, which determines how much something weighs). At 3,400 Gs, the CSMU hits an aluminum, honeycomb target at a force equal to 3,400 times its weight. This impact force is equal to or in excess of what a recorder might experience in an actual crash.

Fire test - Researchers place the unit into a propane-source fireball, cooking it using three burners. The unit sits inside the fire at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,100 C) for one hour. The FAA requires that all solid-state recorders be able to survive at least one hour at this temperature.

A few comments of my own on this discussion.
The light poles are less of an impediment than a telephone pole. They are mounted on snap bolts so they break off easy. This is to protect drunk drivers, or something like that. I've seen a small pickup knock one 8 feet with a collision that was only about 30mph. As to the perpendicular position of a pole, go play pool. There are far more variables in this equation than 3. It's position is nothing special, or breaking of physics, you just haven't factored in enough of the MANY variables involved. It's easier to predict which side of a die will come up than the landing position of lightpole struck by a plane.

Lack of armed response. Wow, this isn't world war 3 with intercept planes in the air ready to respond. It takes time. And that's after you realize it might be a good idea to do so. Hijackers tend to fly off with planes, not use them as cruise missiles. Everybody thought they are going to land somewhere. Even after one crashed, it was most likely assumed to be incompetence of the highjackers, and not intentional. And why intercept a hijacked plane? You aren't going to shoot it down, and radar keeps track of it very nicely. Just send police to where it lands. There is another factor that people forget about. Shock. The first one hit, and everybody where I worked was shocked. It was a tragedy that struck at all of us. But that's all we though it was. Then the second one hit. People were dumbfounded. And I worked with intelligent problem solving people. Over half the people just stood there staring at the video feeds. Everybody was numb. There was an air of disbelief. It was as if there was a vague hope that suddenly the picture would shift to a reporter in a clown suit saying "Gotcha! April Fools!". But that didn't happen, and people eventually started leaving like shellshocked sheep. The next day, only about a third of us showed up for our shifts. Nobody said a thing.

Now as to the skipping of the whitehouse and nailing the pentagon. I don't know, but here is a possible guess. Ever try picking out landmarks at a couple of hundred miles an hour? It's a major pain. When the image has resolved enough to identify most things, it's too late to do anything about it. That's why military bases have old busted planes as decoys on the runway. To someone travelling a couple hundred mph, they look like valid targets. Now just imagine the scum who missed the whitehouse, he's probably ticked, and may even assume he can't get a second chance at that one. Then he sees a unique piece of architecture that can be easily identified from a very long distance, the pentagon. (There aren't many huge pentagon shaped buildings on this planet, it's easy to spot.) He probably decided target of opertunity. After all, the white house just has a four year bozo, the pentagon has lots of military top brass. If it was a wargame, I know which one would be worth more points, and it's not a politicians penthouse.

Ok, now as to the tower supports failing. Let's look at the explanation. Under fire conditions, those supports would not be compromised. But it is believed that when the plane struck and ripped through the building, it shredded the insulation on some of the supports. That sounds very likely to me, I've seen things get hit with less force than that, and have the same effect. Look at some trees hit by cars, notice the missing bark? Ok, now jet fuel burns hot, for that matter, so do most apartments. Bet that sucker hit flashover point and all that stuff. It didn't have to melt the supports, it just had to weaken them. A fire that doesn't even make the metal glow can cause that to happen. Just take out a couple of supports and stress the building, and that will start a cascade failure. Like knocking over dominoes. A few fail, increases stress on remaining, they fail, that makes it worse, the rest go. It can happen very fast. Once a critical threshold is exceeded, the rest often go in seconds. If you watch the video of the collapse, that's basically what happened.

Eye witnesses. Slightly better than asking a psychic, but less entertaining. It's amazing how unreliable they are. That's one of the big reasons why we use forensics. I trust the cameras a whole lot more, and with very good reason.

The government is hiding something? Well, they are always hiding something. Sometimes it's intentional, other times it's somebody that just doesn't know. And don't forget standard lack of communication and incompetence. Often government stuff assumes the less they say, the less likely they can be blamed. With regards to all the fingerpointing afterwards, well as they say, hindsight is 20/20, so stop looking out your a## at past events. You can always say someone must have realized it, but didn't. Gee, george has a report 1 on his desk, frank has report 3 in his filing cabinet, jane has read the summaries of reports 3 and 5. While Mary has report 2 sitting in her inbox, and report 5 is being faxed to george right now. Ok, now who knows what the heck is going on? Nobody. Two weeks later, who's fault is it that 5 sequential reports were filed and not acted upon, even though they spell out several low importance events that only add up to trouble when all five are together and in sequence? You don't like it, well, neither does the intelligence community, but it's what they have to work with. Those I've met from that area, have mostly been accusatory paranoid creeps. (Some were actually human.) Even so, it's not reasonable to have expected them to predict something like what happened. However, the acts of the politicians afterwards is utterly reprehensible and has definitely earned them an entire wing in the hall of shame.

One thing back to the one highjackers flying. Some have said it was absolutely fantastic flying. Well, that also assumes that what happened is exactly what he wanted to happen, and that he was a pilot who had some expectation of living through it, as well as keeping his plane intact. Those two conditions don't apply to the highjacker, and we really don't know what he expected to happen. To bring up pool again, I suck at it. I've made some shots that have had master players congratulate me. Too bad those shots were nothing like what I expected the balls to do. The praise wasn't deserved, it was an unintentional event. That is probably a case with the highjackers flying 'proficiency'.

I expect this has put a few wrinkles in some tin-foil hats, and has a few people thinking. Just remember, nobody alive is in full possession of the facts of those events, so much of what has been said is just guesswork, possibly even educated guesswork, but still guesswork.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Now that's what I call a comment barasawa! You might also be interested in this post:
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=6193 which for me is more troubling, conspiracy thoughts-inducing.

-

"check out this video on google video,its called "loose change" it explans everything and disproves all of the "official" explanations leaving you with no other choice then to see the truth,once you've watched this video,...written by LogisticTtian"

Yes, I've seen that video, and you have unwittingly revealed it's flaws. You assume that it "disproves all of the "official" explanations leaving you with no other choice". I'm sorry, but disproving one theory doesn't ever mean that an alternative theory is more valid. The documentary in question doesn't even discredit the official version of events very well; small inconsistencies don't mean the whole theory is invalid.

Look at it this way: Theory one (the government's version) makes sense for 99% of the facts. Theory two makes very little sense (let's just say 10%). Conspiracy theorists look at that and say "Ah ha! theory one isn't perfect, obviously theory 2 is correct!". You are completely throwing logic out the window when you do that. For ever hole you pick in the official version of events I could pick 100 in your alternative theory.

I happen to think that the US government is highly incompetent, and has caused the unecessary deaths of thousands of people over the last half-decade. So I'm not just believeing whatever junk they throw out there. I just happen to think for myself. One thing that always amazes me is that people don't ever realise that propaganda happens on both sides. They scoff at their opponents for "beliving the lies" while they continue to lap up everything that their own side has to say.

Hindsight is always 20/20. And morons that try to dispell everything have their whole lives to believe in nothing. If you dont like America and its government then A. Do something about it to make it better B. Leave (because we are using your hard earned tax dollars, money seems to drive people not a sense of loyalty or patriotism).

Jet fuel burned down the supports in the WTC and it collapsed, yet in the pentagon there was very little fire damage. Just look at all the photos out there. Jet fuel is notoriously hard to put out. And all the planes were heading to the west coast so were full of it.

Jet fuel is typically stored in the wings, though.

If the plane skipped before it hit the Pentagon or its wings were torn off at impact, then the worst of the fireball would have occurred outside of the exterior wall of the Pentagon(unlike the WTC which swallowed the planes whole before they burned).

See my comment on 'Pentagon Crash, Digital Render from Purdue University' video linked below for EVIDENCE that official story is deliberate lie.

*conspiracy

Adding video to channels (Conspiracy) - requested by EDD.