portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

9.11 investigation

Was there a NORAD stand down on 9-11?

That there was a stand down ordered which kept military aircraft grounded on 9-11 has become widely accepted as the gospel truth, and the most powerful evidence for a Bush-Cheney conspiracy in that they deliberately allowed the hijackers to suceed. But is that really what happened?
The political perspective of many authors on the subject of 9-11 conspiracies is that 9-11 was a 'domestic operation' ...
rather than al Queda it was executed by the American, British, and Israeli governments ...
these two diametrically opposed political perspectives lead to two entirely different analyses of the meaning and the significance of 9-11.

It is typical of many authors on the subject of 9-11 to use hyperbolic expressions a great deal (where you read an innuendo followed by a hyperbolic assertion of irrefutable guilt, and then another and another and so on...this form of debate is usually evidence for a weak argument in that the hyperbolic assertion is intended to strengthen the innuendo, but in most cases I find this constant resort to hyperbole to be very unconvincing and it has the opposite effect to what was intended)

Now in the case of many of the classic 'truisms' regarding 9-11 there are alternative explanations available for most of the points raised by the authors, and these do not constitute the type of irrefutable proof they are then trying to suggest can be inferred from such things.

A good example of this is the 'truism' which states that there was a NORAD stand down ordered on 9-11, and of all the arguments in favor of a massive conspiracy, this one is the most often repeated, and probably considered the most compelling by a lot of people...

However the possibility exists that this was false all along, and something else turned out to be the true explanation...This needs to be checked out thoroughly ...

Inside Job - Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies by Jim Marrs
 http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=747&category=Environment

According to this book there was no 'stand down' ordered for Norad on 9-11 but rather what was actually happening is that on that very morning Norad was conducting a hijacking simulation scenario into which the actual hijackings were confusingly mixed and thus the bad response to the situation
"There is also the fact that NORAD-Northeast was conducting war game exercises that morning, a fact that has been very little talked about and certainly not reported to the general public. What's also not been reported, according to the information that I have, at least one of the scenarios they were considering in their war game exercises concerned hijacked aircraft being crashed into buildings. Now, this could explain the lack of response when the air traffic controllers began to report that four planes were off course..."
- Jim Marrs, Author, Inside Job
The author suggests that if the 9-11 hijackers were able to perfectly coordinate their actions with the timing of this war game exercise this is evidence for an 'inside job' in that they would have been privy to priveleged information that allowed them to time the job perfectly and this gave them the advantage that they needed to get those crucial minutes required without a true Norad response which then leads to that theory about how Dick Cheney or somebody else ordered what is called a 'stand down' of Norad on 9-11. If the above information is true it explains all the confusion on those audio tapes in that at first the hijackings were considered a war game exercise and then only when it was to late to intercept the planes was it realized that this was not part of the war games and terrorism simulations being conducted on the morning of 9-11. Which would make the 9-11 terror attacks one of the most cleverly planned and well coordinated al Queda operations, and would be indication of just what kind of sophistication they are capable of when planning their strategy.

This is just one example of many others where it turns out that there can be alternative explantions to what is quickly become 'orthodox' when it comes to explaining 9-11. For example, the second most powerful argument used to explain government planning and execution of the 9-11 attacks is the unmistable coverup following 9-11, with the Bush administration engaging in unseemly conduct in trying to block the investigation every single step of the way...

Now as for Ashcroft cancelling his flights during the summer, this would certainly explain a coverup after the fact...and then there is that Bush memo about how 'Bin Laden was determined to strike the United States' which was dated August of 2001...now of course the government is going to want to cover up these and other such things which they certainly did everything possible to accomplish, but it is hyperbolic to then make the definitive assertion that this is evidence for the government actually executing the 9-11 attacks...this could also be explained as the government sacrificing public safety for corporate welfare by protecting consumer confidence in flying and keeping their mouths shut for that very reason...the Pentagon was conducting war games during the clinton administration whereby they rehearsed a scenario that had a hijacked passenger aircraft crashing into the Pentagon, and the Clinton administration first received intelligence about aircraft being used as flying bombs back in 1995...through all this airport security was not strengthed to the levels of Israel's El Al, and the public was kept in the dark, and since corporate profits provides us with a bipartisan explanation (which is what we need here) this accounts for that particular weird behavior...as for the cover up after wards you would expect that...not a surprise...so then the assertion that there was a cover up and this then is the most damning evidence that 'Bush did 9-11' well that claim cannot stand alone, as there are other ways to interpret the same events, some of which provide a more satisfactory explanation, and thus, if this was a court case, such a form of argumentation would be insufficient.

When conducting an investigation you often look for fingerprints and other such things, and in the case of 9-11 the fingerprints on the operation do not match those of the Bush Republicans ... terrorism, in particular attacks on Wall Street and the Stock Market, are not good for the economy, and as you will notice the economy and Wall Street are both still in recovery and sucking on the tit right to this very day...9-11 was also real bad for the airline corporations, who, you might recall, needed to suck on the tit to the tune of tens of billions of dollars and if it is the case, as the evidence suggests, that both the Clinton and the Bush administration went out of their way to protect the profits of the airline industry before 9-11, even going so far as to place public safety in jeopardy for the sake of corporate profits, it seems inconsistent to suggest that they would then send not only the airline industry, but the entire Wall Street stock market and the economy into a tail spin at the end of the processs...one might also recall the shocked look on the face of George Bush, sitting in that classroom in Florida, when he was informed of the second plane strike on the WTC...

There are many pieces of evidence and innuendo which are construed, using hyperblic argumentative techniques, to be irrefutable proof that 'Bush did 9-11', but on examination they can either be more satisfactorily and completely understood by using a different explantion, or they turn out to be factually incorrect (for example there was no explosives planted at the top of the towers as a viewing of the video evidence demonstrates, while some far out conspiracy theorists attempt to explain that the cloud of dust and debris that shot out of the hole was 'an explosion', which would place the bomb right where the impact and resulting inferno from the plane crash took place...as well the buildings are clearly seen to tilt over sideways and then begin caving in right where the hole was from the impact from the planes).

Now this type of completely bogus and far fetched 'evidence' (a false interpretation of the collapse video as just one example among others) has made me deeply suspicious of every other damned thing I hear...for example you hear the one about the '16 foot hole in the Pentagon'...given the distorted evidence and even fabrications I have been exposed to over time, I am remaining unconvinced at this time (did 3000 Israelis evacuate the building the day before 9-11, as ordered by Mossad? No. that didn't happen. Did a bomb blast at the top of the towers take down the buildings? No, that didn't happen. Was there a 'stand down of Norad' on the morning of 9-11...apparently that didn't happen either but rather the correct explantion is something altogether different...were missiles video taped rocketing toward the twin towers just before they fell down...didn't happen, oh, and by the way, with the whole damned city of New York watching the event, it would be pretty hard to concoct a conspiracy cover up of those last minute missile blasts, a cogent fact that has not stopped some people from spreading that story around the internet - or, perhaps this spreading of such nonsense around is part of some psyop by some intelligence agency in the government the purpose of which is to create people just like me who are reacting with growing disgust and deep mistrust and suspicion to each and every new 9-11 conspiracy type story that comes out, having been burned so many times before, and thus this psyop can work to undermine any 9-11 investigation and protect not only the airplane multinationals, but all the other corporations of the world, who also get shown the same favoritism by the government, even if it means sacrificing public safety for corporate profits so as to prop up 'consumer confidence'...however, while that could be true that these conspiracy stories are part of a psyop to discredit the investigation of 9-11, there are a lot of people working on their own as well, who pick up the merest shreds of evidence and then attempt to make a case using hyperbolic assertions which are intended to strengthen an otherwise weak argument...)

A good example of how some of these 9-11 conspiracies work can be found here
 http://www.americanfreepress.net/07_14_02/Unexplained_9-11_/unexplained_9-11_.html

The story above (about the plume of smoke rising over WTC 6) also includes a story about a photo of the seemingly obligatory missile streaking towards WTC 6, and I would like to put out a call to eye witnesses in New York city, a city after all of around ten million people, many of whom were watching the event in real life, to report about any missiles...let's just say that this is 9-11 conspiracy territory we are in here, and so it just naturally follows that I am concerned about more of that same bullshit that turned me off so much in the past, and I am not surprised to be reading about the obligatory missile...This event took place at the very same time that the plane hit the South Tower..."The unexplained blast occurred between the burning North Tower and the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, immediately after United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the South Tower, at about 9:03 a.m." Just seconds later this giant plume rises from WTC 6, and some guy is quoted to tell us that 'debris hit WTC 5 not WTC 6'. And that settles it, right. It is only logical to assume that when the plane hit the south tower and then seconds later a big plume rises up from WTC 6 below, that the two events are related, and that debris must have hit the WTC 6 building. This is just common sense, but hey, this is 9-11 conspiracy territory here, and who said common sense had any place...Now given that we are in 9-11 conspiracy territory here, naturally we will need to include the ubiquitous missile streak, an 'expert' to pronounce that debris only hit tower 5, and of course when contacted someone at CNN should say 'we don't know what it is' when asked about the cloud rising in the footage, and while the cloud looks a lot like the debris cloud from the collapse of the towers, we should be told that it was actually an explosion cloud, not a debris cloud, but rather much more like a missile explosion cloud...and then, to get really conspiratorial, we should be told that a thorough investigation was never done of WTC 6, which is powerful evidence for a conspiracy...this is the scenario being promoted by '9-11 in plane sight', which I am starting to believe is actually a CIA sponsored psyop, you know, designed to help with the cover up of corporate and government collusion by spreading around something so transparently dumb, or it could just be the 9-11 conspiracy theorists at it again, in typical form I might add...

but as I said all this is making me really cynical, and I know I am going to piss a lot of people off by writing this kind of stuff but I feel it has to be done...

speaking of corporate and government collusion, and the sacrifice of public safety for corporate profits (in the form of consumer confidence in flying in this case) that would explain all that stuff about Ashcroft swearing off planes, while not warning John Q. Public, and that would explain the August Bush memo about bin Laden and hijacked airplanes, and the Bush silence, and it also explains the silence of the Clinton Administration, and for this reason and this reason alone we need a great big cover up, and fierce resistance from the Bush administration to a 9-11 investigation, because truly they do have something there that they want to coverup, it goes far far far beyond 9-11 and into the entire structure of the society and governance of the United States...

unfortunately it is that same cover up mode that then feeds the conspiracy theories, since it is taken as evidence of guilt, and while that may be true, it does not logically follow that it is evidence for guilt in perpetrating 9-11...that is a logical fallacy, and if court room standards were used perhaps better arguments would be made...and that is why I am taking on the job of the courtroom lawyer here and picking away at all these things...

At the moment I am intrigued by the 9-11 Norad war games on the morning of 9-11, and I find interesting the author's theory that the ability of hijackers to time their actions so as to disappear into the confusion of a war game can be taken as evidence for 'an inside job'...you know someone would have had to pass that information along...if this is true that other thing about 'Cheney ordering a stand down on 9-11' is false...put it to rest, and also, while we are at it, we should learn a lesson here about how things can be taken as fact and repeated endlessly as fact (the 'stand down on 9-11' having become a 'fact') when actually the truth turns out to be something else again...as well if we are to argue logically and not promote fallacies and use hyperbolic assertions we have to consider that this 'inside knowledge' could have come from even one sympathizer well placed somewhere in the government, and it didn't have to be George Bush or Dick Cheney who told those hijackers...so once again I find some more of that hyperbole in the way this new argument is being presented (it must have been a massive government conspiracy-let's see if we can can stop this bit of hyperbole before it spreads and become the hyperbolic gospel truth)...and while we are at it, if this new information turns out to be true, let us not start more McCarthy hearings (you know the one about how there are Muslims in the State Department, not to mention in NORAD, who need to be rooted out and interogated by congress and so on)...
"stand down" and hijack run-throughs serve same purpose 24.Sep.2004 14:46

newsie

doesn't matter if there was an actual "stand down" or not called on 9/11, if the war games or hijacking scenarioes were in fact being played out that morning. the simulated scenario and its attending confusion during an real event would do the same thing and more as any "stand down"

the question then becomes, how often were these war games/hijacking scenarios carried out prior to 9/11?

whether this was a once-in-a-blue moon occurence or if the run-through had been conveniently rescheduled, and by who, for that horrible morning.

then the conspiracy supporters have a much better argument.

anyone know anything about the war games/hijacking scenario schedules back in 2001?

that would really be interesting to know.

You may find the following informative articles interesting: 24.Sep.2004 15:01

Tony Blair's dog

On August 31, Ruppert Publicly Calls out Cheney as Grand Master Organizer of 9-11 events
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/296290.shtml

Government Insider Stanley Hilton Says Bush Authorized 9-11;used double agents;Global Hawk
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/297693.shtml

"Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories". 24.Sep.2004 15:23

Litoralis

Wow! Everyone is innocent and no one needs to be held accountable. Hooray!!!
Thanks for clearing up that whole 9-11 mess Brent.
You da man! God bless the USA!

a parody? 24.Sep.2004 16:05

brent

previously I suggested that the 9-11 conspiracy theories could be a CIA psyop to discredit the 9-11 investigation
or it could just the conspiracy theorists working in classic style

but a third possibility just came to mind
that '9-11 in plane site' is so utterly absurb, and such a worthless conspiracy theory that perhaps it is actually supposed to be a parody of all the 9-11 conspiracies to date
and if that is true I want to salute the creators of the 'in plane site' website for creating what would have to be the cleverest parody site on the internet this year, in that it really is a classic emulation of everything that is wrong with 9-11 conspiracies on the internet
either that or it is just a real classic example of a really really stupid conspiracy theory, in that case, making it an unintentional self parody
as for my self, if this is a psyop, its working great, because, I, like so many other people am developing a firm resistance to so called 'evidence from 9-11' and the second I hear such things I immediately kick into resistance mode
and I am not the only one
and then people say you are a 'government stooge' or they bewail the fact that the public 'resists the truth'
as for me well was that a global hawk engine? I think I'll just pass on that 'evidence' and maybe wait a year or two or three
if anyone is wondering what creates people like me well just consider a classic example of the type of crap going around all the time, '9-11 in plane site', either the cleverest parody or the best example of those 9-11 conspiracy theories warts and all, or part of a very successful psyop designed to permanently shut down the 9-11 investigation

Brent, you sound rather delirious 24.Sep.2004 17:23

gerry

What makes you conclude that "In Plane Site" is a parody, or anything other than something all of you below the border should be scared shitless about. All of the footage is from mainstream sources. That this is an actual conspiracy seems to be beyond doubt according to some very objective evidence (namely, mainstream news footage). There is not a single piece of the official story that fits. Not one. Try even this little one on: Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complex, said in an on-air interview (that I remember watching and that I saw again in a recent 9/11 film presentation here in B.C.) that it was decided to "pull" Building 7 because of building damage, potential loss of life, etc. Now, you're talking about a steel-framed, 47-story building undergirded with some of the most massive steel beams on the planet. (Plus, no news footage showed major damage to the building, but I'm willing to ignore that fact for the moment). And, as we all saw, down it came, leaving an amazingly small pile of rubble consisting of very small pieces. A textbook demo.

Now Brent, I'm certainly no engineer, but explain to me how this is possible. It seems to me that planning and executing the perfectly controlled demolition of a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper is not something that can be done within a couple of hours. I'm sure it takes at least weeks, and possibly months of planning and preparation. So we have objective evidence of Mr. Silverstein saying, on air, that they decided to pull the building and objective evidence that it did indeed come down in a perfectly controlled demolition. So what conclusion can we make other than that the demolition of this building was already prepared well in advance. And if that's so, than the official story cannot be true. Instead, there was some sort of conspiracy. What is so hard for you to understand?

Hello mr."brent" 24.Sep.2004 17:30

Tony Blair's dog

"that '9-11 in plane site' is so utterly absurb, and such a worthless conspiracy theory"

"I think I'll just pass on that 'evidence'..."

Hehehe...

So, what exactly do you find absurd about the "9-11 in plane site"?

The videos of the planes in the video are taken from most commercial dvds out there.

So, what is it about them that keeps you coming back claiming that they are "so utterly absurb",
"such a worthless conspiracy theory" etc?

Please indulge us.


In short, "In Plane Sight" shows you a lot of the
video clips that were broadcasted on 9/11 by the
various tv-news networks. Some were only shown once
to never be shown again. Why? Because witnesses
reported important details that did not match
the Bush administration story.

For everyone else, these sites may provide you
with enlightment into why mr."brent" is trying
his best to throw crap at the "In Plane Sight"
film.

LetsRoll911.org
 http://www.letsroll911.org/index.html

Lack of NORAD Response on 9/11
Explai http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html

Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11
 http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/wargames_cover.htm

good start but.. 24.Sep.2004 17:37

Its a conspiracy cause

Its a conspiracy, but which do you belive is most plausible:

Means motive, and opportunity may not be adequate to isolate this adminsitration and its coopted democrates but 911 has a troubling number of coincidences which are troubling. Details are classified
and the AG is appointed by the perp so what are you going to do?

A, The missing 757 at the pentagon needs to be addressed?

B. The cause of WTC-7 demolition needs to be addressed.

C. The stupid condi lies needs to be addressed. ie we had no idea....we would have moved heaven and earth....

"The new pearl harbor" book provides a good analysis and points out problems in the 911 commision repoert. The arthur i believe was interviewed on the boo today..

One last point is the cause of motives of terrorist was not addressed in the commision.
Secrecy is not our friend
Secrecy is not our friend

9/11 In Plane Sight 24.Sep.2004 17:41

repost

this is the low res version of the film for all of you to see for yourself.

higly recommended.

9/11 In Plane Sight
 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6847.htm

click the SOURCE FILE link and download the inplanesite.rm file to your hard drive.
it is a realvideo file so you need real player to watch it =\

the webpage shows a streaming version if you don't want to download it.

757 / Pentagon 24.Sep.2004 21:45

marcos

Brent,
i personally don't know what hit the pentagon that day, but i do know that D.C. is arguably the most surveiled city in the country and possibly the world. Why is it that only three or four bad images from one camera, that prove nothing, are the only ones to have surfaced to date ?

likewise marcos 25.Sep.2004 00:47

.

why has no one in D.C. that was near the pentagon come forward and said "I didn't see a plane hit the pentagon?"

likewise "." 25.Sep.2004 01:39

~

see the

9/11 In Plane Sight
 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6847.htm

articles already referenced above for the answer to your question

hey ~ - huh? 25.Sep.2004 03:38

.

Unless I seriously missed something the link to the video you posted above does not have any accounts from eye-witnesses - people that were near the pentagon, who should have - but didn't - see the plane hit.

Please try again.

I found this poking around on the internet, a compilation of interviews and testimonies from people who supposedly did see it happen.

So what gives - seriously I'm curious here....

"On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"
- "Our Plane Is Being Hijacked." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001

"I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next..."
- "U.S. Under Attack: Your Eyewitness Accounts." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001

"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."
- "Eyewitness at the Pentagon." Human Events, 17 Sep 2001

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle—almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"
- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001

"'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex. 'Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards,' he said."
- "Witnesses and Leaders on Terrorist Attacks." CNN, 11 Sep 2001

"'(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target,' said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA Today near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. 'It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"
- "America's Morning of Terror." ChannelOne.com, 2001

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Steve Eiden, a truck driver, had picked up his cargo that Tuesday morning in Williamsburg, Va., and was en route to New York City and witnessed the aftermath. ... He took the Highway 95 loop in the area of the Pentagon and thought it odd to see a plane in restricted airspace, thinking to himself it was odd that it was flying so low. 'You could almost see the people in the windows,' he said as he watched the plane disappear behind a line of trees, followed by a tall plume of black smoke. Then he saw the Pentagon on fire, and an announcement came over the radio that the Pentagon had been hit."
- "Sept. 11, the Day America Changed." The Baxter Bulletin, 2001

"Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia. I don't know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just 'No, no, no, no,' because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash."
- "September 11 Remembered." University Week, 4 Oct 2001

"Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said. 'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'"
- "Pentagon Crash Eyewitness Comforted Victims." MDW News Service, 28 Sep 2001

"'I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the building,' said Carla Thompson, who works in an Arlington, Va., office building about 1,000 yards from the crash. 'I saw an indentation in the building and then it was just blown-up up—red, everything red,' she said. 'Everybody was just starting to go crazy. I was petrified.'"
- "Terrorists Attack New York, Pentagon." Los Angeles Times, 12 Sep 2001

"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
- Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 2002

"Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, "That's not going to make it to National Airport." And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black, thick smoke.'"
- "Terrorist 'Situation'." American Lawyer Media, 11 Sep 2001

Hehehe... 25.Sep.2004 05:32

Tony Blair's dog

it's now obvious mr."." did not even see the documentary.

mr."." even included the quote from the witness who
appears first in the film, standing outside of Pentagon.

Indeed mr.".", what gives? ;-)


Note: Isn't it interesting that not one of the witnesses
mr."." quotes actually say it was a 757 they saw. That
is only implicated through the different commentaries
to the actual quotes ;-)

So, mr.".", come back when you have watched the film.

radix guy 25.Sep.2004 08:56

you got a lot of quotes

Did you notice that there are not a lot of pictures of the plane after the collision?

Un fortunately somebody needs to contact those on the passenger list...

bullshit 25.Sep.2004 12:47

x

> it's now obvious mr."." did not even see the documentary.

> mr."." even included the quote from the witness who
> appears first in the film, standing outside of Pentagon.

Sorry Tony Blair's Dog. This particular piece of evidence is bullshit and I'll prove it.

1. The person in the video that you are referring to (right around 8 min for anyone who wants to follow along) is Mike Walter.

2. Do a search for "Mike Walter" + "USA Today" + "Pentagon". You'll quickly find out that he is interviewed all over the place for this AND that he is a reporter for USA Today. (I might suggest corporate media reporters are not very credible, but hey, he's your witness not mine!)

3. Here is an audio file which include his full account - NOT just the 8 second snipet where he says "It was like a cruise missile...", which was (deliberatly?) quoted out of context in the "in plane site" video. Listen to  http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/09/11/witnesses/usatoday.wav

or here's the transcript:

"I was heading north bound on 27 in the traffic this morning. It was the typical rush hour. It had ground to a standstill. And I looked off. I was, you know -- looked out my window. I saw this plane, the jet, American Airlines jet coming. And I thought, this doesn't add up. It's really low. And I saw it.

It just went -- I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings, it went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. Huge explosion. Great ball of fire. Smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards. We had a lady who in front of me who was backing up and screaming, "Everybody go back, go back. They have hit the Pentagon." And you know, it's just sheer terror."

> Isn't it interesting that not one of the witnesses
> mr."." quotes actually say it was a 757 they saw. That
> is only implicated through the different commentaries
> to the actual quotes ;-)

So what? Show me an eyewitness that <<denies>> it was a 757 and then I'll take this more seriously.

And please, so as to avoid bogus evidence like the above:

Saying "it was like" something else is not the same as denying it was a 757. People say things we're "like" something all the time, without actually meaning it literally. It's a frequently used narrative device called an analogy. Especially when taken out-of-context like in the example above, this is a very manipulative slight of hand. I want to hear about an eyewitnes saying "It WAS" something else.

dear brent, ".", and "x". 25.Sep.2004 14:12

this thing here

the best way to deal with obfuscation is to destroy it by getting to the point.

who is the real enemy here?

a. people who propose any conspiracy theory about 9-11.
b. people who propose conspiracy theories which differ from my own.
c. the administration of president george w. bush II.
d. islamic extremist terrorists.
e. all of the above.
f. none of the above.

answer:

(multiple answers allowed in blank)

what is the real problem here?

a. people who propose any conspiracy theory about 9-11.
b. people who propose conspiracy theories which differ from my own.
c. the fact that the conspiracy theory proposed by the administration of president george w. bush II is itself full of holes, unexplained actions and unanswered questions.
d. that everything that happens in the entire universe is easily explained by trustworthy government authorites or simply by mere coincidence, and stupid people just don't understand that like i do.
e. islamic extremist terrorists.
f. all of the above.
g. none of the above.

answer:

(multiple answers allowed in blank)

Hello ms."x" 25.Sep.2004 19:39

Tony Blair's dog

"So what? Show me an eyewitness that <<denies>> it was a 757 and then I'll take this more seriously."

Your wish is my command;

"Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said. "At first I thought 'Oh my God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon ... I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. It was like Oh my God, what's next?" He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional.""

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html

Also quoted on this very interesting page:
Independent Flight 77 - Pentagon Event Investigation
Evidence and Witness - Part 2: The Pentagon Event
 http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent-data-pent.html

Another snippet from this page:
"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."

More interesting reading:

The Missing Wings
A Comparison of actual and expected wing debris resulting
from the impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building
A. K. Dewdney and G. W. Longspaugh
 http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3

Of special interest is this image:
 http://physics911.org/images/911/pentagon/d-fireball.jpg

IF a big low flying 757 crashed into the ground floor of the Pentagon
wall, please explain why the big cable spools clearly visible
in this and other images happens to be unharmed?

Also, IF a big low flying 757 crashed into the ground floor of the Pentagon
wall, how do you explain the net fencing perimeter around the area immediately
to the right of the hole, how is it possible that the wingspan of a big "757"
did not even touch it, less swooped it all away?

Also note the big plume of billowing black smoke rising up over the Pentagon
appearing to come, not from the burning fire at the hole, but from the fenced off area
just next too it. What was burning there that produced the big black smoke that is referred
in various accounts from witnesses that day?
The big black billowing smoke was seen from a long way off.

This is the image... 25.Sep.2004 19:42

Tony Blair's dog

referred to in above comment.

response... 26.Sep.2004 21:38

x

> who is the real enemy here?

> answer:

Well if limited to multiple choice (which I would suggest is never a good way to frame a discussion or a debate...) I'd say Bush, but I think capitalism, racism, patriarchy, environmental destruction, consumer culture, etc. are deeper problems then Bush.

> what is the real problem here?

None of the above, at least not enough to merit picking one.

I think your missing my point.

The reason I spend time a portion of my time refuting some of the arguments presented by the 9/11 truth movement folks is that I believe they are damaging to the credibility activists.

I talk to a lot of people of all political stripes, and while many people are very suspicous of Bush and how 9/11 went down (i.e., think we're missing the whole story, maybe believe he had foreknowledge or at least didn't do enought to stop 9/11) the vast majority of people think this stuff about no-plane @ pentagon, explosives on the planes, and that the WTC 7 destruction was pre-planned (these 3 in particular are the main ones, but there is others) is looney tunes. I agree with them.

I think we do need to hammer Bush on 9/11 and especially on what has happened in responce to 9/11 -- I just don't believe (from the evidence I've seen) that there is much credence to these alternate theories. Yeah I recognize there is some weird stuff that I can't personally explain in the dominant theories (for example the cell phones at 30,000 feet really bug me!), but there are MANY more holes that I can very clearly see in these alternate theories.

I believe there are more nuanced opitions for an anaylsis of things (including 9/11) than "Everything Bush says is a lie" and "Everything bush says is the truth".

While it be great if the alternative theories were true - insofar that it would help people realize how fucked coporate and government power is - if they are false and we've bought into them it makes us look like fools, and hurts the overall struggle against the forces that be.

I think we probably agree that exposing the truth is the ultimate weapon against oppression - while I don't think the official story is true, I don't think these theories (the 3 I mentioned above) are true either. Thus they hurt our causes more then help them - we can't beat their lies with at best seriously hard-to-swallow alternatives.

For this reason I strive to educate activist about the holes in these alternate 9/11 theories....

fyi, I spend far more time trying to debunk the dominant theories about many many other things...

Interesting... 27.Sep.2004 10:07

Tony Blair's dog

ms."x" claims;

"The reason I spend time a portion of my time refuting some of the arguments presented by the 9/11 truth movement folks is that I believe they are damaging to the credibility activists."

Really?

What "credibility activists" are you thinking about here?

I also note that you never bother to offer an explanation
to how a 757(flight 77(sic)) could crash into the bottom floor of Pentagon
without a trace.

But then again questioning that flight 77 actually crashed into the Pentagon
is "looney tunes", you already said so.

... 27.Sep.2004 15:46

this thing here

>I think we probably agree that exposing the truth is the ultimate weapon against oppression - while I don't think the official story is true, I don't think these theories (the 3 I mentioned above) are true either. Thus they hurt our causes more then help them - we can't beat their lies with at best seriously hard-to-swallow alternatives.<

well, fine. but i think that you're dealing in a pretty un-nuanced line of thinking yourself, by saying that alternate theories damage the cause of truth.

what are YOUR alternate theories?

for the record, what's mine? i think al qaeda is a real terrorist organization. i think the bush admin. got wind of their future attack, because although al qaeda is real, it was compromised. meaning, it didn't know that the bush admin. knew. i think the bush family and the bin laden family might have something to say about how al qaeda's plans were found out. i think the bush admin. let the attack happen. i think they did this because they have an intimate, inside knowledge of this country's intelligence and security apparatus. i think they exploited weaknesses in america's intelligence and security apparatus by hampering anti-terror investigations involving saudi arabia before 9-11, by insuring that known terrorists got flight training without being found out, by making sure that the terrorists were successful in their mission along every step of the way. i think the bush admin. needed the massive political capital such an attack would generate. i think the 9-11 attack and the secret recommendations in cheney's energy task force are related. i think we all know very very very well how the bush admin. has used the political capital.

there's so many theories. hell, i don't believe some of them either. but to say that the whole idea of alternate theories is useless seems rather far fetched to me. what should we do, wait around for a "good" one to drop from the sky one day? all these people are doing who have these theories is brainstorming and expressing ideas. some with much more convincing evidence than others. this is part of being human. and who's to stop it?

i got one quote 27.Sep.2004 16:16

amilcar

at least one of the scenarios they were considering in their war game exercises concerned hijacked aircraft being crashed into buildings

i bet 2 bits there were at least 2 scenarii, or was it the unique scenario?

4 Tony Blair's dog 28.Sep.2004 13:58

x

> ms."x" claims;

I already asked you once to stop using Mr. or Ms. in referring to me, and to others who have not identified their gender - it's sexist.

>> "The reason I spend time a portion of my time refuting some of the arguments presented by the >> >> 9/11 truth movement folks is that I believe they are damaging to the credibility activists."

> Really?
> What "credibility activists" are you thinking about here?

should have said "the credibility of activists", a typo.

> I also note that you never bother to offer an explanation
> to how a 757(flight 77(sic)) could crash into the bottom floor of Pentagon
> without a trace.

I and others have elsewhere. I will post a more detailed version some other time in the kinda near future. I'm very busy right now - just because I don't respond to you within 48 hours doesn't mean I'm dodging the issues.

Honestly I'm tired of responding to you, b/c of your attitude and tendency not to respond to anything posed to you. see  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/297475.shtml for example.

I'm not interested in conversation with you anymore: and it's not about the issues, it's about your poor argumentative etiquitte.

4 this thing here 28.Sep.2004 14:30

x

Yeah I agree with most everything you said.

Like I said, I'm only presenting evidence contrary to some (and it's some, not all) of the alternative theories.

Brainstorming theories is great and to be encourage, but if you posit a theory you should expect people to subject it to criticism. I refuse to see anything wrong in that, and I think people saying things (paraphrasing here) like "you make it seem like the alternative theorists are the enemy, not Bush" in responce to that is really discouraging of debate and counter to the pursuit of truth, which ostensibly is the everyone's goal.

Far worse is the comments (by people like Tony Blair's dog, see  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/297475.shtml) that blatently personally attack people who disagree with alternative theories to 9/11. This is more than discouraging of debate, it's disruptive, beligerent, and extremely divisive.

My point is that the events of 9/11 merit a good debate, one free of name calling and open minded to evidence and counter evidence on both sides. To you and many others that seem open to that, I appreciate and encourage your interest in dialogue!

Dear "x" 28.Sep.2004 15:50

Tony Blair's dog

"> I also note that you never bother to offer an explanation
> to how a 757(flight 77(sic)) could crash into the bottom floor of Pentagon
> without a trace.

I and others have elsewhere."

Really? On this webpage?

Please then provide a link to "elsewhere" so we can read up on your explanations.


"I'm not interested in conversation with you anymore: and it's not about the issues, it's about your poor argumentative etiquitte."

You mean like your comment;

"...this stuff about no-plane @ pentagon, explosives on the planes, and that the WTC 7 destruction was pre-planned (these 3 in particular are the main ones, but there is others) is looney tunes. I agree with them."

?

Appearently I am not the only one with "poor argumentative etiquitte" then.

Again, please provide a link or something else that gives us
an idea why we must accept the Bush administrations fairy-tales
about a 757 crashing into the ground floor of the Pentagon without
leaving any trace, so we may be enlightened and don't run the risk
being called "loony" by you and your friends.

Ooh, one more thing... 28.Sep.2004 16:10

Tony Blair's dog

"Like I said, I'm only presenting evidence contrary to some (and it's some, not all) of the alternative theories."

So far you have not presented ANY evidence at all.

All you have done is to tell people that they are loony if they
believe that no 757 crashed into the bottom floor of the Pentagon,
that WTC building 7 was pulled(Silverstein stating that himself),
that the planes that crashed into the WTC towers 1 & 2 were
not the ones the Bush administration said.

So far you have nott presented ANY evidence that counters
these quite important details. But you want people to
avoid these details for they are not "credible" in your
own words.

Hehehe, I rest my case...


TRIPOD II AND FEMA
Lack of NORAD Response on 9/11 Explained
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html

Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11
 http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/wargames_cover.htm

LetsRoll911.org
 http://www.letsroll911.org/index.html

9/11 In Plane Sight
 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6847.htm