Where's the Boeing?: 9/11 Opinion

[RC]

From time to time I have heard of the existence of conspiracy theories to do with the events of 9/11, but this is the first time I've come across one. This is a flash video sent by a friend. It made me curious enough to make further investigations, from which I can tell you that there are a lot of people taking an interest in this business, and some of them write intelligently and with great attention to particulars. The photos are available on a variety of sites, you can go through Google images. I'm not making any claims of course, except that it is an engaging presentation.

____Click HERE (http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html#Main)

What do you think?

[John Self]

An engaging presentation, as you say. It's somewhat flawed by contradictions: near the start it questions how a Boeing 757 could have made such a small hole in the outer wall of the Pentagon (E ring), and then later it describes - and shows - how the portion of E ring which was struck collapsed and was utterly destroyed. It uses eyewitness accounts to suggest it was not a Boeing but a smaller passenger plane (or a military plane) (or a missile) - "It sounded like a missile" - but then when it wants to make another point it uses an eyewitness account that mentions that it was a Boeing 757.

I don't know what the purpose of this sort of conspiracy theory is. Presumably the suggestion is that the government carried out the attack on the Pentagon itself. Why? And how coincidental for them to have done it within minutes of the attacks on the World Trade Centre (which this film doesn't allege was part of any conspiracy).

[RC]

Yes, that small round hole in the wall was the first apparent anomaly that caught my attention also. It is actually way inside, where the plane is meant to have ended up. If you're interested I'll try to find again the site where I read a lot more about that portion of the crash site.

As to why, we who wouldn't put anything past those people can think of several reasons. First and foremost, a nameable blameable enemy is essential to their propaganda machine, so that voters will tolerate the siphoning off of billions in public funds to the military industries, where the clansmen make a lot of money.

[RC]

There are other stories going around about the twin towers. I'll hunt some up to bring here.

[RC]

This site presents a thoughtful analysis of the Pentagon crash:

www.911-strike.com/engines.htm

John - reading back I see you were not referring to the small round hole in the wall. Oops. I'm going hunting some more for an article I read yesterday on the first-impact area which discusses initial damage and later collapse.

[RC]

Urgh. Had enough of this for now, there's no end of it once you start looking. Just one further observation - if you've never watched the video clip of Bush sitting calmly on and on, observing a reading lesson, after being informed of the planes going into the towers, have a go, it's easily found. If the conspiracy theories seem unlikely, how likely is it that the commander-in-chief wouldn't shift himself during such an emergency?

[NottyImp]

This came out at the time, and I brought it up on another board and received some satisfactory answers from various people including I think an aero engineer.

I will pay more attention to conspiracy theories when I find just one example where the evidence is strong enough to believe there might be a case.

[HP]

Less sinister perhaps, a rather recent TV documentary spent a whole hour or longer putting forward evidence (some compelling, some markedly less so) that the whole business of landing astronauts on the moon was hogwash. That it was simply a stunt carried out in various studios using camera trickery, all to enhance the USA's space-race superiority. Wish I could remember the details better, but much attention was given to the distribution and length of shadows, the fluttering of the erected Stars and Stripes flags (is there such a thing as lunar wind?); the apparently phoney manner of those memorable gravity-free bounds made by the astronauts.
Entertaining, though it was, like so many conspiracy theories, there were, as I recall rather too many loose ends - not least being not one single astronaut took part in these discussions.

[RC]

Yep. The trouble is that you have to pay very close attention to be able to judge whether they have a case or not. I've blown away several hours on this. Certainly there are serious and very intelligent people making the arguments, some of which are highly technical. And I find some of their points persuasive.
By habituation we have learned to blandly accept things that are hugely unlikely, gross absurdities, flagrant cruelties cooked up in the cauldrons of (as examples) the Pentagon and the State Department. I'm not talking about the false justifications for the invasion of Iraq, that's small stuff. Someone standing outside it all, say on Pluto, would find some of the 'conspiracy theories' no more unlikely than half the population of the US thinking of Dubya as their buddy, or humanity failing to take realistic measures to curb environmental destruction, as just two examples out of many possible ones. I suppose many of the people who immerse themselves in the hunt for conspiracies are nutcases, ideas like this are nutcase magnets. So who would want to be associated with that? Not I. On the other hand, I think it's rather more likely that the Pentagon attacked itself, than that China could take over as America's banker - but that's happening. In this nutty world, who's crazy, any more, and who's sane?

[pandop]

Less sinister perhaps, a rather recent TV documentary spent a whole hour or longer putting forward evidence (some compelling, some markedly less so) that the whole business of landing astronauts on the moon was hogwash. Entertaining, though it was, like so many conspiracy theories, there were, as I recall rather too many loose ends - not least being not one single astronaut took part in these discussions.

Yes, I remember watching that.

The most ridiculous 'proof' I recall was that in one photograph one of the astronauts was higher than the other (you can tell this from the angle of the shot) - and all I could think of was 'so it never occured to you that he could have stood on a rock, a crater edge, something they took with them?'

Hazel

[HP]

The trouble with most conspiracy theories is the difficulty in proving them. Can you or I take a quick flit to the moon to look for space module debris? For those stars and stripes flags? Course not. Are we ever likely to be given access to all the various filmings - undoctored - taken of the 9/11 catastophe? Are we heckers. And so, we shrug our shoulders and get on with the realities of life that need attention now. Reality - well, that's another barrier to establishing the true heart of the matter. Reality is only ever a matter of what you or I believe it to be. My reality is not your reality. If we both witness a horrific car crash, for example, your version of events will differ from mine - wildly or only marginally - according to our individual circumstances. So much will depend on precisely where we were each standing at the time, the integrity of our eyesight, the mental conditioning that makes you see things with this particular agenda, me with that one. Take the shooting of JFK: eyewitnesses coming out of the woodwork - yet nobody saw exactly the same thing. But I would wager every single so-called eye-witness was already predisposed to give his account in a biased manner, while sincerely believing he/she was telling the gospel truth. Like it or not, we all have the tendency to look for evidence that suits our existing set of beliefs.

[Maggie]

R.C.,
Who's crazy and who is sane ? Interesting question that ! I guess it would be determined by from who's perspective it may be.

I started yammering when Clinton was put on trial and I haven't stopped yet. I thought it was "crazy" to make a public circus out of a private act. Though the man definitely did not act appropriately, neither did he do anything that directly affected his ability to do his job ( maybe quite the opposite :roll: )
My mantra at the time was: "something isn't right about this. It is NOT about a freaking blowjob" ! I was deemed, by many, as crazy and dismissed as a bleeding heart liberal. One without morals to boot. I contended that we were on dangerous ground, that there was MORE to this than met the eye.

Since this past election, more and more information has come out about the Christian Coilition. This organization has been involved in politics for a long time. It seems to be growing stronger and more powerful every election. They were not prepared for Bill Clinton but once he was in office they used their most powerful agenda against him. Sex. This colilition is now pressuring Bush to push the agenda he must have promised them.
Anti Abortion laws, prayer in school, government funded abstinence teaching ( teaching, which contends that one can get pregnant through mutual masturbation, that condoms fail 75% of the time and that Aides can be gotten through sweat and tears ) for school children, more laws regarding censorship of television shows and movie films (next it will be books) and the teaching of creationism in public schools. If examined closely, most of this has to do with sex.

Those Americans who are not waving flags or flocking to their local "Christian" churchs are having a really hard time right now. Countryless and Godless, we are drifting around trying to make sense out of something that makes no sense at all.

I do not believe that half this country thinks Dubya is their buddy. I think a great number of our population is guilty of compalcency and/or the belief that what they think "doesn't matter" Which, I suppose, is as great a crime as voting for a moron.

I volunteered for the Kerry campaign. I went door to door. I was shouted at. Sworn at and told to leave before the cops came. I was called a "babykiller" a "Indian lover" or that I was " Unpatriotic" and should be ashamed. I was told to get the h**l out of the country if I didn't like it.

But, I haven't given up and I will not shut up. I have lost friends and have had serious arguments with my own family members. I live in a house divided.

The path this country has taken is not, to my mind, right. The last thing I do every night is say, outloud, the names of the young men and women who have died for the "cause". The first thing I do everyday is say a prayer for all the innocent Iraqi"s who have died in this mess. And then..........I start another day of speaking my truth, whether anyone wants to hear it or not.

As far as conspiracies go...........there have always been such things. The wealthy will do what they need to stay where they are. The poor will take crumbs and be grateful, until..........they won't take it anymore. It may very well come to this.

America is a young country, she has a lot to learn and she may very well have to fall flat on her face to do so. Unfortunatly, we are all going to get a bit banged up in the process.

[HP]

For myself, I didn't much care how hot and steamy Clinton and his excitable cigar got - but I sure as hell thought he should be punished for lying about it. Remember his 'Watch my lips ...' speech? Had he put his hand up to the Lewinsky affair and apologised - rather than flagrantly denying it (a dumb act if ever there was one, given the abundance of evidence and sheer number of personal and political enemies) - well, he might have come out of the whole sordid nonsense with a little credibility. The shaming thing was not about sex - it was about a blatant lack of integrity. There was a time when politicians fell on their swords if caught telling monstrous porkies - now, we simply accept it. It is time we started demanding a little old-fashioned honour. They get away with it, because we let 'em. What's that saying about getting the politicians we deserve ......

[RC]

That whole shameful circus about Clinton and Monica was bizarre and inexplicable, and it showed just how far from being civilized we still are. There needs to be legislation to ensure that such situations are dealt with decently.

[Maggie]

HoneyPotts,
I am in complete agreement about the lying issue in regards to Clinton. When the Democratic party went after the Clintons, they actually started with Hiliray and a bank loan scandle. They could not prove anything and proceeded form there. I wish. to God, Clinton would have fessed up right away but they had picked the one issue that MOST people are prone to lie about.

Sex, is one area where people will lie, even when it is not necessary. Either it is exaggerated or it is down played. It either happened repeatedly or not at all.

There is no excuse to go to the lengths Clinton did (as far as lying) but it is a pretty sure bet that the first instinct would be to tell a whopper !

Oh well, we can not go back and redo. It is too bad really, cause I know quite a few people, people who hated Clinton cause of his cigar and his
lies, who would give their eye teeth to have him sitting in the White House right now. He isn't superhuman and he can't solve the world problems but he can speak the English language and he conducts himself with more integrity when dealing with the rest of the world. (notice I said MORE, not complete :? )

[HP]

Don't get me wrong, Maggie - Clinton I can take or leave; by all accounts he is reputed to at least have an abundance of charm, if not self-control. But after the shameful distortions of facts - okay, outright lies, politicians this side of the pond have indulged in recently, to save their unlovely, power-greedy hides, my beef is with public apathy that allows them to get away with it.

As for sex: find me a wise man, a stunning politician, an evangelist who doesn't make a complete ass of himself over the stirrings of his loins! Yeah, yeah there are some - but the drive for power that takes a man to the top of his profession is aided and abetted by a healthy dose of testosterone. I rest my case ....... !

[youjustmightlikeit]

Whoah there Honey.

[NottyImp]

Less sinister perhaps, a rather recent TV documentary spent a whole hour or longer putting forward evidence (some compelling, some markedly less so) that the whole business of landing astronauts on the moon was hogwash. Entertaining, though it was, like so many conspiracy theories, there were, as I recall rather too many loose ends - not least being not one single astronaut took part in these discussions.

This has been thoroughly debunked here:

www.badastronomy.com

The arguments put forward are usually based on technical ignorance and appeals to "common-sense". One of the arguments focused on the shadows of two objects that were in slightly different directions in a photograph taken on the moon. A whole case was built on this alleging the photographs must have been taken in a studio with a near light source, until somebody pointed out that those making it did not even understand the basic precepts of perspective, and that they could recreate this effect easily on earth.

[NottyImp]

I volunteered for the Kerry campaign. I went door to door. I was shouted at. Sworn at and told to leave before the cops came. I was called a "babykiller" a "Indian lover" or that I was " Unpatriotic" and should be ashamed. I was told to get the h**l out of the country if I didn't like it.

I find this very disturbing - it's hardly as if Kerry is some radical left-wing rabble-rouser, is it? The schism in your country seems to deepen by the day.

[Maggie]

Notty,

I would say that the division in this country varies quite a bit depending on where you are. I live in Wisconsin, which was about 50/50 on the Bush - Kerry issue. We did come out with Kerry in the lead but not by much.
I think the issues that were used by the Bush campagian were the sparks that caused this type of behavior. Issues, such as abortion, war and taxes are always great dividers, especially, abortion and war. People tend to feel very passionate about these and they were the two top issues. for a while .
Somehow the Bush campaign, managed to focus on pro-life and personal moral values and people tended to forget that WAR is a moral issue, as is poverty and corperate corruption. This I believe, was the work of the Christian Coalition. Post cards were sent out, in the Bible Belt, of this nation, telling people that Kerry was going to ban their Bibles. Some, not all, Catholic Churches, told their congregations that if they were voting for Kerry, they could not receive communion. Kerry was pro-choice and he was a sinner.
This type of stuff causes anger on both sides of the issues.
It was also pounded into our heads, that the war in Iraq, was a war waged to "protect our freedom". Telling some flag waving Americans that the war is not right..........well those are fighting words. Our freedom is at stake !
In another post I mentioned that I thought that a lot of people in this country are complacent, they will pick up key words or phrases and base opinions on this limited amount of information. They do not investigate or question what they are being told. Cripes, some people can not separate a television actor from the role he plays on his weekly show.

I am not a genius. I do not have a collage education., I more or less graduated from the school of hard knocks but, I always have questions. I want to have as much information as possible before forming an opinion and I know that somewhere down the line I may have to change that opinion. I somehow don't get the feeling that this is the American way.

Yes, the divide is wide and painful. In four years Bush has done the same within the country as he has done with all of our world wide neighbors.

[Jerkass]

than that China could take over as America's banker - but that's happening.

China struggles to be its own banker.

[rick green]

I've been watching loads of 9/11 videos online. The official story is inadequate. It seems like the trade center was mined before hand and that the Pentagon was hit with something much smaller than flight 77. And what the hell happened to WTC7? It just stinks.
I ordered some books to look deeper into these questions.
Is anyone else interested in this?
Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msf9Go8SoRQ)are some links to videos (http://www.911revisited.com/video.html) and other 9/11 truth (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646) pages (http://belowgroundsurface.org/).

[gil]

Do not attribute to conspiracy what incompetence can explain.

(btw You may want to revise your spelling of "pubic officials" - pricks, the lot of them.)

I haven't looked at this. When I get a full sound and vision PC, I'll look at your links, Rick, but it's all of a piece with the "Moon Landing was a Fake" "Area 57" or "Kennedy was shot by the CIA and Mafia working together". In order to say that an airliner didn't crash into the pentagon, you have to explain where the missing airliner turned up.

Frankly, I think incompetence, bungling, inefficiency and lack of preparedness explain everything. You just have to look at New Orleans. Was that an Iraqi plot? No, it wasn't. The danger and probable consequences were known well in advance. It was just people all thinking "It's not MY job to be concerned with this". And then lying about it afterwards. That's the usual reason for things not adding up. Arse-protecting lies.

[John Self]

I've merged this thread, rick, with an existing one on the subject. Unfortunately in doing so I've lost your poll. Sorry. Will try to reinstate it.

(For the record, to date it was 3 people saying the US was taken completely off guard, and 1 person saying negligence by public officials allowed the attacks to take place. No voters so far went for the full-on conspiracy theory that the US carried out the attacks themselves.)

[rick green]

Do not attribute to conspiracy what incompetence can explain.
Sure, but how to explain the collapse of WTC7? No airplane hit it, it had only a few small fires, and yet the whole thing came down in a matter of seconds. No official explanation has been given. Was this flight 93's intended target?
(btw You may want to revise your spelling of "pubic officials" - pricks, the lot of them.) I wish I could. I noticed it only when it was too late. I guess you can't edit polls. Oh well, at least it's gone now.
In order to say that an airliner didn't crash into the pentagon, you have to explain where the missing airliner turned up. You're right of course. I haven't looked into this much. the skeptics' position seems a bit tenuous. Hopefully I'll have more to say later after reading up a bit.
Frankly, I think incompetence, bungling, inefficiency and lack of preparedness explain everything. he usual reason for things not adding up. Arse-protecting lies. I would tend to agree... if it weren't for WTC7 and the complete lack of an official explanation and/or investigation into its collapse. I believe that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were brought down in controlled demolitions. I don't pretend to know who was responsible or why it was done. Maybe someday all will be made clear.

[CassieZoe]

Has anyone heard of a book called Another Pearl Harbour? It simply sets out all the facts about 9/11 and lets the reader make up her/his own mind. I recommend it. Thing is someone borrowed it and I can't remember the name of the writer. Anyone know?

[Hekaterine]

I've had a good look round the UK and USA Amazon sites and can't find a book of that name about 9/11

[John Self]

Could it be The New Pearl Harbor (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1844370364/)? However that book doesn't seem quite 'just present the facts and let the reader make up his/her mind', as it's subtitled Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11.

Much as I despise Bush and believe him capable of anything, I draw the line at this. Also on the basis of Occam's Razor.

EDIT: ...which I see was raised by this review on Amazon.com.

I'm watching Griffin on CSPAN, and I have one more "disturbing" question to ask: has this guy, a theologian, no less, ever heard of Occam's Razor? In the smallest family tragedy you will always be able to find unanswered questions. It's human nature to forget or distort one's memory. It's human nature to do odd and incorrect things in a crisis. A crisis as large as 9/11 surely would be characterized by many oddities and distorted remembrances. And Griffin pounces on every single one of them as though they are each a smoking gun.

His technique is primarily one of finding countervailing evidence to official explanations and then concluding that a) the official explanation is false, and that b) therefore his explanation is true. Never mind that his theory -- that the U.S. military and government was responsible for 9/11 -- has no direct evidence. In Griffin's mind it is completely validated by his supposed refutation of the official theory.

The problem with conspiracy theories involving the U.S. government is this: it is ludicrous to imagine an organization as large and diverse as this (plus elements of the U.S. military, mind you) successfully pulling off a coverup this large. Nixon couldn't cover up a small scale hotel break-in, and we are supposed to believe that all these people covered up the planting of explosives in the World Trade Center? You think there are no "disturbing questions" to be had in that theory?

Was 9/11 a boon to the Bush administration? That's certainly arguable. But to suggest that they put it together is to completely ignore the fact that U.S. policy has made something like this pretty much inevitable. The CIA has talked about blowback for years, and here it is, as plain as your nose. Why would Bush even need to engineer something like this?

One question for Griffin: if the Bushies could so successfully stage 9/11, why could they or did they not simply plant WMDs in Iraq? How could a group so skilled at subterfuge allow their little war to go so horribly wrong, putting everything they supposedly committed treason for in jeopardy?

What a nut.

[gil]

Sure, but how to explain the collapse of WTC7? No airplane hit it, it had only a few small fires, and yet the whole thing came down in a matter of seconds. How about ropey design or construction together with a thump from falling masonry off the towers, or gas explosion caused by torn piping, or a paint store getting heated up, or, most unlikely, a bomb left there by another Al Qaeda operative? The LEAST likely explanation is that Mr Bush's apparatchiks or the FBI or the CIA or the KKK arranged it, because if they did, it'd have gone off on the wrong day, not just 5 hours late.