Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[jonno24]

The official secrets act prohibits you mentioning it at all.

Everybody that works where i work has signed this yet there is a website that showcases exactly what we do, who our customers are and what services we offer.

The OSA doesnt prohibit you from saying what you do it prohibits you from going into detail on things that could jeopardise National security.

Also if you look hard enough what i have just said about Portondown is available on the tinterweb .

But ofcourse that would mean doing some research.

[shen]

I agee, Nightguard. That's my point. I would have thought they would be more focused on entrances/exits than the sky and elsewhere. So it would hardly be a shock that no video is available.

Even if one was, the Truthers would no doubt claim it was fake anyway!!

Who are you trying to kid l444ry? You're moving into Zing territory, just on the opposite side, what regards implausibility.

[fleckneymike]

Everybody that works where i work has signed this yet there is a website that showcases exactly what we do, who our customers are and what services we offer.

The OSA doesnt prohibit you from saying what you do it prohibits you from going into detail on things that could jeopardise National security.

Also if you look hard enough what i have just said about Portondown is available on the tinterweb .

But ofcourse that would mean doing some research.

But you have gone into detail, you've stated that you've read classified documents which show that Porton Down was responsible for chemical testing on the local population.

I do hope you aren't responsible for anything important.

[jonno24]

But you have gone into detail, you've stated that you've read classified documents which show that Porton Down was responsible for chemical testing on the local population.

I do hope you aren't responsible for anything important.

These are not classified documents anymore i have posted a link to what i am talking about.

The documents are actually in the video.

http://gramercyimages.com/blog1/2011/06/15/chemtrails-they-wouldn%E2%80%99t-do-that-would-they-well-they-already-have/

[jonno24]

I mean seriously do you think that i would divulge information if it wasnt already in the public domain ?

I do value my job.

[panky and our gang]

What the American government never gave any thought to the Pentagon being attacked from outside or someone trying to break in ? they never had any cameras pointing upwards on the supposed most secure building in the US ? no someone is telling tales about Turtles on this one .

[fleckneymike]

These are not classified documents anymore i have posted a link to what i am talking about.

The documents are actually in the video.

http://gramercyimages.com/blog1/2011/06/15/chemtrails-they-wouldn%E2%80%99t-do-that-would-they-well-they-already-have/

Right so we've now moved on from the World Trade Center being an inside job to a BBC Norfolk edition of inside out exposing spraying over Norwich and Norfolk to ascertain how a chemical cloud would dissipate. I think you must admit that claiming to have seen this documents in black and white is a slight exaggeration on your part, you've seen a local BBC news report on it. The report on the spraying clearly states they didn't check the toxicity before or after, this is incompetence and not sinister government activity. For heavens sake a scientist clearly states the amount of cadmium we are exposed to daily from industry is far higher than from these trials.

[jonno24]

Right so we've now moved on from the World Trade Center being an inside job to a BBC Norfolk edition of inside out exposing spraying over Norwich and Norfolk to ascertain how a chemical cloud would dissipate. I think you must admit that claiming to have seen this documents in black and white is a slight exaggeration on your part, you've seen a local BBC news report on it. The report on the spraying clearly states they didn't check the toxicity before or after, this is incompetence and not sinister government activity. For heavens sake a scientist clearly states the amount of cadmium we are exposed to daily from industry is far higher than from these trials.

So i signed the OSA to watch a video on chemtrails ?

**** sake im off for a pint

[fleckneymike]

So i signed the OSA to watch a video on chemtrails ?

**** sake im off for a pint

Well you sure as hell didn't sign it to read declassified documents.

[OzFox]

While I can quite understand how and why you feel these eyewitness accounts are so important , but I really don't think they are and it's not like some sort of, " I've got more eyewitness accounts than you've got so I must be right" , it doesn't work like that.

I really think there can be plenty of ambiguity .

Imagine sitting in your car on the freeway ;

Have you ever experienced seeing a plane come from out of the blue and explode into a building. I reckon the noise alone must have been enough to make most people put their hands over heads and double over.

Please try to imagine this scenario, because its not like watching something on TV. How many of these eyewitnesses actually saw anything other than a big blurred image as it flashed by , and then saw the resultant explosion ?

Later, when they get home and are told repeatedly and unambiguously that an airliner had crashed into the building, that really would be enough to make them actually believe that is what they saw. ( this wouldn't make the eyewitnesses part of any big conspiracy, far from it ),

anyway hope to speak to you soon OZ , marco etc if you've not got too bored

Oh no this would never be boring. Bonkers maybe, but not boring

So let me get this straight. You're saying that all those people on the freeway that saw an airplane crash into the Pentagon just saw a big blur and an explosion? Or that they were so frightened they buried their head in the dashboard of the car? Personally if it had been me in one of those cars, I'd have been thinking "there goes an airplane straight into the side of the Pentagon. Wow". Safe to say most witnesses would do the same. like these for instance:

• Richard Benedetto: “It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly.”

• Omar Campo, a Salvadorean: “It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting grass and it came in screaming over my head.”

• Joseph Candelario: “I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it.”

• Dennis Clem: “There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon.”

• Michael Dobbs: “It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle.”

• Penny Elgas: “… the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car …. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane — I could see the windows and the color stripes.”

• Cheryl Hammond: “We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running.”

• Joe Harrington: “… one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd.”

• Albert Hemphill: “The aircraft, look[ed] to be either a 757 or Airbus.”

• Terrance Kean: “I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon.”

• William Lagasse: “It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. … I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground.”

• Robert Leonard: “I … saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon.”

• Lincoln Liebner: “I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low.”

• Elaine McCusker: “I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating.”

• Mitch Mitchell: “I … saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it …. It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon.”

• Terry Morin: “The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines.”

• Christopher Munsey: “I couldn’t believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon ….”

• Vin Narayanan: “I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet.”

• John O’Keefe: “I don’t know whether I saw or heard it first — this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet ….”

• Steve Riskus: “I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the ‘American Airlines’ logo on the tail as it headed towards the building . … I clearly saw the ‘AA’ logo with the eagle in the middle.”

• James Ryan: “I see an American Airlines plane, silver plane, I could see AA on the tail. … The plane was low enough that I could see the windows of the plane. I could see every detail of the plane. In my head I have ingrained forever this image of every detail of that plane. It was a silver plane, American Airlines plane, and I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane.”

• Joel Sucherman: “… looking straight ahead there was a jet, what looked to be an American Airlines jet, probably a 757, and it came screaming across the highway … [and] hit the west side of the Pentagon.”

• Donald “Tim” Timmerman, a pilot: “I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon … and so I have quite a panorama. … It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.”

• Mike Walter: “I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. … It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. I saw the big ‘AA’ on the side.”

• Ian Wyatt: “I duck, I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane and then boom.”

You're essentially stating that the scores of eyewitness reports were either faked or that they were mistaken. That the damage, fires and smell of jetfuel was caused by some other means. That the clearly identifiable wreckage of an american airlines 757 was put there by some other means.That the clump of knocked down lamp posts the width of a 757 wingspan was also caused by some other means, or they were knocked over later by persons unknown. That the identification of human remains of the crew and passengers of flight 77 was fraudulent. That flight 77 and all on board were somehow disposed of at an unknown location. You starting to feel really stupid yet? Thought not!

Isn't it the case that video was seized from nearby businesses in the aftermath of the crash and has yet to be released? Presumably because the FBI doesn't feel the need to satisfy the whims of a few nut-jobs?

[Rincewind]

They cant take the risk of releasing the film as it can be copied then doctored. There would then be two films. If the doctored video was shown on a conspiricy site it could be found by visitors to the site looking evidence of wrongdoings and cover ups and then posted on some little known football forum messageboard where users would exclaim 'Golly gosh, I am flabergasted to see this. I will never believe what the government says again. I am truly shocked.

[shen]

They cant take the risk of releasing the film as it can be copied then doctored. There would then be two films. If the doctored video was shown on a conspiricy site it could be found by visitors to the site looking evidence of wrongdoings and cover ups

I'm really struggling to figure out whether you're a joker or actually being serious with comments such as these

[Rincewind]

Lets say sort of tongue in cheek. There are some who don't take much convincing that there could errors in official reports. A little bit here, a little bit there and that's it they have caught the bug never to recover. It would not have to be a doctored video. The fact that it is reported there is no clear film is enough. I was just trying to illustrate that there could be many stories.

You take your pick and make your hoice.

[l444ry]

Who are you trying to kid l444ry? You're moving into Zing territory, just on the opposite side, what regards implausibility.

Not really!! The issue at hand is whether or not security cameras would pick up an attack from the air. It's a fair point to suggest that it is highly unlikely.

[shen]

Not really!! The issue at hand is whether or not security cameras would pick up an attack from the air. It's a fair point to suggest that it is highly unlikely.

Even accounting for cameras not pointing directly to the sky, it would be very likely that all of the pictures from the relevant cameras would have given clues. With the distances that the stationary cameras, e.g. at the gas station and over the highway, had to the area of impact, it is highly likely they WOULD have recorded a much, much clearer picture of the crash than the blurry five frames released to the public.

With Pentagon also having AA defense I'd expect some kind of sensor readings too.

Either way, we're forced to speculate and guess, and if you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the authorities so be it. I won't though.

[l444ry]

Even accounting for cameras not pointing directly to the sky, it would be very likely that all of the pictures from the relevant cameras would have given clues. With the distances that the stationary cameras, e.g. at the gas station and over the highway, had to the area of impact, it is highly likely they WOULD have recorded a much, much clearer picture of the crash than the blurry five frames released to the public.

With Pentagon also having AA defense I'd expect some kind of sensor readings too.

Either way, we're forced to speculate and guess, and if you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the authorities so be it. I won't though.

You know something.... If the government was smart, they would've found a way to deal with the security cameras BEFORE 9/11. Feed fake footage through them. Act like hooligans and vandalise them. etc. etc.

If what the Truthers want us to believe is true, this thing was in the works for YEARS. I just can't imagine them overlooking something as obvious and incriminating as video footage.

You don't need to watch too many bank heist movies to realise that you're gonna have to take care of surveillance BEFORE you do the job.

[Rincewind]

The problem is the government not being smart is the most believable part.

[marko]

The problem is the government not being smart is the most believable part.

Yet they allegedly masterminded the most complex terror attack ever?

Doesn't quite add up to me.

[BoneDog]

I've tried to stay away from this chat and have only skimmed parts of the thread because I'd end up going on and on, but think I'm going to have to be tempted in by some of the complete piffle I'm reading! No offence.

[marko]

I've tried to stay away from this chat and have only skimmed parts of the thread because I'd end up going on and on, but think I'm going to have to be tempted in by some of the complete piffle I'm reading! No offence.

That's no way to talk about Zing's posts.

[BoneDog]

Gonna try and read the whole thread later but first I've got something to say to you folk who believe that a 757 hit The Pentagon.

Let's just recap a few things that happened at The Pentagon. (just food for thought)

1. There were war games going on that morning, between the US and Canada, and the US side of these 'games' were being controlled from the US Naval Command Centre Office in The Pentagon, which was keeping in touch with spy planes and also ships that were off the coast. This office is a major player in the events of that day not just because that is where events were being controlled from, but also because that is the exact place that the 757 (or cruise missile or privately owned A3 Skywarrior) hit The Pentagon.

2. In these war games there was to be a fake attack on The Pentagon that was to be aborted when the attacking plane was 3 minutes, or miles - can't remember, away. (I assume these games were called off after the two WTC's were hit)

3. The flying object that hit The Pentagon (I refuse to keep calling it a 757) flew 7000 feet above The Pentagon and turned into an impossible spiral dive groundwards at around 500mph and levelled out 10-15 feet above the ground a football field or so away from it's target. This manoeuvre precludes a 757 being involved according to many pilots who dare to speak out. The wings would have fractured, or the pilot would have lost control, not forgetting that the muppet who is supposed to have been flying that plane would never have pulled off this manoeuvre that even experienced pilots doubt they would be able to manage (not that a plane would have ever been allowed to get anywhere near The Pentagon in the first place unless it was supposed to).

4. Decoy planes were involved.

So, many of you believe that an inexperienced guy with ABSOLUTELY ZERO FLYING TIME in an AIRLINER could do a very tough turn (tough for anything other than a missile or military jet) for 330 degrees whilst descending 7000ft and then roll out 10 or 15 feet above the ground and maintain a constant altitude on his approach to smashing through the walls of the very offices where the prime witnesses to an inside job were stationed? Hecky Pecky, even an experienced pilot could not maintain the level of precision that was displayed on Sept 11th. Get a grip on yourselves, seriously. (oh and let's not forget that he pulled this manoeuvre off after being allowed to fly over US airspace for a very long time after two WTC's had already been attacked - this shit cannot happen unless some very powerful people make it happen).

A couple of quotes about the manoeuvre on route to The Pentagon - Air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien told ABC News that the maneuver was not one expected of a jetliner : "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was a military plane."

Same ABC segment : "Radar shows that Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."

I think it's time to face facts yo - people were not flying that object, technology was. Ever heard of the QRS11 chip? Or Boeing's Uninterruptable Autopilot, which can fly a plane anywhere and even land it safely on an airport runway? I'd heard of neither until a week ago. Remote control yo!

Oh, and let's not forget the exfoliation of evidence from The Pentagon lawn, where lines of people went across the lawn with paper bags picking up little bits of tell-tale debris and taking it away. In the hands of a skilled forensic investigator this debris could have brought the real criminals to justice.

[fleckneymike]

Gonna try and read the whole thread later but first I've got something to say to you folk who believe that a 757 hit The Pentagon.

Let's just recap a few things that happened at The Pentagon. (just food for thought)

1. There were war games going on that morning, between the US and Canada, and the US side of these 'games' were being controlled from the US Naval Command Centre Office in The Pentagon, which was keeping in touch with spy planes and also ships that were off the coast. This office is a major player in the events of that day not just because that is where events were being controlled from, but also because that is the exact place that the 757 (or cruise missile or privately owned A3 Skywarrior) hit The Pentagon.

2. In these war games there was to be a fake attack on The Pentagon that was to be aborted when the attacking plane was 3 minutes, or miles - can't remember, away. (I assume these games were called off after the two WTC's were hit)

3. The flying object that hit The Pentagon (I refuse to keep calling it a 757) flew 7000 feet above The Pentagon and turned into an impossible spiral dive groundwards at around 500mph and levelled out 10-15 feet above the ground a football field or so away from it's target. This manoeuvre precludes a 757 being involved according to many pilots who dare to speak out. The wings would have fractured, or the pilot would have lost control, not forgetting that the muppet who is supposed to have been flying that plane would never have pulled off this manoeuvre that even experienced pilots doubt they would be able to manage (not that a plane would have ever been allowed to get anywhere near The Pentagon in the first place unless it was supposed to).

4. Decoy planes were involved.

So, many of you believe that an inexperienced guy with ABSOLUTELY ZERO FLYING TIME in an AIRLINER could do a very tough turn (tough for anything other than a missile or military jet) for 330 degrees whilst descending 7000ft and then roll out 10 or 15 feet above the ground and maintain a constant altitude on his approach to smashing through the walls of the very offices where the prime witnesses to an inside job were stationed? Hecky Pecky, even an experienced pilot could not maintain the level of precision that was displayed on Sept 11th. Get a grip on yourselves, seriously. (oh and let's not forget that he pulled this manoeuvre off after being allowed to fly over US airspace for a very long time after two WTC's had already been attacked - this shit cannot happen unless some very powerful people make it happen).

A couple of quotes about the manoeuvre on route to The Pentagon - Air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien told ABC News that the maneuver was not one expected of a jetliner : "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was a military plane."

Same ABC segment : "Radar shows that Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."

I think it's time to face facts yo - people were not flying that object, technology was. Ever heard of the QRS11 chip? Or Boeing's Uninterruptable Autopilot, which can fly a plane anywhere and even land it safely on an airport runway? I'd heard of neither until a week ago. Remote control yo!

Oh, and let's not forget the exfoliation of evidence from The Pentagon lawn, where lines of people went across the lawn with paper bags picking up little bits of tell-tale debris and taking it away. In the hands of a skilled forensic investigator this debris could have brought the real criminals to justice.

Ok braniac, if these criminal super minds were planning an attack on themselves but wanted to make it look like terrorists using a 757 why would they build into their fiendishly clever plan a manoeuvre that allegedly the plane which hit the Pentagon couldn't do?

Also it would be nice if you used the complete quotation which ends "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe"

[marko]

Gonna try and read the whole thread later but first I've got something to say to you folk who believe that a 757 hit The Pentagon.

Let's just recap a few things that happened at The Pentagon. (just food for thought)

1. There were war games going on that morning, between the US and Canada, and the US side of these 'games' were being controlled from the US Naval Command Centre Office in The Pentagon, which was keeping in touch with spy planes and also ships that were off the coast. This office is a major player in the events of that day not just because that is where events were being controlled from, but also because that is the exact place that the 757 (or cruise missile or privately owned A3 Skywarrior) hit The Pentagon.

2. In these war games there was to be a fake attack on The Pentagon that was to be aborted when the attacking plane was 3 minutes, or miles - can't remember, away. (I assume these games were called off after the two WTC's were hit)

3. The flying object that hit The Pentagon (I refuse to keep calling it a 757) flew 7000 feet above The Pentagon and turned into an impossible spiral dive groundwards at around 500mph and levelled out 10-15 feet above the ground a football field or so away from it's target. This manoeuvre precludes a 757 being involved according to many pilots who dare to speak out. The wings would have fractured, or the pilot would have lost control, not forgetting that the muppet who is supposed to have been flying that plane would never have pulled off this manoeuvre that even experienced pilots doubt they would be able to manage (not that a plane would have ever been allowed to get anywhere near The Pentagon in the first place unless it was supposed to).

4. Decoy planes were involved.

So, many of you believe that an inexperienced guy with ABSOLUTELY ZERO FLYING TIME in an AIRLINER could do a very tough turn (tough for anything other than a missile or military jet) for 330 degrees whilst descending 7000ft and then roll out 10 or 15 feet above the ground and maintain a constant altitude on his approach to smashing through the walls of the very offices where the prime witnesses to an inside job were stationed? Hecky Pecky, even an experienced pilot could not maintain the level of precision that was displayed on Sept 11th. Get a grip on yourselves, seriously. (oh and let's not forget that he pulled this manoeuvre off after being allowed to fly over US airspace for a very long time after two WTC's had already been attacked - this shit cannot happen unless some very powerful people make it happen).

A couple of quotes about the manoeuvre on route to The Pentagon - Air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien told ABC News that the maneuver was not one expected of a jetliner : "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was a military plane."

Same ABC segment : "Radar shows that Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."

I think it's time to face facts yo - people were not flying that object, technology was. Ever heard of the QRS11 chip? Or Boeing's Uninterruptable Autopilot, which can fly a plane anywhere and even land it safely on an airport runway? I'd heard of neither until a week ago. Remote control yo!

Oh, and let's not forget the exfoliation of evidence from The Pentagon lawn, where lines of people went across the lawn with paper bags picking up little bits of tell-tale debris and taking it away. In the hands of a skilled forensic investigator this debris could have brought the real criminals to justice.

So what about all the bodies then?

Perhaps it's time you faced facts and stopped listening to such silly conspiracy theories that have more holes in them than swiss cheese.

[marko]

Ok braniac, if these criminal super minds were planning an attack on themselves but wanted to make it look like terrorists using a 757 why would they build into their fiendishly clever plan a manoeuvre that allegedly the plane which hit the Pentagon couldn't do?

Also it would be nice if you used the complete quotation which ends "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe"

Don't be daft, it'd undermine his already weak argument.

[jonno24]

So what about all the bodies then?

Perhaps it's time you faced facts and stopped listening to such silly conspiracy theories that have more holes in them than swiss cheese.

If there were bodies they wouldnt be from the 'Plane' the people on the 'plane' would have been pulverised on impact.

The bodies you are talking about are most likely that of pentagon staff or visitors to the pentagon.