found @ http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-report-pentagon-911-attack.html

*fear. Wow, Lloyde was duplicitous. I'd love to hear more from him "off camera".

Adding video to channels (Fear) - requested by blankfist.

"This is particularly the case as more innocents are slaughtered and additional billions of dollars are spent on a fraudulent "war on terror" perpetuated under any other name."

Sorry but I must stop you there. The Iraq War was going to happen whether or not they came up with this so why risk such a dangerous act? The "War on Terror" is a redeclaration of the old "War on Terror" in the 80's by Reagan. Also there was a "War of Terror" declared by JFK and perpetrated by RFK. Look this is what the US does, makes no sense to bother with these false flag operations. If this was ever discovered the republican party would cease to exist in the US, why risk all that when you can just start the war anyways. It was a good opportunity that was seized, not an opportunity that had to be created.

So, Yogi, you are saying that the details and accounts presented in this video are false? That all the eye witnesses were smoking crack or something to have such a distorted recollection of what happened? That the tightly controlled, sparse information released by the government is what really happened? That a commercial airliner crashed into a build and literally disintegrates into nothing but a few "show pieces"? How much DNA did they find there? None? Not a trace of humans or their belonging? This is truley incredible since in NY they were "lucky" enough to find entire identifications of the "supposed" hijackers.

"The Iraq War was going to happen whether or not they came up with this so why risk such a dangerous act?"

The war in Iraq never stopped. We were flying over Iraq constantly and upholding an embargo there. The incidents on 9/11 were exactly what was needed in order to full scale the military operations and quickly (while everyone's emotions were high) pass domestic laws clamping down on US citizen rights.

Without a perceived threat (War on Terror, Communism, etc) there is no rationale for perpetuating the Military Industrial Complex. And, as far as this being a Republican party thing, just remember the Vietnam and Korean wars were brought to you by the darling Democrats with total body counts of ~ 112K American soldiers.

the biggest problem with this i see is that what would be the point?
what would be the advantage of faking the plane hitting the building, when you STILL have to account for the plane and all it's passengers going missing?
it's already reaching like hell but that's where it just drops into nonsense

^I agree, shole. If I start to ask why, I end up with "what about the passengers of the plane?" or "why would our government go to great lengths to fake 911?" I think the asking those sorts of questions are important, but regardless the facts these truthers come up with is pretty interesting and worth entertaining, I think.

If your brother was dead, the police said he died of a drug overdose, but your neighbor said he saw the body and there was a knife sticking out of his body, would you not ask tough questions to ensure he wasn't in fact stabbed to death. And certainly the first question you'd ask yourself is "why would the police go to great lengths to fake an overdose?"

I want to know more about Lloyd's story. To me, that was the most damning piece of information.

Let's boost the *quality of this video, shall we? I'm interested in hearing more people's input on this.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

Interesting how all the witness flight paths differ. And, coincidentally, they all show a flight path that starts "directly over their own heads" and continues in a straight line to the impact zone. Doesn't sound at all suspicious to me that all witnesses interviewed claim the plane flew directly over their heads.

Now, the conflicting eye witness reports are used as evidence against the digitally recorded data and the physical evidence of downed light poles? And what about the damn surveillance video SHOWING THE PLANE APPROACHING THE BUILDING IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE EXPLOSION? Hmm...

In my opinion, people have unrealistic expectations form watching too many CIS/Forensic Detective shows. Truthfully, we do not have the ability to predict every physical interaction and result from a collission of that magnatude. Any number of physcial reactions could have taken place to account for the aftermath as it was observed in the days and weeks following the collision. Certainly amateur attempts to produce data the supports preconceived ideas is to be handled with some skepticism.

Personally, I find the conspiracy theories concerning this event pretty insulting. But I suppose once Buzz Aldrin started punching people it wasn't fun anymore to make up moon landing conspiracies.

They differ BARELY. They all contradict the official flight path. They claim the flight path started above The Navy Annex, NOT their own heads. They describe that in a lot of detail, along with the banking to the right. That 'damned surveillance video' showed practically SHIT ALL! We see a glimpse of the tail, then boom, fire, smoke. We don't have the ability to predict every physical interaction and result from yadda yadda yadda - but we have the ability to smell BULLSHIT. And this whole official story REEKS with it. Don't even try to lump in this among moon-landing-hoax-conspiracy rubbish. THAT'S insulting. This was a thorough, fairly professional investigation, not absurd, baseless conjecture.

This is a terrific compilation of all the ridiculous "facts" and "evidence" that these truthers have been spouting for years.

- No plane parts at the Pentagon! Because the plane was flown purposely into the building, it did not hit the ground while pilots struggled to keep it aloft, like in all their other photo examples.

They have this long segment about the flight path of the plane, that is somehow supposed to bring into the question the veracity of the rest of what happened that day. They don't have any eye-witnesses who claim to have seen anything other than a single plane hit that building, aside from one person who I believe is confusing events. There were people driving on the freeway adjacent to the Pentagon that would have had a perfect view of some funny business with 2 planes.

>> ^EndAll:
This was a thorough, fairly professional investigation, not absurd, baseless conjecture.

This is selective picking of data and witness testimonial to support a preconceived idea. The material evidence that contradicts their theory is outright ignored and substituted with amateur analysis of speculative data.

Don't be fooled by the pretty computer graphics. The amateur research returned inaccurate results and then they turn around and use the fact that their results don't match the professional scientific results as the primary evidence that the official explanation has been falsified. Please!

Skepticism is good. As is investigating, considering, and acting.

This is very compelling.

As for why, I could only guess, but if I compare the control and power that the U.S. government had over its citizens before 9/11 and after, I see a dramatic change in that landscape, and that's not going to change any time soon.

I don't think these guys are typical "truthers" as you put it, they seem to be independent from that movement; concerned solely with the attack on the Pentagon on that day, and not concerned with any grander, more elaborate theories about what the supposed cover-up and lies about that specific attack might imply.

This is their site, for you and anyone else: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/

In reply to this comment by IronDwarf:
This is a terrific compilation of all the ridiculous "facts" and "evidence" that these truthers have been spouting for years.

>> ^Rotty:

"The Iraq War was going to happen whether or not they came up with this so why risk such a dangerous act?"
The war in Iraq never stopped. We were flying over Iraq constantly and upholding an embargo there. The incidents on 9/11 were exactly what was needed in order to full scale the military operations and quickly (while everyone's emotions were high) pass domestic laws clamping down on US citizen rights.
Without a perceived threat (War on Terror, Communism, etc) there is no rationale for perpetuating the Military Industrial Complex. And, as far as this being a Republican party thing, just remember the Vietnam and Korean wars were brought to you by the darling Democrats with total body counts of ~ 112K American soldiers.


You're right about the Iraq war not stopping, we enforced (The US and UK through the UN) an embargo that devastated the population killing almost half a million children alone. It also strengthened Saddam which wasn't a secret, it was well known.

I disagree with you that "without a perceived threat there is no rationale for perpetuating the Military Industrial Complex" because when there is none available it's just made up. Just look at the budget for the Pentagon 1991-1992, no change after the end of the Cold War is just stayed the same. Because simply the economy we have requires it to continue in this way, without it we wouldn't have this shiny computers to debate with.

I'm not sure what you mean with the Democrat comments, I'm very vocal on War Crimes perpetrated by Clinton and Carter not insignificant in the least. The point is that this has to change, from the ground up fundamental change, it won't do anything to prove 9/11 was an inside job, because frankly it will only explain the deaths of 3,000 people. I don't want to sound cold, but that pales in comparison to half a million children starving to death which was justified as "worth it" by Madeleine Albright. So no love for the Democrats here.

Intellectually it also wastes a lot of time. You could be spending time working towards real reforms, that help people incidentally. Instead thousands of people spend huge amounts of time and go to Conventions on which member of the Mob was involved in the Kennedy assassination. It's just not friggin worth it.

-

>> ^EndAll:
I don't think these guys are typical "truthers" as you put it, they seem to be independent from that movement; concerned solely with the attack on the Pentagon on that day, and not concerned with any grander, more elaborate theories about what the supposed cover-up and lies about that specific attack might imply.
This is their site, for you and anyone else: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/

My problem with that website is that no where on there is a clear and concise description of what they think happened. I see all kinds of what they claim to be evidence to the contrary of the official report, but it is so all over the place that they can't form it into a coherent theory. They claim it was a black flag operation, but where is the evidence of that? They are making extraordinary claims, but where is the evidence to back that up?

Here is a great debunk video that goes against a lot of what CIT has said: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/debunking-citizen-i
nvestigation-team.html

I think this site provides a good debunking of this video. What I like about it specifically is that it's from a known figure within the "truther" movement. What he's insinuating is that the "magic show" theorists such as CIT are likely paid to discredit any call for more information, and provide a distraction from more pressing questions about more plausible scenarios.

Specifically he asks:
* How was it possible that the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began?

* Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just over 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation’s capital?

* Why did F-16s fail to protect Washington on 9/11? Was the Langley emergency response sabotaged?

* Why did Flight 77 hit a part of the building opposite from the high command and mostly empty and under renovation, with majority of victims being civilian accountants?

* Why were Pentagon workers not evacuated or warned that Flight 77 was approaching, despite those in the bunker tracking the attack plane as it closed the final 50 miles to the Pentagon?

* How could Flight 77 have been piloted through its extreme aerobatic final maneuvers by Hani Hanjour, a failed Cessna pilot who had never flown a jet?

* Why did the flight instructor who certified Hani Hanjour, a former Israeli paratrooper, disappear a few days after his 9/11 Commission interview?

* Why was a war game drill used to vacate the National Reconnaissance Office for the duration of the attack?

* How was a C-130 pilot able to intercept the plane incoming to the Pentagon while NORAD was not?

* Did the Pentagon, the nerve center of the US military, really have no missile or anti-aircraft defenses?

* What were Vice-president Cheney’s orders when Norman Mineta described him speaking to a young man in the presidential bunker as the plane approached, saying, “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?“

For a conspiracy moderate like myself, these questions deserve addressing. Particularly questions about how a plane was allowed to reach the pentagon in the first place. Any politician claiming to be "tough on security" ought to be able to answer for how, on his watch, a commercial airliner piloted by an untrained pilot was able to strike the nerve center of the US military almost an hour after we had already been attacked.

If nothing more nefarious, Dick Cheney should have been indicted for gross negligence on that day.

The answer to nearly all of those questions would be something to the effect of that day was utterly chaotic and the US was grossly unprepared for an attack of that kind. Other questions like "Why did Flight 77 hit a part of the building opposite from the high command and mostly empty and under renovation, with majority of victims being civilian accountants?" don't even make sense to ask after the fact. The things that happened that day happened because the people flying those planes made it happen that way.

I'm sorry, but anyone who actually buys into any of this conspiracy bullshit is not looking at all of the material available and is either purposefully or unknowingly keeping themselves ignorant. I know these videos can be persuasive, but they are not giving you all the information; they are picking and choosing what fits their particular theory. For example, I felt like I knew for a certainty what had happened on November 22, 1963 after watching Oliver Stone's "JFK", but after reading more about it I realized the theory was complete shit, no matter how well made and persuasive the movie was.

>> ^bmacs27:
Did the Pentagon, the nerve center of the US military, really have no missile or anti-aircraft defenses?

oh, come on.. are you seriously calling for shooting down a civilian aircraft filled with civilians that might or might not be under hostile control with no confirmed flightpath?

most of those 'questions' are due to chance, chaos and panic
nothing like this had ever happened on mainland US (while it's everyday life in the middle-eastern countries.. which was the whole point of the attack)
there is very little anyone could have done once the planes are in the air
bush should be fried for negligence though.. sitting on his ass, mesmerized by a children's story while people burned
inexcusable

BUT WHERE ARE THE CANALS ON MARS? ASTRONOMERS SAW FOR ALL THOSE DECADES! SURELY, THEY MUST EXIST BECAUSE ALL THOSE ASTRONOMERS SAW THEM!

To quote Bill Maher, speaking to a 9/11-conspiracy froot-loop in his audience: "Nighty-night, Dipshit."

>> ^IronDwarf:
The answer to nearly all of those questions would be something to the effect of that day was utterly chaotic and the US was grossly unprepared for an attack of that kind. Other questions like "Why did Flight 77 hit a part of the building opposite from the high command and mostly empty and under renovation, with majority of victims being civilian accountants?" don't even make sense to ask after the fact. The things that happened that day happened because the people flying those planes made it happen that way.
I'm sorry, but anyone who actually buys into any of this conspiracy bullshit is not looking at all of the material available and is either purposefully or unknowingly keeping themselves ignorant. I know these videos can be persuasive, but they are not giving you all the information; they are picking and choosing what fits their particular theory. For example, I felt like I knew for a certainty what had happened on November 22, 1963 after watching Oliver Stone's "JFK", but after reading more about it I realized the theory was complete shit, no matter how well made and persuasive the movie was.


You clearly didn't read my post. The site I listed discredits the video. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't hold it past Dick Cheney to knowingly allow this to happen. The flight hit the pentagon almost an hour after the flights hit the towers. Protocol is to scramble and shoot down any civilian flight off its flight path and that isn't responding to hails, particularly if it is headed towards a high valued military target. For Dick Cheney that should be an easy call. If it wasn't, I seriously question whether he was qualified to be in that position.

At the very least, the south side of the building should have been evacuated as the target was moving in, not after.

I agree the question you pulled out is bullshit, but questions about exactly what orders were given to whom, when, are not unreasonable questions. These are even more relevant if what we'd like to understand how to avoid this sort of thing in the future.

I'm not willfully ignorant as you imply. I won't entertain fantastic stories about fly overs, or detonation squads. I just wouldn't hold it past these particular assholes to allow something like this to happen. They didn't need to do anything active, just don't give the order to fire.

In my mind... the "truthers" are getting paid/encouraged/coverage in order to keep the heat off the real question of was the negligence criminal or plain vanilla incompetence?

FDNY and all that... but the chickenhawk, neocons can go to hell. The fact of the matter is we've spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's blow job than we have the largest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor, accusations of human rights abuses, and unconstitutional expansions of executive power by the previous administration.

I ask you sir...
srsly?

You clearly didn't read my post. The site I listed discredits the video. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't hold it past Dick Cheney to knowingly allow this to happen. The flight hit the pentagon almost an hour after the flights hit the towers. Protocol is to scramble and shoot down any civilian flight off its flight path and that isn't responding to hails, particularly if it is headed towards a high valued military target. For Dick Cheney that should be an easy call. If it wasn't, I seriously question whether he was qualified to be in that position.
At the very least, the south side of the building should have been evacuated as the target was moving in, not after.
I agree the question you pulled out is bullshit, but questions about exactly what orders were given to whom, when, are not unreasonable questions. These are even more relevant if what we'd like to understand how to avoid this sort of thing in the future.
I'm not willfully ignorant as you imply. I won't entertain fantastic stories about fly overs, or detonation squads. I just wouldn't hold it past these particular assholes to allow something like this to happen. They didn't need to do anything active, just don't give the order to fire.
In my mind... the "truthers" are getting paid/encouraged/coverage in order to keep the heat off the real question of was the negligence criminal or plain vanilla incompetence?
FDNY and all that... but the chickenhawk, neocons can go to hell. The fact of the matter is we've spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's blow job than we have the largest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor, accusations of human rights abuses, and unconstitutional expansions of executive power by the previous administration.
I ask you sir...
srsly?

I did read your post and yes, it does discredit the video, but it brings up other questions just as absurd.

The protocol was never been to shoot down any civilian aircraft that deviates from flight plans and doesn't respond to hails. That is absolutely false and you know it. That policy may have been tightened and changed since these events, but before 9/11 there is no way that the government would shoot down a commercial airliner for those reasons. The simple fact is that no one knew what was going on and where these planes were headed until it was too late.

Like I said before, things were absolutely chaotic that day and people were trying to use their best judgment based on what information they had, which was minimal at best. Watch any of the excellent Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel documentaries about that day and you'll see how little people had to go on. It is easy to look with hindsight and second guess what people should have done, but in the moment, things are not that simple.

Dick Cheney had no say regarding shooting down anything, so I'm not sure why you are going after him, aside from your obvious anger. Belief in conspiracy theories are so dangerous because they essentially become like a religion: people believe what they believe because they believe it and nothing can persuade them otherwise once they have decided to believe. Even a "moderate" conspiracy theorist like yourself must realize that you have no real evidence to back up your claims, especially claims that the government was complicit, passively or otherwise.

Because I promised another *quality.

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by blankfist.

>> ^IronDwarf:
Belief in conspiracy theories are so dangerous because they essentially become like a religion: people believe what they believe because they believe it and nothing can persuade them otherwise once they have decided to believe. Even a "moderate" conspiracy theorist like yourself must realize that you have no real evidence to back up your claims, especially claims that the government was complicit, passively or otherwise.


While you touched on this lightly I thought I might elaborate. There's a good chance that the government could even be fueling some of these conspiracy theories. It was proven that they were fueling the JFK conspiracy theories, leaking fake documents and so on. Conspiracy Theories are incredible useful, it wastes time and energy on innocuous BS.

So interestingly while the government isn't complicit in the creating of the event, they might be complicit in the fueling of the theories of the event.

The truthers and movements like theirs are a pathetic attempt to project a false sense of understanding of events clearly beyond their intellectual grasp. It is obviously a defense mechanism for dealing with their own lack of knowledge of the world beyond their groups activities.

The notion that an often basement dwelling social outcast can uncover great conspiracies, and a deep understanding of the intricacies of centuries old conflicts thousands of miles away is ludicrous. Actual intelligence agencies attempt and often fail at this every day - and they have considerable resources in both manpower and technology.

The irony inherent in all these theories is the attempt to somehow remove the obvious foreign (and therefore unknown) influences in these events, and instead put all the blame in a supposedly omnipotent US government. In doing so they have created a rather flattering image of a super villain they can not defeat, thereby validating their continued struggle, and reassuringly know all about.

If their fantasies were real they would of course be jailed or dead. That is the case of all real dissidents of actual autocratic states.
Eventually this serves the lone purpose of maintaining a community of believers similar to that of a cult. By ascribing to these beliefs they gain access to a social construct often denied them earlier in life.

The group inflates the participants egos and and instills a confidence rarely felt before. That feeling is obviously precious to these people, much like jewelery to a cave dwelling humanoid featured, not surprisingly, in certain works which many of them hold as the pinnacle of literature. Therefore, one should not be surprised by the lengths to which these people will go in preaching their convictions. Their newly found social status depends on your acceptance of their inane rants.

Ok... I'm a graduate student advised by a member of the national academy of sciences. You don't need to talk to me about belief without evidence. You assumed my belief.

What you may or may not understand about science is the concept of a prior probability. Any confirmation of a hypothesis involves first the assignment of a prior probability to that hypothesis. That's simply Bayes rule. That is, some hypotheses are more tenable than others prior to the collection of data. All I'm saying is that I'm more open to a "conspiracy theory" of the sort that involves a small number of actors, or willful inaction on the part of someone like Dick Cheney. Such a hypothesis is much more likely, and more deserving of testing, than hypotheses about magic shows that somehow duped thousands of witnesses. Ignoring that fact is as much a religion as persistent belief in detonation squads. Do I need to remind you of how the gulf of Tonkin incident dragged us into a quagmire in Vietnam?

Dick Cheney absolutely had the say as to whether or not that plane gets shot down, as he was the highest ranking official in Washington. He was in the presidential emergency operations bunker at the time. He could have made the call, and didn't. Frankly, because of him, our enemies world wide know that they can hit the epicenter of our military operations. No amount of water boarding or genital electrocution is going to reinstate the security compromised by that one fact.

>> ^bmacs27:
Ok... I'm a graduate student advised by a member of the national academy of sciences. You don't need to talk to me about belief without evidence. You assumed my belief.
What you may or may not understand about science is the concept of a prior probability. Any confirmation of a hypothesis involves first the assignment of a prior probability to that hypothesis. That's simply Bayes rule. That is, some hypotheses are more tenable than others prior to the collection of data. All I'm saying is that I'm more open to a "conspiracy theory" of the sort that involves a small number of actors, or willful inaction on the part of someone like Dick Cheney. Such a hypothesis is much more likely, and more deserving of testing, than hypotheses about magic shows that somehow duped thousands of witnesses. Ignoring that fact is as much a religion as persistent belief in detonation squads. Do I need to remind you of how the gulf of Tonkin incident dragged us into a quagmire in Vietnam?
Dick Cheney absolutely had the say as to whether or not that plane gets shot down, as he was the highest ranking official in Washington. He was in the presidential emergency operations bunker at the time. He could have made the call, and didn't. Frankly, because of him, our enemies world wide know that they can hit the epicenter of our military operations. No amount of water boarding or genital electrocution is going to reinstate the security compromised by that one fact.


If you really believe this nonsense, I can't have a real conversation with you. You really believe that Dick Cheney, knowing in advance (either on the day or having been part of the grand conspiracy) that Flight 77 was going to hit the Pentagon, sat back and did nothing, in order to further his political ends? How would you go about proving a hypothesis like that? Or is this just something you will believe no matter what because it is essentially unprovable?

I didn't say I believe it. I said I would entertain it. There is a major difference.

If you honestly believe that Dick Cheney, as vice-president, was completely innocent of all wrong doing, I can't have a conversation with you.

The man's actions for the last eight years need to be carefully scrutinized. He ought to be investigated for all sorts of things. No, I don't think you could ever pin something like "he knew about flight 77 in advance" on him. I think you could get him for having assassination squads (i.e. Blackwater/Xe services), I think you can get him for authorizing illegal torture, I think you can get him for lying to the american people about justification for war (and the manufacturing of evidence to support his case), I think you might even be able to get him for profiteering if you look closely enough.

The man is a criminal, and has been since he was riding Tricky's Dick. This is, of course, not to mention the other people I think should be investigated carefully, i.e. Richard Perle, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and of course the baby Bush.

The real danger of conspiracy theories is the bias their prevalence puts against skepticism of official stories. Fear of association with crazies prevents the rational questioning of our public servants' activities. Therein lies the real danger.

I never said Cheney was blameless through those 8 years, I said I disagree with you that he was somehow complicit in what happened on 9/11.

I'm finished arguing this stupid point with you.

This gets at a deeper point that is quite worrying to me, which is the concept of tenability of hypotheses. There has been a "burden of proof" movement largely coming from Atheist push against religion. In many circumstances, this is fine, but it ignores the typical timeline of scientific progress. All hypotheses begin without evidence, and many are not testable when they are first conceived. For examples, I would point you towards string theory, or the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics. Both are considered untestable at present, yet nobody seems to discount the utility of pursuing these ideas.

Just because, at present, a hypothesis is untestable, does not falsify said hypothesis. One must first consider their a priori belief in the hypothesis. In this particular case Dick Cheney has sufficiently convinced me of his willingness to sacrifice the well being, liberty, and life of American citizens to further his own political and financial objectives that I'm forced to entertain the plausibility of his willingness to allow an attack on our soil to happen. We're not talking about flying spaghetti monsters, and floating tea cups behind Jupiter here. We're talking about Darth Vader being willing to force choke Admiral Motti.

9/11 Commission Report questioned by 100 professors

>> ^EndAll:
9/11 Commission Report questioned by 100 professors


Just because the official 9/11 Commission Report is incorrect, doesn't mean that the conspiracy theories are correct in anyway.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^EndAll:
9/11 Commission Report questioned by 100 professors

Just because the official 9/11 Commission Report is incorrect, doesn't mean that the conspiracy theories are correct in anyway.


Certainly, this is true! I agree with you. I don't buy into many of them. Some of them do, however, raise very valid questions and concerns that go unanswered or are forcibly shoved under the rug, so to speak.

Downvote for regurgitated bullshit Troofer paranoid conspiracy propoganda.