Roughly, although the report does appear to make mistakes about it. Can't say that.. Proper scientific scrutiny wasn't done.. This would involve exploring all avenues of possibility, i.e. the scientific way they do things.. Conversely, NIST started with their conclusion and appeared to work backwards.. They ultimatily had to admit they did NOT do investigations into the possibility and plausibility of other modes of collapse like controlled demolition. That and it's all just based on computer programs, I really am not convinced that's why the buildings fell as a definate fact. I believe it is certainly possible they fell as a result of plane impacts alone.. It's possible they had some assistance as well. Maybe the terrorists used car bombs in the basement as well, which would explain witness reports of explosions being heard there.. Maybe someone left something explosive there, honestly I don't know.. Until there is a PROPER scientific analysis I've no choice but to speculate possibilities. Honestly I don't know what else did... I don't believe a conspiracy to make that flight disappear and yet remains from it right there in front of you is possible, nor see any indication of a missile or anything.. I'm pretty sure if we saw two twin towers hit by aircraft it makes sense that the same thing is what put the hole in the pentagon. Crashed around that time yes. Not Al Qaeda.. "al qaeda" is like a trademark name, many people that are terrorist/extremist/bad scum like to assume the name while not affiliated with that particular hierarchy.. It's like a franchise label. I've always strayed from saying "AQ" this and "AQ" that.... The 9/11 comission report, and by extension I assume all its proponents here, believe certain people by name as responsible for the plotting.. I think it's about 5 guys they say coordinated it all, KSM being the kingpin.. I want to see evidence involving these individuals to find out if I should believe these particular individuals guilty or not. The fact remains that while they've had their "principal architect" in custody nearly a DECADE, they've not managed to secure conviction for it against him or any of his crew, and the ONLY conviction TO DATE was at the operative level, of a guy who WANTED on the flights but couldn't.. NOBODY has been proven guilty in court for having anything to do with it.. This is my issue now.. Why would you say a guy is guilty when you've had a bloody decade to prove it and couldn't? Shouldn't that be a red flag? Moussaiu was convicted.. McVeigh was convicted relatively quick by comparision, even the Lockerbie bomber in a complicated international case, it is a complete FLUKE and ANOMOLY when you have a guy you can't convict. Is this not a red flag? No calls to convict the "principal architect"?
Car bombs in the basement now.... Oh my goodness...it literally never ends does it? I hope the next 10 years of getting nowhere are as satisfying as your first 10 years of getting nowhere. Maybe the Pentagon had car bombs too? Why stop in NY?
No...the Pentagon was knocked down by a missile. Flight 77 continued to fly over the Pentagon and landed in Ohio. The proof of it was confiscated.
I would ask for any evidence of this, but everyone knows it's just another made up 'truther' fantasy.
Why would they do that? What happened to the passengers? Why create all those extra moving parts? The same outcome could be acheived by what actually happened - crashing AA77 into the Pentagon. What about the hundreds of witnesses who saw AA77 hit the Pentagon? All liars?
Oh (*)(*)(*)(*) they saw through the plan. And it was so airtight too. First, we flew a real passenger jet containing civilians really close to the pentagon. Then we shot a missile made to look like the passenger jet at the pentagon. Then, we had a flash mob team jump out of the bushes and knock down light poles, move a generator, scatter aircraft debris on the lawn, (we already had a few tons of aircraft parts planted inside the building.) A cleanup crew positioned inside the building rushed in to remove any missile debris left in the rubble. Also, within five minutes, we located all the government and civilian video of the event and confiscated it. We landed the actual passenger plane in Ohio where we had a team ready to disappear the civilians left on board, destroy the aircraft so that we could return it to AA in pieces, and cut out the black boxes so that we could doctor them and take them (along with the passenger bodies) back to the pentagon in Washington. How could anyone figure something so complex like that out? These truthers must be real smart. At least they haven't figured out WHY we did it yet.
Didn't the Pentagon attack happen in the only section of the building that had recently been modified to be more blast-resistant, that was more empty of people compared to all other sections because of the remodeling, and housed a lot of budget analysts and accountants, which the attack happened a day after Defense Sec Rumsfeld announced $2.3 TRILLION of military transactions were unaccounted for (or something like that)?
Even if that weren't just another 9/11 Denier lie, which it is, that doesn't answer the question Fangbeer asked. Why would they shoot a missile at it, instead of crashing flight 93 into it, when they already had flight 93 ready for that purpose?
How "truthers" handled the 911 events remind me of how Obama handled the economy and the stimulus. Panic and irresponsibility did away with any hope for successfully getting the intended results. Instead of moderation and rationality,we got chemtrails,mini nukes and holograms.Instead of a serious conversation about some obvious negligence and unanswered questions we get idiots trying to cash in on a national tragedy,sheep who blindly follow theologians conspiracys in regards to chemistry and physics and tales of Presidential foreknowledge.
AA77 actually - but the question is legitimate. Therefore it probably won't be answered by the 'truth' camp.
Just as a followup, that renovation had nothing to do with making it more bomb proof. The original design of the Pentagon (a library) was the reason the outer walls were "over-structured", so to speak, which is where I'm betting suede's misinformation is coming from. Also, the lack of inhabitants in that area was purely to do with the renovation not being totally complete yet. I have a good friend who was heading to the Pentagon that morning to do some punch-list items on that very renovation....
Boy, when you're right you're right. We fortified one side of the pentagon so that we could pretend to hit it with an aircraft in the hopes that we could hide 2.3 trillion in spending. The Sec of defense had no clue what we were up to so he blabbed to everyone about it a day before we had scheduled the attack. By a stroke of genius Gus down in dev altered one of Rumsfeld's later speeches with that unknown knowns and known unknowns warrgarble so that the general public would just think he was an addled old man. We threatened everyone else who was in on it with really bad daily Indian burns and a diet of Kashi granola if they ever talked. People really hate Kashi granola. Hence the lack of talk.
I asked four things. Which of the following is wrong: 1. attack happen in the only section of the building that had recently been modified to be more blast-resistant 2. that was more empty of people compared to all other sections because of the remodeling 3. housed a lot of budget analysts and accountants 4. the attack happened a day after Defense Sec Rumsfeld announced $2.3 TRILLION of military transactions were unaccounted for (or something like that)? How would I know what's going through their sick diabolical minds? Maybe they didn't want too much damage and could have a better idea how much damage to expect from using a missile, since the military does missile tests all the time, versus the unknown damage a 757 would make crashing into the Pentagon?
Because there was a very specific target at the Pentagon. It would have been impossible to guarantee a phantom passenger flight could be counted on to be accurate. The missile would be. 77 is long gone, and no where near the Pentagon.
Wait a minute. I've been reconsidering. You know, all this hubbub about 9/11 being something other than what it was "officially" declared to be by truth seeking individuals must bogus. After all, the "official" BS story makes so much sense, and NOBODY suspects something doesn't pass the smell test and sounds completely reasonable to everyone world over. All these theories, suppositions, and rumors, must all be just paranoid delusion. Everything makes total sense and all the people that are concerned that the story sounds fishy, well, are just whackos. In this case, there's lots of smoke, but no fire. It's completely normal for unlicensed and bad pilots to perform airshow tactics before flying 6 inches off the ground, and then disappear. Also completely normal for NORAD to keep revising their story, also normal for planes to bury themselves 40 feet underground and have ONE of their engines found a half mile away and one in a hole where soft, back filled earth hid the rest of the plane somewhere underground. Also completely understandable for the military to lay down for a couple of hours while passenger planes flew around the country crashing into buildings. I think buildings that catch fire always fall straight down inside of an hour, or in the middle of the afternoon. Simply routine. Cell phones work at 35000 feet EXTREMELY well (even better 10 years ago). You know, I could go on and on about the many things that some might call, oh, let's just say "odd" that day, but, you know, they told us what happened and I believe them...completely. First responders, witnesses and police on that day that don't go along with the "official" BS story, must all be nuts.
None of the straw men in your argument are part of the accepted narrative. You are repeating lies made up by the cult leaders of the 'TM'. You have been completely mislead.
All four. When you accuse them of shooting a missile at the Pentagon to cover something up, you're pretending to know exactly that. Airplane are crash-tested and simulated all the time. If they were going to shoot it with a missile, why bother with the plane? Why hijack planes at all? What was the specific target?
Clearly the target was something so difficult to destroy it required a missile, hundreds of deaths, a team to plant evidence, a team to confiscate video, a team to destroy a civilian jetliner, and a division of internet forum disinfo commandos. Obviously Rumsfeld spent the 2.3 trillion on Twinkies, Peeps, and cockroaches. Everyone knows that those three things can survive nuclear blasts, so the whole op must have simply been a diversion so that evidence could be removed from Rumsfeld's office on the other side of the Pentagon.
No who's the one who's lying? Um, no I don't. Into buildings??? Really? You don't know why? You think the government criminals will be able to sell that Al Qaida where able to fire a missile into the Pentagon???
