You wanted to say...:

FOXPhotog - 2003-06-03 11:03:43
Wow. It takes more faith to believe that garbage than it does to accept the facts of the events we all witnessed. As to the Pentagon, I was there that day, about 10 minutes after Flight 77 crashed into Wedge 1. I've spoken to the VA State police officer who, upon seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon, ran into the burning building and began saving people. His lungs and throat were burned by inhaling jet fuel vapors. He almost died. I've seen the wreckage of the plane that hit. I saw it before investagators got to it. Of all things to call a conspiracy the slaughter of 3000 innocent Americans is one that sickening. I encourage the factually challenged moron who wrote the article to write me and we'll see how long his "theory" can stand up to hard facts.
Pork Tornado - 2003-06-03 13:27:53
What he said. Plus a bunch of arguments i won't waste my fingers typing.. "Bush Regime". hehe. Nice use of bumper sticker logic. Of course, if you were able to think logically, you wouldn't have posted or believed that article.
Ravyne - 2003-06-03 13:36:40
And yet, all the photographs taken that day at the Pentagon show no signs of major plane wreakage nor the substantial damage that the wings should have created...but go ahead and keep believing the lies fed to you.
minyoo - 2003-06-03 13:51:41
this was an interesting thing to read indeed, and some fed my growing suspicions. However, one part intrigues me, and that is, that WTC couldn't have collapsed that fast, when it indeed could implode with the speed. I saw a video about the construction of WTC in my architecture class, (before 9/11) and it showed while the buildings were designed to withstand storms and even plane crash, but the special structure of the building made it vulnerable to inside explosion, in which case it would cave in and implode. (It was scary because it came true) so yeah. I think the writer is wrong about the implosion. And that. I want to hear scientific rebuttal of this, or scientific proof, (yes, by impartial professional scientists) and not investigated by Kissinger. Oh no. we liberated Iraq. we don't care about 9/11 or afghanistan or even the WMDs. ==and now is the time to move on to Iran, or Syria, or whereever Arabs are still in charge.
FOXPhotog - 2003-06-03 14:12:30
Ravyne, What part of what I wrote did you not read? I WAS THERE! I saw with my own eyes the things this article says didn't happen. Was I somehow duped along with the thousands of others who saw the plane hit the Pentagon? There were so many eyewitnesses that to say it didn't happen is folly. It takes an enormous amount of delusion to believe these things didn't happen as we reported them. The plane (AA Flight 77) crashed about 20 yards short of the outerwall of Wedge 1. Hence the *HUGE* trench that extends from the helipad to the point of impact at Wedge 1. No wreckage??? I saw the landing gear, we have video of it for crying out loud! The plane's wreckage was strune from Rt. 27 all the way over to I-395! I can back all of what I'm saying with the raw (read: unedited, as I shot it) video from Sept. 11, 2001. Were you there that day? Did you see the Pentagon burning and smell the jet fuel that permeated the air? Did you see bodies being dragged out of the Pentagon? Did you hear the screamed warning of another plane inbound? No you were not and you did not. If you choose not to believe cold, hard facts I guess you're hopeless. PT is correct, I don't know why I waste my time. The facts of what I SAW are irrefuteable. If you or anyone else wants to try to debunk ANYTHING about the Pentagon crash, email me if you have the facts and the courage to back up your ridiculious claims (or the claims of others you post). I believe you have neither one. One last question: If a plane did not crash into the Pentagon, where is Flight 77 and the people who were aboard?
peachfront - 2003-06-03 17:47:48
I felt the article was satire, which by definition makes its point through exaggeration and distortion.

It does seem to be the case that many family members are not satisfied by the investigation, or lack of an investigation, of the events of 9-11. For a victim's perspective on the need for answers, a good resource is Mindy Kleinberg's testimony to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States. Hope I've got that linked correctly, if not, you can google Mindy Kleinberg and get it to come up fairly easily.

Pork Tornado - 2003-06-04 13:05:34
You seem to know as little about aviation as you do about the events of 9/11 The wings of a plane are huge gas tanks with very little structure. They alone cause very little damage and are the first part to break away from an aircraft. Jet fuel DOES NOT BURN unless it is atomized. You can drop a match in the wing tank of a 767 and nothing will happen. If a plane hits the ground at a high angle of attack, the fireball can be very small because of this. You'd also be amazed at the things that survive a plane crash. A friend of mine died in a wreck that burned for over two hours, and we found his wallet bloody and scorched, but in tact enough to read his license. The transponder code 7500(hijack)WAS SET on all but two hijacked flights. The hijackers were trained as pilots and may have prevented it on the others. You can read the FAA reports if you'd like. Of course, since the FAA is a federal institution, it was probably edited by Bush, but I heard the ATC tapes, too. Hijacked planes are usually left to continue to the place the hijacker demands because history shows us that the survival rate is much higher than when folks try to fight it. But these are all lies that are fed to me through years of education and first hand experience (and the Bush regime and big tobacco and whatever else you people like to villify from your comfy homes). The only FACTS you have are those written by someone as self-myopic as you.
Kuro - 2003-06-06 14:16:31
I disagree with much of this article, I think some of the conclusions are come to without enough thought, and some of the evidence is questionable. I rather doubt a missile hit the Pentagon, considering the thousands of eyewitnesses, the disappearance of Flight 77, etc. According to one source I heard, the security cameras -were- in fact on, and -did- catch the hijackers on camera. However. Some of the information and conclusions are correct. Jet fuel is extremely sluggish to burn and does not burn very hot (if the fuel burned hot enough to melt steel, which is the official reason why the WTC's structure failed, it would melt the engines of the jet too). The jet fuel could not have done any structural damage to the buildings through heat, only through shock, a shock the building was designed to withstand. And, as Pink Tornado actually confirmed, jet fuel combusts slowly and only when it is atomized. It would be very difficult, even on a full tank meant to take the plane cross-country, to make a fireball as large as the explosions we saw using only the planes' jet fuel. There almost had to be at least some sort of explosives inside the plane; even just, say, luggage that the terrorists checked that was loaded with C4 (which would detonate from the shock of hitting the building probably even without a blasting cap). There was, in fact, a lot of insider trading, too. 600% more than would be expected, and most of it speculation--people who predicted that the airline companies would -lose- value. This, only a few days after the airline industry was predicted to become much more valuable and productive, and stock prices to rise. Only a fool would speculate that it would fall, unless they knew what was coming. And many, many people seemed to. A record number of CEOs, CFOs, VPs, and their ilk who worked in the Twin Towers called in sick to work on September 11. The CIA headquarters located in the WTC was mysteriously evacuated that day. The Air Force was stood down and unprepared to do anything about the planes. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but there's just too much here to ignore. However, as the author of the article points out, Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is likely the correct one--Osama bin Laden (who doesn't hate our freedoms, just us and our lack of faith in Islam, among other things) plans a strike on the WTC. He convinces some of his men to go on a suicide run. They pack their suitcases with Semtex and maybe a blasting cap and their carryons with (at the time legal) knives and box cutters. They pick some planes that will have lots of fuel (not for its explosive capability, but rather because it's slow burning it would trickle down and act like napalm). They get on the planes, grab a stewardess and slit her throat or something, and then demand that the pilot give them the plane. Two of the pilots set the transponder to show they've been hijacked, but apparently no one hears; besides, plane hijackings aren't all that uncommon, and before 9/11, they don't lead to fiery death. So the passengers don't fight, figuring everyone will be safe. The pilot turns over the controls. All four planes steer toward their targets. Something goes wrong with two of them, however; one is brought down before it hits its target, the other hits the Pentagon but its Semtex doesn't explode. The jet fuel burns the corpses and the luggage beyond recognition, and melts the Semtex, nobody realizes it was ever there. (look at the difference in damage that the Towers took and the Pentagon took) The other two planes go where they're supposed to go, hit the towers, and explode. Though the towers are designed to survive a plane crash and hurricane force winds, they are not designed to survive 280 pounds of Semtex (4 men, 2 checked bags each, 35 pounds max per bag, to avoid being searched) detonating both at point blank range and within the building itself. And the rest is history. But my version of events calls for a few actions by the administration--it calls for receiving reports of the plan that was going down (including who was doing the hijacking, where they were going to hit, and when), and ignoring those reports, intentionally. Not only ignoring the reports, but calling the Air Force to stand down, and evacuating the CIA (and the CEOs) from the WTC. Again, call me a wild-eyed liberal conspiracy theorist if you will. But I would not put complicity with the attacks past this administration. They just worked out too well in Bush's favor.
Keith.. or Maarek.. or... - 2003-06-13 17:45:14
woot Kuro. In any case... People are blinded by patriotism, nationalism, and a need to bend logic into this self-fulfilling prophecy of America's victimization on 9/11-- so much so that it is entirely unplausible that people, even if confronted with blatant facts, could come to terms with the faintest hint that, perhaps, yes, our government not only has the potential for evil (Gods forbid) but has actually committed evil acts. Anyone who wishes to dispute that our government has committed evil acts should do the following: A) throw away their high school text books and B) go to the library, and read as much as you can, to prove how wrong I am for suggesting America has done evil things, even to (gasp) their own people. First of all, three thousand people. That's one -one hundred thousandth- the population of the united states. That's .001% our population. .001%. Not that large of a loss, statistically speaking, if you take a moment to think about it. An acceptable margin of loss for forwarding what someone might believe the "best cause--" let me put it this way. Let's draw back away from the 9/11 incident, and place you (anyone, not anyone imparticular) in the hotseat, and ask... If you could save 300 million people at the cost of the lives of 3000, would you do it? Think. Most of you would probally say yes. The others would try to skirt their ways out of it. And the tiny little percent simply wouldn't care. In any case, if the Bush Regime, Rightist Conspiracy, Bavarian Illuminati, or whatever else vile institution you wish to blame for this 9/11 incident truly believed they were going to save the lives of 300 million people at the cost of 3000, don't you think they'd do it? Isn't it their duty, as humans, as good people, to do that? Well, That's an interesting line of thought. Believing these people evil is ridiculous, and makes "conspiracy theories" that much more ridiculous. But paint these (wo)men as heroes (in their own minds) and they become significantly more believable. Consider it... The purpose of the article posted, I believe, was to get you thinking. Which a few of you obviously have not, too laden with your own emotional bias and political bias, you're currently unable to move beyond that. It's not suprising. Nevertheless, prove it wrong, prove the entire concept wrong, and you have won for -both- of us. The entire assumption of "conspiracy theorist bashers" is that we -want- to be ruled by evil dictators, or something similarly ludicrous. The truth is, if I knew for a fact that this was, somehow, truly pulled off -exactly- as the media (pffshaw) has portrayed it, then I'd have peace of mind. I'm interested in the -truth- as all of you should be. But truth cannot be found unless one is willing to -question.- So for god's sake, for your sake, for your childrens' sake, -question dammit, question! Question till your tounge bleeds! ... The truth is... Not everyone is noble. The truth is, out government has done, and will do, bad things. And the truth is, -we have done bad things to ourselves.- Horrible atrocities... And they're -real- -- they've even been recognized officially by the government in some cases, they are indeed true! And they're not going to stop, so, -question- because when you -stop- questioning... Well.. Then that's the day the government no longer needs to lie...

so tell me...:

who are you?:
where can I email you?:
do you have a URL to share?:

Ahhhh...thanks, I needed that!

back to the entry - Diaryland