in short it's a theory that doesn't comport with any of the most basic contingencies and complications of real life. it's the kind of stretch that gives conspiracy theorizing a bad name.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Hakki Alacakaptan Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:31 PM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: RE: Faked video of plane crashing into Pentagon
|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: Kevin Robert Dean
||
|| Sorry for the French (I don't speak it) but the
|| Babelfish translation looked rather silly (almost as
|| silly as this cospiracy theory)---this was found on
|| Yahoo News
||
Oh yes, another silly conspiracy theory. Just posted it so we could all have a chuckle, have you? Your PC ridiculing of all conspiracy theories has, I'm sure, been noted and approved. The US ruling classes do not and never have engaged in covert action, deception, manipulation, or any other form of shenanigan and if they have, we don't want to know about unless they tell us themselves, right? Anti-conspiracist U.S. self-flagellators please carry on with your intriguing national ritual. Don't mind me, I'm just visiting.
There are way too many discrepancies around the Pentagon plane for all of them to be random occurrences and not a result of a planned deception. But this particular theory overlooks the fact that the Pentagon's Wedge One, which the plane hit so precisely, had been blast-reinforced shortly before S11. The walls were reinforced with steel posts and the stuff they make bulletproof vests with - I forget the word - and the windows were 5 inch bulletproof glass. Work on wedge 2 has only just begun. Not only was the building hardened but the plane apparently hit the ground before slamming into the facade, so it's reasonable to suppose it broke up on first impact and was further pulverized when it hit the hardened building. Who knows, maybe they even installed something like the active armor on tanks to further dissipate blast energy, and that may have contributed to destroying the plane even more thoroughly. I remember when an El-Al 747 Cargo loaded with chemicals for making sarin gas and other military goodies crashed into Amsterdam's Bijlmer condos, there wasn't any recognizable plane debris left either.
OTOH the way the press was prevented from covering the crash site indicates there's definitely something fishy there, but was it about the plane - or lack of it - or the building, I can't say.
The real story is elsewhere, though. The pilot, who we're told was called Hani Hanjour, was unquestionably a miserable flake incapable of the sort of combat-class flying that plane's supposed to have done. The media's been wondering why the WTC planes weren't intercepted whereas this plane was aloft a full 35 minutes after the first WTC plane hit and what's more, passed over over the DC area, which is not only covered by Andrews AF Base in MD, but has short-range AA missile defences, notably at the White House. The excuse offered invites even more suspicion: The FAA center at Indianapolis monitoring flight 77's sector didn't have a real radar (just a "beacon" radar), so when the plane's transponder was switched off, the center couldn't locate it any more. Needless to say, NORAD most definitely _could_ locate it.
Hakki