9-11/WTC question

I can't even find data about the pentagon being a no-fly zone. The white house and the capitol are tho, but nothing about the pentagon being a no fly-zone.

According to this: http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1030637702378B221, there was a temporary no-fly zone over the pentagon on the 9/11 first anniversary, so this must mean that it isn't a permanent one.

 

data is unprocessed info.

here's some info.

http://physics911.ca/pdf/2003/eastman_decoys_pentagon.pdf
"...a four engine job was over restricted air space.."

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/news/america/usa/091901a.html
"the pentagon, capitol hill, and the white house are restricted air space"

http://www.thedailyfarce.com/science.cfm?story=2005%5C04%5Cscience_laserguidedmissilestowarnairplanes_04200500012
"In an effort to quickly inform airplanes that they have flown into restricted airspace.."


and a so-called "conspiracy site", thrown in for good measure http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pentagon.html

one would assume a building with so much "intelligence" about what's going on around the world, would be able to defend itself (and all its highly classified info) from attacks.


notice also how network media has always focused on the WTC, not the pentagon.

 

3 out of those websites are conspiracy websites, each one mentioned the pentagon as a restricted airspace, but I still have no credible source proving that.

And the failyfarce article... just reading this part "I'm scared shitless." Stated a pilot with Eastern Airlines, "I mean, I know I have 3 other engines, but I still need all four of them. Sometimes, you know, with the drinking we do onboard, we, by mistake of course, cross into restricted space. We should not be killed because of that"....drinking onboard? I don't know I'm skeptical about that one.
Especialy since I haven't found any other article about the pentagon using laser guided missiles.

Don't get me wrong, I am looking too for an official document saying that the pentagon is a restricted airspace, before I go further I must find out if it's true.

 

and what would make it official? Ads on either side that hint of right-wing sponsorship? Do you want find a quote of a civil engineer contractor to outright say "yeah, we've installed guided-missile systems to shoot down planes that get too close" ? You're not going to find a lot of "official documents" regarding the Pentagon's affairs, because theirs is a business of secrecy. If you want proof, try flying a Cessna near it. It's not like your local public library, where you could fly by it.

Pentagon has always been restricted airspace; has been since the dawn of the Cold War. it doesn't take a military analyst to figure that one out.

 

It means from a govermental/organisation website, or a news website like cnn.
I'm also thinking that the pentagon might be a no-fly zone, I just need a confirmation. If it is then the reason is probably because many planes fly through those zones, usualy small planes, and it's kind of hard to actualy launch something against it.

I've found this: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6836183/
I guess that the pentagon is in that radius, but not in the center I guess, plus we got an airport in it.

And the reason why the media is mostly focused on the wtc is because it's where the most people died.

And I don't think that the argument alone can support the conspiracy. Shit happens.

 

media like CNN gets filtered by CIA (CIA manipulates every major media source in this country, not a conspiracy, but a well known fact) you're not likely going to find the full story there.

sure more people died at the WTC, but it's more plausible that the Pentagon isn't mentioned much because they'd much rather not discuss it.

 

Well information about restricted airspace isn't something that much confidential.
So what's missing in the story?

 

yet you pass of those sources as conspiracy sites?

is it really so hard to deduce that the largest building in the world, which has sent orders for U-2 planes to fly above North Korea and Russia for reconnaisance missions during the 1950s, among many other covert operations, may just possibly have its own defense system??

but because you can't google it, it musn't be true, just a conspiracy? You need to do a lot more reading..of books, not just web sites. I've known about how secure the pentagon is since my father explained during his many visits as a Navy commander, between 1990 and 1994.

what's missing in the story...hmm, how about the small engine found at the crash site, which is much too small to be from a Boeing 757, for starters. what's that all about?

 

Hmm, I never said it wasn't true, infact I said that it's most likely to be true.

I need more information about that engine, so hold on (yes I do remember hearing about it in loose change).... By the way, we had eye witnesses of the plane, and go tell a loved one from someone who died in it that it isn't true.

 

well, some eye witnesses claim seeing a missile, while others claim it was a "small plane"

of course you'll get differing eyewitness accounts. Large passenger airliner? highly unlikely. The damage would have been much greater.

 

Most people who said missile said that they HEARD a missile.

Here about the engine (there's more than one part in an engine btw): http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html

 

yes. that's the website I had in mind, I couldn't remember it...that's where I heard it.

some things just don't add up; I don't understand how one of the most important, secure buildings on a planet, just allows a plane to hit it. very baffling.

 

...but that website refutes it...it proves that it is wrong.

"
Contrary to the article's implication, the high-pressure rotor in the upper right photograph is in fact the diameter of such parts from a 757 engine. The following cut-away view of a turbofan engine similar to the ones used on 757s shows how much the diameters of the various parts differ. The high-pressure compressor and turbine rotors are only about one-third the approximately 8-foot diameter of the fan. "
Yeah a lot of people are shocked by the tragedy, fiction became reality, it was unexpected. Why do you think security was reorginised after that?

Like Pearl Harbor, a military base got raided by japaneese warplanes, it happened.

 

i saw an article on the same site, that reported otherwise.

and yes, shit happens, like election ballots being miscounted, and elections being bought.

funny how that works, and convenient how proof is somehow lacking....

 

and I found an article that refutes it.

Yeah, well, maybe everything will be uncovered in 60 years.

 

I doubt it; people call them "conspiracies" for a reason: government does everything they can to cover their asses...and then there's Bush, who had a "hunch" that Saddam was hiding weapons, and sensationalized the issue so he could carry out his agenda. It's not a conspiracy theory when gov't makes the claim, eh?

true case in point: my sister contracted the HIV virus from a blood transfusion she received while at an Army hospital in the SF area in 1983. Gov't was well aware of HIV/AIDS in 1983, because they spread it into the gay population in SF in the late 1960's (MK-NAOMI...read Behold a Pale Horse, or Google it..whatever...it's well documented by a former Navy Intel. officer), and my father wrote to the highest ranks in the military, pleading for answers and reimbursement for punitive damages....they said , "we'll get back to you".. They just swept that shit under the table, and acted like it never happened; they basically had the attitude like, "you can't prove we had anything to do with it, so it never happened." This is the thanks my father got for serving 21 years in a military that turned it's back on him; they basically told her "you're on your own, kid."
Now she gets academically/politically active, by doing interviews, and studying Epidemiology.

it's not far fetched that a U.S. Govt would murder it's own people to execute an agenda, history has proven it; but as long as there are people who shrug it off as conspiracy "theories", they'll get away with it...because what is the alternative?? Masses realize the truth, and revolt. I suggest you read more books, and look at the other side of the coin too, while gaining more life experience; because skepticism won't give you any answers (been there, done that...became more aware as I got older), and don't be too surprised when you do find out the truth, because it's not always as easy as "shit happens".

not telling you to put on a tin-foil hat, just suggesting that you look beyond the surface; just because the smoking gun isn't obvious, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There's a lot more going on than you know, kiddo.

 

I just wanted to throw this in real fast

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306landmarkimplosion.htm

I'll get back to you on the rest.
Peace

 

textbook demolition collapse...just like the WTC.

according to thermodynamics, if the buildings DID somehow succumb to the heat, the buildings would have actually collapsed laterally, not straight downward; also, watch the video clips of the collapses, from whatever source you choose..debris doesn't shoot outward from a falling building.
there were explosives in the buildings.

the buildings didn't collapse from the heat

 

http://911review.com/myth/index.html
http://911review.com/attack/wtc/fires.html
http://911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html

 

The government could be involved, but not in the way that a lot of people claim. Many myths get debunked, making the conspiracy terrorists losing credibility. One of the few ways that the government could be involved is if they were the terrorists in the plane, or hiring them.

Also it seems that the top part that collapsed did angle and then just starting falling downwards because of gravity, crushing everything below. In a controled demolition the building seems to be sinking into the ground, but in the WTC attacks that top part just crushed everything down.
The steel bent outward, the amount of air getting pressurized on each floor get then getting expulsed does cause debris to go outwards.

Hold on, I'll ask an expert to get a better answer.