Anyone here actually witness 9/11 / Pentagon attacks, or know someone who did?

OneLove

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The link discusses possible theories regarding the pentagon attack involving*****a plane!!******and argues against ones claiming a missile was used. Just because you saw a plane doesn't mean that everything went down the way the 9/11 commission says.

I'm glad you know so much about me, though. Good luck with all of your assuming and generalizing.

You don't know the truth any more than I do. All of the scenarios are opinions and yours is no better than mine.

Perhaps you could explain to me what the point is of your arguement? Do you believe that it was a fake plane that hit, a drone? That they disposed of the passanger plane in the ocean, and faked the DNA identifications?

Which part of this theory to you subscribe to exactly?

xavier mcdaniel

i used to work in the office building in jersey city right across the river from the trade center so I know a lot of people that witnessed it. I wasn't there because I worked nights 6 pm to 2 am. Also my cousin worked across the street from one of the towers so she saw it get hit and people jumping out of windows.

Gary Carter

my uncle who used to work for goldman sacs,saw both planes hit both towers and then watch them fall.scared the fuck out of him.said it was the most scarest thing he saw.saw people jumping out and everything.i dont really talk to him bout just cause,i dont wanna bring up.sadly enough i rember listening to it on 880am that day in history class.just thinking why and how could this happen.now that we know some of the truth we all know it was the gov't fault for not taking these crazies seriously enough,yes i do think both bill and bush could have stopped this. sadly enough 9-11 happens to my b-day so its a little extra painful for me.even though im not a true city person,i feel a little piece of me is missing

FoG

OneLove wrote:

Perhaps you could explain to me what the point is of your arguement? Do you believe that it was a fake plane that hit, a drone? That they disposed of the passanger plane in the ocean, and faked the DNA identifications?

Which part of this theory to you subscribe to exactly?

My suggestion to you is: "Don't feed the trolls."

Crackpots and weirdos get off on the attention they receive for their weird theories and such.

Scratchin a Letter

my cousin was working in lower manhattan at the time, his building was evacutaed and he saw the plane go into the second tower.

spat

jlew24asu wrote:

I very sorry for the loss of your friend's dad. I also feel sorry that you have to sit and listen to all the conspiracy theories being thrown around. People's hatred for the current government are blind to hurt that people went through and would rather hurt the administration then mourn the dead.

Thank you sharing your story

It's still possible to question the government and mourn the dead at the same time. just like its possible to be against the war but support the troops (don't mean to open that can of worms, just using it as an example).

I'm one of the people who is 100% convinced that at least the government knew about the attacks and did nothing to stop it, in order to have a pretext for war in the mid east. the evidence i've seen and tried to disprove over the years, as well as the volumes of questions and issues given to the 911 commission to address by the victims families, and were flat out ignored then, and since, has been more than enough to convince me it isn't all as it seems. Up until now, I was skeptical about what hit the pentagon, I've seen the pictures with the 16 foot hole and intact windows and questioned it, but I believe OneLove. Still, it does not do much to convince me the government didn't let the attacks happen to support their own agenda.

FoG wrote:

Crackpots and weirdos get off on the attention they receive for their weird theories and such.

These crackpots and weirdos you speak of are not just a few crazy conspiracy freaks on the internet. As I just mentioned, these so called theories started out as honest legitimate questions posed to the 911 Commission by the families of the victims about issues they needed addressed that didn't quite fit with the official story. Only AFTER their government abandonded them and ignored most of what they wanted answered were these questions turned into theories...because they had no choice! Then guys like Alex Jones come along to try to help get these questions out and find answers, and just because he has the voice for it with the radio shows, websites, videos...this is where the conspiracy theorists get a bad name, by people who hang on Bush's every word as gospel and fail to look at the big picture objectivly with an open mind.

If there really is nothing to hide, why not be honest with these people who've been screaming at the top of their lungs for the past 5 years for answers?? In my opinion, it is the Bush administration who is creating the dissention within the American people for not addressing these peoples concerns with a REAL independent investigation, not the conspiracy theorists.

dunkman

El_Kabong wrote:

what's your opinion on why it took over 1 1/2 hours for any fighters to be scrambled? why did cheney wait so long to give the order?

No Stand-Down Order
CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.




CLAIM: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

El_Kabong

dunkman1974 wrote:

No Stand-Down Order
CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.




CLAIM: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

you say there were only 14 jets on alert, which i don't know that i believe...hwoever, even if this were ture does it take over 1 1/2 hours to get a jet and pilot ready? these ppl are like firefighters, they are trained to react immediately and get going. as you can see they DID deploy jets from nearby basers and there WERE jets already in the air that could've intercepted the planes, but didn't, from the last line:

Swanton had no fighters on stand-by alert status. Yet it managed to put jets in the air 16 minutes later.



It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. 1 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. 2

There are several elements involved in domestic air defense. The air traffic control system continuously monitors air traffic and notifies NORAD of any deviations of any aircraft from their flight-paths or loss of radio contact. NORAD monitors air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. It has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble.

The first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52, about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over. This was already eight minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, and just 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph
That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph.
At 9:11 the F-15s finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was: 153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph
That is around 25.8% of their top speed.


The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16s were flying at: 130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph
That is around 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph

Andrews to the Pentagon
Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after the assault

Long Island to Manhattan
Two F-15s flying off the coast of Long Island were not redeployed to Mahattan until after the second tower was hit. 3

WTC to the Pentagon
By the time the two F-15s from Otis reached Manhattan, the only jetliner still flying with its IFF transponder off had just made a 180-degree turn over southern Ohio and had been headed for Washington D.C. for 12 minutes. It was still 34 minutes before the Pentagon was hit. Had the fighters been sent to protect the capital, they could have traveled the approximately 300 miles in: 300 miles/1875 mph = 9.6 minutes
They even could have made it to the capital in time to protect the Pentagon if they had continued to fly at only 500 mph.


Multiple Failures of the Air Defense Network to Protect New York City and the Capital
On September 11th, there were fighters in the air less than five minutes away from the Twin Towers when the first was hit, 25 minutes after Flight 11 was believed to be hijacked. There were a number of air stations with combat-ready fighters within ten minutes' flying time from the New York City and Washington targets. There were well-established automatic procedures for intercepting aircraft that were either off course or had lost communication. Yet there were no interceptions of any of the four hijacked aircraft, with the possible exception of Flight 93, whose interception and shoot-down is officially denied. What conclusions can be drawn from this failure, given the awesome capabilities of the air defense network?

The Changing Story
For the first few days after the attack, the official story was that no interceptors were scrambled until after the Pentagon strike. On September 16th Vice President Cheney told Meet the Press that George Bush personally made the decision to scramble interceptors, and suggested that he did so only after the Pentagon was hit. 1 Â General Myers, during his confirmation hearing on September 13th, said that no military aircraft were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit. 2 There was also no mention in the major media of scramblings of jets prior to the Pentagon hit, until September 14th, when Dan Rather announced on the CBS Evening News that F-15s were scrambled from Otis at 8:44 and F-16s were scrambled from Langley at 9:30. 3 Officials such as Cheney apparently were not kept apprised of these new "facts," since his Meet the Press interview was two days later. Four days after the CBS disclosure, the new story was incorporated into NORAD's official timeline.

The official timeline was changed again with the release of the 9/11 Commission Report. The differences between the NORAD and Commission timelines are graphically summarized on the timelines pages.

The Interception "Attempts"
While Flights 11 and 175 were in the air, two F-15s were circling in a 150-mile chunk of air space off the coast of Long Island as ordered. Pilot Major Daniel Nash reported seeing a plume of smoke over Manhattan even though he was 70 miles away, and couldn't recall being told about the North Tower strike. After the second Tower was hit at 9:03, the pilots were ordered to head to Manhattan for combat air patrol, and they did that for the next four hours. 4

At 8:52 AM two F-15s from the 102nd Fighter Wing of Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts were scrambled and airborne. These were the first jets scrambled, 38 minutes after Flight 11 was hijacked. But the pilots were not informed that Flight 11 had crashed into the WTC nor that Flight 175 had turned and was heading straight toward New York City. According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Although the F-15s had enough time to reach the World Trade Center, simple calculations using NORAD's own numbers reveal that the fighters were flying at only 24% of their top speeds.

At 9 AM the Pentagon moved its alert status up one notch from normal to Alpha. It stayed at Alpha until after the Pentagon strike.

A few minutes after 9:03, according to the official story, the Secret Service called Andrews Air Force Base, located 11 miles southeast of the Pentagon, with instructions to get some F-16s armed and ready to fly. Missiles were still being loaded onto the F-16's when the Pentagon was hit over half an hour later. 5

At 9:09, NORAD ordered Langley Air Force Base, in Hampden, Virginia, to put F-16s on battle stations alert. The order to scramble was not given until around 9:25. 6 At 9:30, the two and possibly three F-16s were finally airborne and en route to the Pentagon. 7 Â They were armed with Sidewinder missiles and authorized to shoot down civilian aircraft. At 9:49 the F-16s reached the Pentagon, around 15 minutes after the Pentagon strike. Simple calculations reveal that the F-16s could have reached the Pentagon before the assault, but also flew at an average of 24% of their top speeds.

At 10:01 AM the FAA ordered the 180th Fighter Wing out of Swanton, Ohio, to scramble F-16 fighters. 8 Unlike many other bases, Swanton had no fighters on stand-by alert status. Yet it managed to put jets in the air 16 minutes later.


see, normally NORAD or the military would've been able to make the call to scramble or redeploy and intercept....buuuuuut 2 months earlier the administration changed that, taking that authority away from NORAD and certain military and giving it to rummy, who gave it to cheney on the 11th, who waited over an hour and a half to make a decision

El_Kabong

also, for the record, the pentagon is in Virginia/DC...right next to crystal city. the original question was if anyone saw the pentagon attack, so there is no need for ppl saying they know ppl who saw the towers hit as that is not what hhkc is asking

dunkman

El_K wrote:

According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph
That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph.
At 9:11 the F-15s finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was: 153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph
That is around 25.8% of their top speed.

as soon as the maths exam question came in you fucking lost me

i'll read it later on buddy, i have a pint with my name on it...

but i will read it.

El_Kabong

dunkman1974 wrote:

as soon as the maths exam question came in you fucking lost me

i'll read it later on buddy, i have a pint with my name on it...

but i will read it.

sure thing, thanks for taking hte time to rely to it originally

farfromglorified

What I'd really like to see is the conspiracy theories that would have come out if we had intercepted those planes and shot them down and admitted to it. I mean, this stuff is entertaining but holy shit those would be fucking great. The speculation about the plane's cargo alone would have been unimaginable!

Taft

One point regarding eyewitness testimony, including OneLove's sister....

A few days ago I watched the original broadcasts of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN from Septemeber 11th.

One thing that struck me was just how off the initial eyewitnesses were who saw the first plane strike the tower and called into the networks. In the first half hour, I believe there was only one or two witnesses on all the networks who got it "right", i.e. that it was a large passenger plane. Most thought it was a small twin engine plane, internal explosion in the building or missle.

Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, our brains simply aren't capable of handling the sort of action that happened on Septemeber 11th. That isn't to say that OneLove's sister and others are wrong about what they think they observed, I just wouldn't put a lot of stock into it...

Investigators realize this, and in disaster scenerios (plane crashes etc...) put very little weight into what eyewitnesses saw...

OneLove

Taft wrote:

One point regarding eyewitness testimony, including OneLove's sister....

A few days ago I watched the original broadcasts of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN from Septemeber 11th.

One thing that struck me was just how off the initial eyewitnesses were who saw the first plane strike the tower and called into the networks. In the first half hour, I believe there was only one or two witnesses on all the networks who got it "right", i.e. that it was a large passenger plane. Most thought it was a small twin engine plane, internal explosion in the building or missle.

Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, our brains simply aren't capable of handling the sort of action that happened on Septemeber 11th. That isn't to say that OneLove's sister and others are wrong about what they think they observed, I just wouldn't put a lot of stock into it...

Investigators realize this, and in disaster scenerios (plane crashes etc...) put very little weight into what eyewitnesses saw...

That is a very fair point. The only difference I would site between the WTC and the Pentagon is that the strike on the WTC was very high up, off of the ground, hitting a skyscraper. In the case of the Pentagon, the plane came in much lower (and over more "open" ground), its much easier to judge relative size, etc with something that close to the ground. My sister for instance, noted that she saw what ariline the plane was from, and it matched up later. I was literally talking to her right after it hit, she called me so that I could go and pull her son out of daycare, she knew I was close by.

I hope that helps, and again, I realize that you have a valid point there.

Abookamongstthemany

FoG wrote:

My suggestion to you is: "Don't feed the trolls."

Crackpots and weirdos get off on the attention they receive for their weird theories and such.

Perhaps you might benefit in actually knowing what a troll is and how to spot one.

rebornFixer

farfromglorified wrote:

What I'd really like to see is the conspiracy theories that would have come out if we had intercepted those planes and shot them down and admitted to it. I mean, this stuff is entertaining but holy shit those would be fucking great. The speculation about the plane's cargo alone would have been unimaginable!

Ha! No kidding ...

rebornFixer

Taft wrote:

One point regarding eyewitness testimony, including OneLove's sister....

A few days ago I watched the original broadcasts of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN from Septemeber 11th.

One thing that struck me was just how off the initial eyewitnesses were who saw the first plane strike the tower and called into the networks. In the first half hour, I believe there was only one or two witnesses on all the networks who got it "right", i.e. that it was a large passenger plane. Most thought it was a small twin engine plane, internal explosion in the building or missle.

Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, our brains simply aren't capable of handling the sort of action that happened on Septemeber 11th. That isn't to say that OneLove's sister and others are wrong about what they think they observed, I just wouldn't put a lot of stock into it...

Investigators realize this, and in disaster scenerios (plane crashes etc...) put very little weight into what eyewitnesses saw...

I place no stock in 9-11 conspiracy theories at this time, but this is still a good point. Eyewitness testimony is prone to error.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

What I'd really like to see is the conspiracy theories that would have come out if we had intercepted those planes and shot them down and admitted to it. I mean, this stuff is entertaining but holy shit those would be fucking great. The speculation about the plane's cargo alone would have been unimaginable!

And I'd love to see all the people buying into whatever the government says and never questioning it. I mean, the gullibility and passiveness would be cute and pet-like all but holy shit....oh wait.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And I'd love to see all the people buying into whatever the government says and never questioning it. I mean, the gullibility and passiveness would be cute and pet-like all but holy shit....oh wait.

That's funny since in my example I said: "we had intercepted those planes and shot them down and admitted to it." That would mean that anyone who "bought" the government's story would be entirely correct in doing so, since the story would be relfective of the actual events.

I understand that you think that those who believe the government account never questioned such an account. And that viewpoint is just as silly as those who think everyone who questions such an account are nuts.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

That's funny since in my example I said: "we had intercepted those planes and shot them down and admitted to it." That would mean that anyone who "bought" the government's story would be entirely correct in doing so, since the story would be relfective of the actual events.

I understand that you think that those who believe the government account never questioned such an account. And that viewpoint is just as silly as those who think everyone who questions such an account are nuts.

I know what your example said. I was making my own example.

I don't think everyone who believes the official story is gullible. Some just came to differnet conclusions than others. That's my point...so many here seem to act as thought the people who came to a different conclusion than themselves are nutjobs. It's quite closeminded to think everyone will see this the same way. There is reason to doubt and question this. It's not irrational or foolish.

Just like your views on imprisonment and criminal justice. A lot of people could say that your views would be crazy and easily dismiss them. I think they are unique and only wonder how should ideas would actually play out in the real world. I don't dismiss your views as nutty. I give them thought and try to understand your point of view. I'm guess i'm just hoping for more intelligent discourse here than I should expect. It is just very frustrating to me, I guess.