Pentagon Theories

bynmdsue said:
what does the evidence tell you?
Click to expand...

It's years since I've read much about Flight AA 77. I was more interested in where the Pentagon was hit than what hit it, why it was undefended and why the plane was not intercepted. At the time it seemed like the "what" controversy had been deliberately started by the lovely Mr Rumsfeld.

Witness reports and physical evidence appeared to indicate that a Boeing 757 had hit the building and that it was flight AA 77.
 
JihadJane said:
It's years since I've read much about Flight AA 77. I was more interested in where the Pentagon was hit than what hit it, why it was undefended and why the plane was not intercepted. At the time it seemed like the "what" controversy had been deliberately started by the lovely Mr Rumsfeld.

Witness reports and physical evidence appeared to indicate that a Boeing 757 had hit the building and that it was flight AA 77.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
JihadJane said:
It's years since I've read much about Flight AA 77. I was more interested in where the Pentagon was hit than what hit it, why it was undefended and why the plane was not intercepted. At the time it seemed like the "what" controversy had been deliberately started by the lovely Mr Rumsfeld.
Click to expand...


Well, a very simple answer (which may not be entirely correct) is that America screwed up.

They thought they were invulnerable to attack. They thought it couldn't happen. This was understandable (do you go around anticipating a jet slamming into your house/office/etc?) but, as it turned out, wrong.

Caught with their pants down, so to speak.
 
X said:
Well, a very simple answer (which may not be entirely correct) is that America screwed up.

They thought they were invulnerable to attack. They thought it couldn't happen. This was understandable (do you go around anticipating a jet slamming into your house/office/etc?) but, as it turned out, wrong.

Caught with their pants down, so to speak.
Click to expand...

And then there's the fact that the air traffic controller went to tell her boss that aa77 was hijacked, but her boss wouldn't take the time to listen because he was busy discussing the aa11 hijacking.
 
JihadJane said:
I was asked (more than once!): "Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon, yes or no?"

I don't know.
Click to expand...
Thank you, J Jane.

Between an Air Force Colonel who was their, and with whom I spoke in person, and two good personal friends in the Army who were in a meeting at the Pentagon when the plane hit, and spent the rest of their day dealing with it, let me set your mind at rest: a big airplane did indeed hit the Pentagon.

Even modest research will tell you that it was American Airlines flight 77, and you can even look up a list of passengers American Airlines eventually provided, if you wish to know.

Captain Burlingame was the pilot in command of American Airlines flight 77.

You could also do yourself the courtesy of looking up the name Hal Bidlack. An Air Force LT Col. He was there that day. He has stated such on the 9-11 CT forums. An eyewitness.

It's funny, you'll spend time looking up all manner of things reported to you second hand in the media about the Iraq war, or torture, or the plight of an Iraqi. You'll buy what you read. You won't believe what is reported about American Airlines 77 on September 11, 2001.

Call me skeptical, but I think you've got some problems with consistency.

"Why it was undefended"

America wasn't at war, or so America thought at the time, collectively. Normal peacetime ops. The attack was a surprise, from within US airspace, not from without, which was what NORAD and the interceptor architecture was built for. Surprise attacks are often successful due to, wait for it, surprise.

"Why the plane was not intercepted"

Simple. The transition from simple ATC flight following to finding non squawkers all over the US didn't happen in a nanosecond. In the time gap, the limited interceptor assets could not get sent to a valid target in time to preemptively shoot down any and every airliner determined to be a possible threat.

Air Command and Control isn't a video game, J Jane. America had not been in a posture of 24/7 fighters aloft for a very long time by September 2001. Hell, even when the Cold War was on, fighters weren't in the air 24/7 over the CONUS. Some alerts were met in the air, some with a 5 of 15 minute ready alert.

When you are guessing and playing catch up to a surprise attack, the clock keeps ticking. There is no time out. There is no save point. No reset.

DR
 
Last edited:
Well, mine is more of a hypothesis than a theory. It goes like this:
"The Pentagon is a five-sided office building in the Washington, D.C. area, near the Reagan airport."
I need a $25,000 grant to continue my research on this.
 
have you ever seen the pentagon and a brontosaurus in the same place at the same time? do the math!
 
JihadJane said:
Witness reports and physical evidence appeared to indicate that a Boeing 757 had hit the building and that it was flight AA 77.
Click to expand...
"Appeared", past tense? What do you think the evidence "appears" to support now?
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
And then there's the fact that the air traffic controller went to tell her boss that aa77 was hijacked, but her boss wouldn't take the time to listen because he was busy discussing the aa11 hijacking.
Click to expand...

I know double o but I'm going to as well.

I know that when Boston got hold of NY to tell them about 11, they were told that they were busy dealing with a hijack (175) and Boston assumed they meant 11. I also know that when NY tried to get hold of the FAA Bosses in regard to 175, they were all in a meeting dealing with 11, but I haven't heard anything about 77 being an issue, especially since Indy wasn't involved with 11 and they all thought that 77 had crashed until they learned of 11 and 175 about 30 minutes later. Can you referance a source, or is it just confusion over flight numbers?
 
Darth Rotor said:
Surprise attacks are often successful due to, wait for it, surprise.
Click to expand...

The 911 attacks weren't surprise, unexpected attacks, despite what people such as Kindasleezy Rice might have claimed at the time.

WildCat said:
"Appeared", past tense? What do you think the evidence "appears" to support now?
Click to expand...

It's in the past tense because I stopped following Pentagon stuff because the whole controversy appeared to be a deliberately encouraged hoax, a red herring set up to distract and discredit 911 skeptics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom