[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[Regnad Kcin]

Because the US spends more money on defence than all the other countries in the world put together and then some.
Because the notion of any threat to US security is farcical.
Because moslems cleary are innocent of any involvement in 9/11, except as the odd patsy.
Because it is patently obvious to all of the rest of the world and perhaps now 80% of americans, that the problems that afflict the USA are homegrown.
Because the only 'war' that the warmongers can pull out of the hat, is a war that they manufactured and still manufacture.
Because Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", quite some time ago.
Mission Accomplished = war over.
What now remains is a police action, with regard to Iraqis fighting among themselves.
As soon as we clear off, whenever we clear off, they will immediately decide their own destiny.
Because this whole War on Terror baloney is a creation of neocon/NWO/call them what you will warmongers.
Because in the event of a real war, nothing would cross the american coastline, never mind get anywhere near the Pentagon roof.
Because being in a deckchair up there, I would be able to enjoy the weather and the view.

None of which supports your assertion that "the roof of the Pentagon is the safest place in the world."

Again, what is your agenda with regard to this topic?

 

[SOMERLED]

I'm not aware of any. I'd be surprised, since the Vigilant Guardian exercise was to simulate a bomber attack coming from outside the US, and Offutt is in Nebraska, the middle of the continent, and Offutt is not a base where fighters are kept at the ready. If you have evidence that there were aircraft from Offutt involved, please present it. Although I don't see how it relates to UAL175.

It does relate to the second part of my assertion, namely Offutt AFB.
I got the following information from this site,
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

Sept 9 - NORAD conducts operation 'Northern Vigilance,' planned months in advance, which deploys fighter jets to Alaskan region. (NORAD, Toronto Star)

9/11 - Three F-16 jetfighters from Andrews AFB, 15 miles from Pentagon, are flown 180 miles away for training mission in the morning. (Aviation Week)

9/11 - Andrews AFB, home to DC Air National Guard and Air Force 1 & 2, had no jetfighters on alert. (Newsday, USA Today)

9/11 - US intel agency planned exercise in the morning to simulate plane crash into government building. (Boston Globe, USA Today)

9/11 - NORAD was running war game called 'Vigilant Guardian' in which the commander in charge thought first hijacking was "part of the exercise." (Aviation Week, NY Observer)

9/11 - FAA bans takeoffs at 9:26 am for all civilian, military, or law enforcement aircraft (FAA, Time)

9/11 - A simulated aircraft hijacking was scheduled for the morning by NORAD. (Vanity Fair)

9/11 - Shoot-down authorization not communicated to NORAD until 28 minutes after Flight 93 crashed. (9/11 Panel, Seattle Post)

Feb '05 - Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Myers confirm there were at least four war games on 9/11 from Rep. McKinney questioning. (C-SPAN)

This is an extract from a piece I downloaded called,
The 911 Mystery Plane, by Mark Gaffney.

The Air Force has four E-4Bs, and they are normally assigned to Offutt AFB, near Omaha, Nebraska. Offutt is the home of STRATCOM, i.e., the Strategic Command (formerly the Strategic Air Command).
Practicing Armageddon
According to one report, on September 11, 2001 three of the E-4Bs were participating in a live command-level exercise known as Global Guardian.[10] The exercise is an annual event, and is staged to test the readiness of the US military's command and control procedures involved in waging thermonuclear war. The 2001 exercise started the week before September 11 under the directorship of Admiral Richard Mies, commander-in- chief of STRATCOM. According to various reports, the drill was in "full swing" at the time of the 9/11 attack. Numerous other military commands were also involved, including NORAD. While few details have been released, we know that in previous years the US Space Command, the Air Combat Command, and the US Atlantic and Pacific Fleets were also involved.[11]
Starting in the 1990s, Global Guardian included pre-planned mock attacks upon the military's computer and information systems. For example, during the 1998 exercise "terrorists" attempted to disrupt STRATCOM's internal communications by hacking into its computers, and also by tying up its phone/FAX lines with phony messages.[12] Evidently, these "terrorist attacks" were at least partly successful, although the details have not been released. In recent years, the military has incorporated similar "attacks" into Global Guardian exercises. However, it is not known if these were a part of the 2001 drill. We do know that at the time of the 9/11 attack one of the E-4Bs was en route to Offutt AFB with a high-level military advisory panel on board, including its chairman, retired Lt. General Brent Scowcroft, evidently for the purpose of observing the exercise. The role of this panel, known as the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (FIAB), is to monitor US intelligence agencies. As we know, STRATCOM abruptly terminated the 2001 exercise at 9:03 AM, when Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.[13] However, the E-4Bs remained aloft.[14]
In previous years the military always staged Global Guardian in October or November; and the 2001 exercise was likewise originally scheduled for October, according to various reports.[15] Curiously, however, for reasons never disclosed, the Joint Chiefs changed the plan and conducted the 2001 exercise during the week of September 11. The following year the date reverted back. The 2002 Global Guardian came off in October, as in previous years, and this has continued to be the case.[16]
All of which raises disturbing questions. Why did the Joint Chiefs change the date of Global Guardian in 2001? Even more importantly, why was the world's most sophisticated electronics warfare plane circling over Washington at the time of the September 11 attack? Recently, when the investigator who contacted me filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning the presence of the E-4B over Washington on 9/11, the FAA responded that it "had no knowledge" of such a plane. My contact also shared the basic information presented in this article with his Congressman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and requested that he look into the matter. Schiff then made a formal inquiry through official channels, but was told that the Air Force knows nothing. Obviously, the pentagon is lying. If the E-4B was on a legitimate mission on September 11, why does the military deny its presence? Why would they do this?

 

[apathoid]

That didn't work. I'll get there.
For now this will have to suffice,
Here is the JT9D
http://www.answers.com/topic/pratt-whitney-jt9d
Here is the CFM 56
http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cfm56/index.html
They are very different and easily identifiable.
Here is the engine that powered the attack plane,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm
It is obviously a CFM 56 and equally obviously not a JT9D.

Obviously? Now, I can tell similar sized engines(like the CF6 and PW4060) apart by the appearance of the fan case and position of Electronic Engine Control boxes if the cowls are opened and/or by the cowls themselves. But once the fan section is removed(or ripped away by a violent crash) and core case is damaged/removed, it's near impossible to tell what type of engine it is unless you can positively ID individual parts.

Since it's obvious to you that the section is from a CFM56, and not a JT9D, then you must be an expert on aircraft powerplants - so I'd assume you'd be able to properly ID a multitude of engines just by looking at a single photo of an engine section(whether it be the fan section, hot section, turbine, etc..) after the entire powerplant has been torn down with all accesories removed?

If you look at the far end of the JT9D, the fan box or the blade box, whatever it's called, it's about a foot deep.
Whereas the CFM56 is a good yard deep.
The damaged engine is a lot closer to a yard deep. It is certainly so deep that it can't possibly be a JT9D.
You might be able to argue that it isn't a CFM56. But it most certainly is not a JT9D, most definately not.
It follows that the attack plane was not 175.

Fan box? Blade box? Ok, so you're not an engine expert, so disregard my last question above.

Since nothing on the CFM56 is "deeper"(except possibly the fan case and the spinner) than it's JT9D counterpart - I believe what you are talking about is the fan section/cool section/low pressure compressor, which is not what is seen in your pictures. And actually, the fan section around 40" long on the JT9D, alot more than "about a foot deep".

malcolm, you are aware that the JT9D is a much larger and more powerful engine than the CFM56, correct? And as such, the CFM56 couldn't adequately power a large widebody twin-jet, especially one with wings made of steel. Can we at least agree on that - that'll be a start...

 

[SpitfireIX]

I did, the reply must have been monitored.
I think you presented an excellent post and I stand corrected on how much damage the Kamikazes caused.

Kudos for acknowledging your misapprehension. Continue doing so, and your credibility will be greatly improved.

However, I do not yield on the fact that they would have been much more effective had they flown the flying bombs that were the original idea.
Those flying bombs had a pointed tip, as bombs do. The japs had to use less effective aircraft and they knew it.

The Ohka was not the original idea for kamikaze attacks--it was conceived by a naval officer after the first kamikaze units were already operational. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the pointed nose was appreciably more efficient at penetrating Allied ships, however, the Ohka had a huge drawback--it had to be carried to within 20 miles of its target by a lumbering two-engine bomber. Most Ohka missions resulted in the loss not only of the suicide aircraft, but also of the bomber and frequently of several escorting fighters.

Also, please refrain from using the word "Japs." Many people find it offensive.

The main thrust of my argument was that a snub nosed 'tin' fronted plane wouldn't penetrate a steel wall. It would flatten out first. Understanding that is just common sense. Drive a car into a steel wall and see what happens. The faster the car goes, the more damage it receives.

You can't just generalize that "X wouldn't penetrate Y" without understanding the mechanical properties of X and Y, including the mass, velocity, and density of X, and the thickness, tensile strength, compressive strength, and shear strength of Y. Common sense tells us that a 5.56 mm bullet will penetrate a sheet of aluminum foil. Common sense also tells us that it will not penetrate a 100 mm thick block of aluminum. But the aircraft hitting the wall is not nearly so susceptible to "common-sense" analysis.

 

[MortFurd]

Positive ID for you.
The good three foot width of the wrecked engine, tells me it could not possibly be originally the one foot depth that the engine that powered 175 was. It can't grow a couple of feet, whilst the rest of it gets squashed.
It can't grow a couple of feet at all.

Both engines have sections that are ~3 feet in diameter.

 

[apathoid]

Did you miss the part of the thread where people explained to you that a CFM54CFM56 is smaller than a JT9d? Hell I don't even know if I got the names right, but I distinctly recall seeing it stated that the engine you think it is couldn't even power a 767 let alone a big armored version of a 767.

Yep, I mentioned that three times now and malcolm hasn't responded - I guess I'll have to use a little reverse psychology if the problem persists.

Of CFM56 engines and large airliners........The CFM56 is the main powerplant option for the A340, which is a large widebody airliner - however, the A340 needs four of them and it is still notoriously underpowered...

 

[SOMERLED]

Probably correct. I'm not going to go hunting numbers.

Obviously not, since the towers were attacked in 1991 and destroyed in 2001.

In your fantasy world, perhaps. 19 Terrorist's activities were traced and documented once their actions became known. After the fact, unfortunately.

The US has enough of its own problems, that's true. Incompetent, bumbling, lying politicians are hell. As are political activists who have a reality disconnect and would rather chase fantasies than try to see that better politicians get elected and that bad ones get chucked out. Looking squarely at Mr. Kirkman, with all of his "evidence" that he's done nothing useful with.

Yeah, that was a picked fight in Iraq. Still, ask the average Iraqi if he'd rather have Saddam in power, or the US trying to help them build their own peace.

Mostly foreign agitators playing "lets you and him fight." And, admittedly, Iraq internal problems. There's history and hate there that goes back a long ways, and that Saddam kept under check by suppressing and opressing everybody.

More likely fall back under the influence of military dictatorship again.

Overblown to some extent, yes. You can't fight terrorists with batallions - though you might need them to stop a particular attack. Stopping terrorists requires information on who is operating where so that they can be stopped. Long term, though, it requires fixing the problems that provide a breeding ground for hatred and hopelessness. That's hunger and poverty, and oppression. Things you've never experienced like the people in Iraq have experienced it.

Terrorism isn't the same as a war. If there were a declared war with an enemy capable of launching an air attack against the US, then I expect there'd also be all out combat and missile batteries in more places than just the Pentagon and the Whitehouse.

If there were a war serious enough that the Pentagon was protected night and day by missile batteries and 24/7 fighter protection, you would either have been drafted, run out of the country to avoid the draft, in prison for draft dodging, possibly dead some battle or other after you were drafted, or (unlikely) fighting to protect your homeland. You might also be too old for combat and therefore serving in some other capability. At any rate, you would not be lounging around on top of the Pentagon. Under those conditions, you might even have been shot for trying to take your lounge chair onto the Pentagon.

1. We agree.
2. Attacked by whom?
3. I can't imagine anybody who claims to be au fait with 9/11, believing that arabs did it.
4. We agree on the politicians. I think I am doing something useful with my knowledge of 9/11. I think I'm doing something useful on here, otherwise I'd sling my hook.
5. We agree again, except perhaps for me to say that we have now outstayed our welcome. Furthermore, I think BushCo havea private agenda with regard to the oil that belongs to the Iraqi prople. It's called theft.
6. I would argue that we are the foreign agitators. I doubt that anyone would dispute me saying that the moment we clear off, the Iraqi's will do their own thing, whatever that may be. Why stick around losing troops, if not to steal their oil.
If we simply bought oil from the middle and far east, why should there be any 'terrorism'.
We (I use the term loosely) are stealing their oil. On top of that, we are paying something like $2 billion a week for the war. To be more precise, borrowing $2 billion a week from the Banksters. Getting in debt to the tune of $2 billion a week.
Where is all this money going? Where is the dosh from the oil going?

 

[SOMERLED]

Well we all hate war and no one wants to see people profiting from wars, but I really don't see how you can pin this one on Warren Buffet.

Buffett ?
Kindly refer back to the start of this thread, Buffett was a patsy.

 

[CurtC]

Positive ID for you.
The good three foot width of the wrecked engine, tells me it could not possibly be originally the one foot depth that the engine that powered 175 was. It can't grow a couple of feet, whilst the rest of it gets squashed.
It can't grow a couple of feet at all.

That analysis of the engine that you're depending on was done with the help of the Karl Schwarz group. MK, please read the info at that link. Schwarz is a con man.

But I see the big problem with the analysis, which I think most people here didn't see because they're pretty intelligent and can't even relate to the stupidity in that analysis (I guess I can, though!).

The pictures of the engines that you are looking at have a metal piece that surrounds the fan blades. In the JT9D, that piece is much wider in diameter than it is long, but in the CFM56, the piece is about as wide in diameter as it is long.

You think the engine piece found in the NY street corresponds to this part of the complete engine. But it doesn't. The part in the NY street is the center portion of an engine, and the fan blades would attach to this and made its diameter much wider. In the photos on your analysis page, you can't even see this center core because it's inside the fan blade part. All we have in the street of NY is the core, and unless you have detailed pictures of the cores of the different engines, there is no way to make a valid comparison. The analysis you linked to is worthless (which I could have told you as soon as I saw Schwarz's name, but now you know exactly why).

 

[SOMERLED]

So by your very definition, even if you are wrong and Islamic extremists are to blame, it isn't a war either.

It is NOT up to you to decide what is a threat or isn't a threat. You are just some ideologue that wouldn't recognize a threat if it bit you. And, just because YOU don't think there is a threat doesn't mean there isn't.

So, how do you manage a situation that some people perceive as a serious threat and some don't? Are we just supposed to sit back and 'take it' because some ideologically-bent minority doesn't believe that Islamic extremism is a threat?

What if YOU felt seriously threatened, had good evidence to feel that way, but a small group of people you thought were oblivious to it told you to 'chill'?

So, how do you define schizophrenia?

There's a threat right enough. However, the threat is from within not without.
In a nutshell, America's got cancer.

 

[Belz...]

Going off all the other mistakes that the genuine NWO perpetrators made, I would settle on incompetent, tinged with arrogance.

The only reason you have to consider these "mistakes" of the NWO perpetrators is because you're assuming a conspiracy.

It is also a favoured tool of moneylenders.

Again, you're being paranoid. Do you have any evidence of this ?

All of which raises disturbing questions. Why did the Joint Chiefs change the date of Global Guardian in 2001? Even more importantly, why was the world's most sophisticated electronics warfare plane circling over Washington at the time of the September 11 attack?

Those are "disturbing" questions only if you assume that coincidences never occur. It's a form of post-hoc reasoning.

I can't imagine anybody who claims to be au fait with 9/11, believing that arabs did it.

Why not ? Because they weren't 100% sure to succeed ?

 

[MortFurd]

1. We agree.
2. Attacked by whom?
3. I can't imagine anybody who claims to be au fait with 9/11, believing that arabs did it.
4. We agree on the politicians. I think I am doing something useful with my knowledge of 9/11. I think I'm doing something useful on here, otherwise I'd sling my hook.
5. We agree again, except perhaps for me to say that we have now outstayed our welcome. Furthermore, I think BushCo havea private agenda with regard to the oil that belongs to the Iraqi prople. It's called theft.
6. I would argue that we are the foreign agitators. I doubt that anyone would dispute me saying that the moment we clear off, the Iraqi's will do their own thing, whatever that may be. Why stick around losing troops, if not to steal their oil.
If we simply bought oil from the middle and far east, why should there be any 'terrorism'.
We (I use the term loosely) are stealing their oil. On top of that, we are paying something like $2 billion a week for the war. To be more precise, borrowing $2 billion a week from the Banksters. Getting in debt to the tune of $2 billion a week.
Where is all this money going? Where is the dosh from the oil going?

Q: How much oil is the US getting from Iraq?
A: Not quite as much yearly as before the war, and dropping.

Answer from here.
For the numerically impaired:

 

[Blackwell]

"The American Government was warned eight years ago that the Pentagon and White House were vulnerable to attack from hijacked jets, a military adviser has claimed.
Dr Marvin Cetron said he prepared a 250-page report for the US intelligence agencies in 1993 which detailed his concerns but it was ignored.
‘‘I said look, you’ve got a major problem here with aircraft, they could hit the White House or the Pentagon it’s a simple matter of coming in and making a left turn at the Washington Monument and running directly into the White House, or a right turn and going into the Pentagon,’’ Dr Cetron said.
He added: ‘‘They understood and they ignored it, they took it out of the final draft.’’
Republican Senator Wayne Allard, a member of the US administration’s armed forces committee, told Newsnight he was part of various hearings where the suggestion of possible attacks from hijacked jets were made.
He said the warnings were similar to the events on Tuesday which saw four planes hijacked to deadly effect, but not exactly the same.’’ - TCM Breaking News (09/13/01)

There seems to be a collective opinion on here that no precautions existed prior to 9/11. This is just plain incorrect.

Sorry, Malcolm, but maybe I don't understand your point. I've read this post a couple times, and I don't understand how the passages you quoted (please note my bolding) support your contention that precautions existed. The claim that the warnings were ignored seems to directly contradict your claim that the Pentagon had anti-aircraft defenses in place, and that no plane would be able to get through.

 

[ellindsey]

The Murray street engine fragment appears to consist of the last few stages of the high-pressure compressor section along with some or most of the diffuser. Most of the parts which would be useful in identifying the engine, such as the fan case, are missing from this fragment. It might be possible to determine the diameter of the low-pressure shaft and compressor case from the photos and use those to confirm the engine's identity. It might also be possible to count the number of turbine blade roots visible on the one compressor disk that can be seen on the fragment and match that to one of the candidate engines. I don't have the ability or resources to do either of those accurately.

The only useful distinguishing feature I can make out on this fragment are the large holes spaced around the diffuser case at the bottom of the fragment. From what images I've been able to find these do appear to be present on the JT9D and not on the CFM56, but again I don't have very good data to go on. Detailed plans or a disassembly manual for either of those engines would be extremely useful in conclusively identifying this fragment.

 

[Belz...]

There's a threat right enough. However, the threat is from within not without.
In a nutshell, America's got cancer.

Do you plan on supporting any of your assertions ?

 

[SOMERLED]

Kudos for acknowledging your misapprehension. Continue doing so, and your credibility will be greatly improved.




The Ohka was not the original idea for kamikaze attacks--it was conceived by a naval officer after the first kamikaze units were already operational. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the pointed nose was appreciably more efficient at penetrating Allied ships, however, the Ohka had a huge drawback--it had to be carried to within 20 miles of its target by a lumbering two-engine bomber. Most Ohka missions resulted in the loss not only of the suicide aircraft, but also of the bomber and frequently of several escorting fighters.

Also, please refrain from using the word "Japs." Many people find it offensive.




You can't just generalize that "X wouldn't penetrate Y" without understanding the mechanical properties of X and Y, including the mass, velocity, and density of X, and the thickness, tensile strength, compressive strength, and shear strength of Y. Common sense tells us that a 5.56 mm bullet will penetrate a sheet of aluminum foil. Common sense also tells us that it will not penetrate a 100 mm thick block of aluminum. But the aircraft hitting the wall is not nearly so susceptible to "common-sense" analysis.

Tensile strength ?
Now I know you're having a laugh.

 

[SOMERLED]

Both engines have sections that are ~3 feet in diameter.

I'm not talking about the diameter.
I'm refering to the depth not the diameter.
One's as thick (at the widest part) as a slice of bread. The other as thick as a wedding cake.

 

[SOMERLED]

Yep, I mentioned that three times now and malcolm hasn't responded - I guess I'll have to use a little reverse psychology if the problem persists.

Of CFM56 engines and large airliners........The CFM56 is the main powerplant option for the A340, which is a large widebody airliner - however, the A340 needs four of them and it is still notoriously underpowered...

I refer you to my previous post.

 

[MortFurd]

I'm not talking about the diameter.
I'm refering to the depth not the diameter.
One's as thick (at the widest part) as a slice of bread. The other as thick as a wedding cake.

Then your argument is even weaker. The engine you are showing has been crushed together. It is shorter than it ought to be. Smashed flat. Take an empty beer can. Smash the long way into your forehead. When you regain consciousness, look at the can. It is shorter than it was before. It has been pushed in on itself. Look at the photo. You will notice that there are parts of the engine shoved into places where they don't belong - just like your beer can.

The outer rings of the engine have been ripped off. What is lying there could be a three foot (or five or six foot) section from any part of the 11 foot length of the Pratt and Whitney engine.

I've mentioned this before. What you've got is a piece of the engine, and it is smashed FLAT.

 

[SOMERLED]

That analysis of the engine that you're depending on was done with the help of the Karl Schwarz group. MK, please read the info at that link. Schwarz is a con man.

But I see the big problem with the analysis, which I think most people here didn't see because they're pretty intelligent and can't even relate to the stupidity in that analysis (I guess I can, though!).

The pictures of the engines that you are looking at have a metal piece that surrounds the fan blades. In the JT9D, that piece is much wider in diameter than it is long, but in the CFM56, the piece is about as wide in diameter as it is long.

You think the engine piece found in the NY street corresponds to this part of the complete engine. But it doesn't. The part in the NY street is the center portion of an engine, and the fan blades would attach to this and made its diameter much wider. In the photos on your analysis page, you can't even see this center core because it's inside the fan blade part. All we have in the street of NY is the core, and unless you have detailed pictures of the cores of the different engines, there is no way to make a valid comparison. The analysis you linked to is worthless (which I could have told you as soon as I saw Schwarz's name, but now you know exactly why).

If you will kindly illustrate what you mean, I will give it my best consideration.
From where I'm sitting, I look at the fan. One fan is in a one ft deep housing, the other in a three feet deep housing. Both fans are at the front of the engine. That is what I see.