Where's the plane?

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/911pentagon.html

[Nozebro]

1. Your post shows a disturbing lack of "Faith-based 9/11 Reality". Why

does it matter if you can't see "the plane"? Wasn't it enough to see those white-shirted men out there on the Pentagon lawn either putting down a few pieces of airplane parts, moving them, or picking them up. Isn't that enough for you? NO? Then maybe you should consider joining a "Faith-based 9/11 Reality" group dedicated to promoting the idea that the lack of evidence for "the plane" is proof that people just need to have more faith. In the Gov't, FOX News, and all those dedicated souls (right here on this forum) who work tirelessly to prove that all you really need is faith. Once you accept "Faith-based 9/11 Reality", you'll no longer be concerned about things that can't be seen.

[The Straight Story]

2. Where's the missle? (nt)

[Sinti]

3. Completely and utterly destroyed on impact

You can see in this video what happens to a plane that hits a concrete wall. Something like this happened to 77 if it hit the Pentagon's reinforced wall there.

http://www.break.com/index/concreteplane.html

I have a different question about the Pentagon. Do you know where General Montague Winfield was between 8:30 and 10:00 on 9/11? Has anyone ever said what caused him to ask Captain Ledig (who had never done the job before) to relieve him the next day, precisely during what turned out to be the time of the attack? Did he have an emergency dentist appointment? A meeting with the Sec. Def? Inquiring minds...

FWIW, I really the Pentagon is a big old can of worms - they couldn't have planned for a better poisoned pill, and I'm not sure they didn't.

[Andre II]

5. Question about Winfield is great

You should open a thread on this!

[KJF]

6. What makes you think...

... Winfield wasn't in charge and Leidig was? There are two versions of the story:
(1) Winfield was in charge;
(2) Leidig was in charge.
First we need to determine which of them is accurate. Then we think about why the inaccurate one is inaccurate and what this means.

One question I have is when did the story Leidig was in charge emerge? The first mentions I'm aware of are during the 9/11 Commission hearings. Previous to that Winfield had continuously implied he was in charge, for example check out this CNN transcript, from a programme broadcast a year later:

Brigadier General Montague Winfield was in command of the military's worldwide nerve center that morning..
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/04/ltm.11.html

It's worth reading the whole thing - it tells the story of United 93 without mentioning the hero passengers once.

Maybe something happened in the NMCC and Winfield didn't want to lie about it to the 9/11 Commission, so he and Leidig agreed to lie about him not being there. Sounds weird but who knows?

Here's the Timeline extract for Winfield:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?project=911_project&searchtext=Winfield&events=on&entities=off&articles=off&topics=off&timelines=off&projects=off&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

[Sinti]

7. The first I'm aware of it emerging is in Leidig's incredibly curt written

statement to the 9/11 Commission. Leidig has absolutely no reason to lie to the 9/11 Commission and take responsibility for the royal F*@% up that morning. Navy Captains don't CYA for Army Generals, even if they do work in the same office - particularly when that Captain could take that General's job if the General were to be found incompetent and/or responsible for such a mess. They both did get promotions, though, which makes me wonder what's up with that. Captain Leidig is now Rear Admiral Leidig, US Pacific Defense Representative to Guam - I know I'm impressed. :eyes: God I hate this administration's rewarding of failure so much I could scream.

Winfield has plenty of reason to lie to CNN, IMO, and who's going to call him on it? He's got three or four different interviews where he plays "man in charge." The one presented in testimony by others is the one that I find no reason to doubt.

I love this bit:

The Command Center is on the other side of the massive building. Winfield and his staff never feel the impact. They see the flames on television as alarms go off inside. Smoke soon reaches the Command Center. Still, the Command Center remains icy calm.

WTF?? I was in Alexandria and I felt the impact, as did everyone else there. That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The Pentagon is a "big building," blah, blah. Oferchrissakes, come on, the impact rocked half of NOVA. But, I digress...

If Leidig lied, even at the request of Winfield (and I think that's a hell of a stretch), do you think the other people there would have let it pass? They were all in a conference call with the NMCC that morning - though, the FAA apparently had problems and kept getting kicked off, and Lynn Cheney kept hanging up the phone, because she couldn't hear the news reports over that damn speaker-phone. That's still a bunch of folks that would have to agree that Winfield was absent during the attacks, until 10:00 or so I believe.

Winfield didn't show up for what should have been his public testimony to the 9/11 Commission, so they had a private interview. I sure do wish I could find a full transcript of that interview. They did most of the Commission transcripts at Federal News Service, but the interviews were not transcribed, at least I didn't see any. Maybe the Omission Commission had them done in house, or just took notes so nobody could go back later and hang the fiends with their own words.


So, what makes you think Winfield was in charge and not Leidig, if that's the case. My simple-minded logic may be flawed somewhere here. You could also play devil's advocate even if you don't think he was. }(

[KJF]

8. Hmmm, you make a couple of good points

I think the jury is still out on this. It would certainly be interesting to see the NMCC logs.

Re conference calls: AFAIK nobody from the NMCC was in the video conference (Clarke says the Pentagon was represented by Myers and Rumsfeld, but the 9/11 Commission was unable to find out who was there for Defense), the NMCC allegedly did not man the FAA-initiated hijack net (which is one reason they didn't hear about the hijacking of United 93), the NMCC air threat conference call could well have been manned by someone else, not Leidig or Winfield, and the phone Lynne Cheney kept putting down was an open line to Richard Clarke, not a conference call.

The interviews with Winfield and Leidig are secret. You could have a go with an FOIA request. The generator is here:
http://www.rcfp.org/foi_letter/generate.php
The request should be addressed to the National Archives and Records Administration, which has all the 9/11 Commission's stuff.

Leidig was on a 9/11 Commission panel and you can find that here:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-06-17.htm

[Andre II]

11. Very interesting discussion

Sinti and KJF I hope that's ok for you.
I have opened a new thread dedicated to Leidig/Winfield.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x119455

Many people might be interested in this topic and simply not look in "Where is the plane" and it also helps that the topic of this thread is discussed here.

[mirandapriestly]

9. Rewarding of failure?

Only to us. I think they consider themselves to be successful. Interesting about the promotions, and not surprising!

[rman]

12. that fails to explain the holes the supposed plane created

in the walls of the pentagon.

the disintegrating jet fighter didn't create much of a hole in that concrete block, did it?

[Nozebro]

14. Very good point & it cannot be refuted. A non-substantive response

and/or an insult is all you can realistically expect. Whenever they try to fool the truth and get caught - they NEVER say "you're right and I apologize".

[Goldilocks]

4. Where's the plane in this crash site? valujet, everglades

[Andre II]

10. And so

read the very informative post of Ezlivin:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=108871&mesg_id=108884

[rman]

13. i'd first like to know, where's the crash site in that picture?

[leftofthedial]

15. the same place as the WMD from Iraq

smuggled out of the country by the liberal terrorist enemies of freedom

[Nozebro]

16. "The plane" never took off. How could it possibly be in the photo? EOM

Thanks, merv. good idea.

[file83]

17. When the plane struck the Pentagon's secret "Force Field" it was

converted to Anti-matter. :rofl:

But seriously, why is there such a clean break in the building on the left? Plane or missle or bombs - how the hell could that have happend?

[Ezlivin]

18. If you showed that someone with no knowledge of what it was

That person would have no reason to suspect that it was the site of a aircraft accident.

If you told the person that it was the site where a Boeing 757 went down, they would not believe you.

This photo is like backward-masking in music. No one hears a damned thing until someone tells them "listen for 'turn me on dead man' when this song is played backward."

And no one would think this was the result of a 757 crashing unless you told them that up front.