Jamie McIntyre Shows Personal Photos of Debris from the Pentagon
dz Mon, 05/22/2006 - 1:55am
16MB WMV
Jamie McIntyre has garnered a sort of infamy amongst some 9/11 skeptics after being featured in many mix tape clips on the Pentagon stating roughly 'there was no sign of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon' - a statement he says was taken out of context.
Yesterday he was on CNN's On the Story to comment on the new Pentagon footage, show a few pictures which he took on 9/11, and to provide further commentary on his statements from 9/11.
Note: Feel free to post comments, but please keep them short, social, and informative - post links to what analysis you tend to agree with.
Thanks Reprehensor for grabbing the clip!
- Login to post comments
dz: just letting you know
dz: just letting you know that the link doesn't seem to work.
the link is dead :/
the link is dead :/
doh.. i swear i usually
doh.. i swear i usually check the link before i post ;)
Watching now, with the sound
Watching now, with the sound down. I can't stomach these people otherwise. So far, no photos that show anything we haven't seen already. Waiting for the cockpit photo he claims to have taken. Waiting.... still waiting.... clip is half way through.
Still no cockpit photo.... video is 2/3 thru. Just lots of Jamie McIntyre body language looking rather defensive. But, again, I have the sound completely down. I'll be interested to know if they're actually doing anything except regurgitating more propaganda.
OK, video is done.... I
OK, video is done.... I never saw the cockpit photo he claimed he took, and nothing else looked much different from what we're seen published for years. WTF?
Those photos prove nothing.
Those photos prove nothing. CNN then attempts to make emotional ties to 9/11. I did hear them say that the hotel camera will probably show some evidence of the plane. Maybe that is the smoking gun they want to debunk the truth movement with. Anyways, these guys don't have long to be on their pedistals. Thier going down.
He said the CT'ers would
He said the CT'ers would never give up their theories. What about a tape that actually shows a jet? If they just released videos earlier and they showed a jet, it would be end-of-story for most. Am I mistaken?
The talking heads are
The talking heads are nauseating...
"It's all very convincing in theory, but the fact is it did happen." Because the government told us so.
They're trying to portray
They're trying to portray that ridiculous missile/Pentagon theory as the only thing that people question within the 9/11 Truth Movement. Did the release of that video clear up your questions about Sibel Edmonds? Did the release of that video clear up your questions about the Wargames? Did the release of that video clear up your questions about Norman Mineta? Did the release of that video clear up your questions about the Pakistani ISI? Did the release of that video clear up your questions about the Secret Service? Did the release of that video clear up ANY of our questions?
NO!
Take note of the acknowledgement of 80 existing videos, and how sources say one shows a plane. The one from the Sheraton.
If they release that, and continue promoting it as the only question we had, this is going to be an uphill battle.
They said the recently
They said the recently released footage would settle the debate about "flight 77", now they are saying that the sheraton video will probably show more. It sounds like the lie they've repeated over and over for the last 3 years, "we'll know in 6 months if we will succeed in Iraq."
"He said the CT'ers would
"He said the CT'ers would never give up their theories. What about a tape that actually shows a jet? If they just released videos earlier and they showed a jet, it would be end-of-story for most. Am I mistaken?"
Yes you are.
He made the reason very clear as many of us have for years: all of the other evidence proves without a doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon. WHY do you need a video?
"We just want some goddamn
"We just want some goddamn justice for a terrible, vicious crime."
We also want to end the rule of these sociopaths.
Making it seem like 9/11
Making it seem like 9/11 truth is ALL about the pentagon, is EXACTLY why the government released the frames they did.
Also, what do you guys make of this WTC7 photo?
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a234/Bonedry_/wtc15a_1.jpg
Jamie McIntyre flip flops
Jamie McIntyre flip flops again. he specifically said he took photographs of the "fuselage" and "cockpit" and then shows a photo of some broken glass on the grass and says it's possibly from the cockpit. WTF! get your story straight. once again, NONE of the photos he showed dispel the "conspiracy theories".
just a thought, can anyone find a matching photo of the piece of wreakage (w/ AA paint scheme) he showed. for some reason, i thought i've seen that photo/angle before. i'm just trying make sure it was one of his personal photos.
i dont care if half of wtc7
i dont care if half of wtc7 was gone its still not going to fall like it did... no matter what!!!!
I'm getting a deja vus with
I'm getting a deja vus with the silversteen story...not near the pentagon, but not at the pentagon....
I said pull it but meant pull back...
pockybot, that WTC7 photo is
pockybot, that WTC7 photo is much like the Pentagon webcam pics. Can't really see anything. (Also, on maps of WTC, the Towers were rather far away from WTC7 for that amount of supposed debris.)
inside, to further your
inside,
to further your point:
http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/crime/national/1995/oklahoma_...
no, Good point, half a
no, Good point, half a building standing all right!
You Americans will not get
You Americans will not get rid of the BUSHITES, just like the Germans could not get rid of Hitler.
BECAUSE
there are sooo many arseholes SUPPORTING the bastards! Hitler ruled agaist 50% of the population!!
It just takes some GUN-OWNING-PATRIDIOTS to threaten the rest into submission. Americans are basically cowards.
The FEAR trick works perfectly.
Average USA Joe and Jane just want to be left alone. They don't really care if children in Iraq have their guts blown out.. as long as they can hear the steady propaganda on HOW THEY ARE SAFE...
FEAR that the Bushites may bring them into a nuclear catastrophe and bankrupt them into starvation does not enter their minds.
Its not very difficult to see the GRAND GAME:
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22oil%20bourse%22%20july%20russia
"Don't you want to know what
"Don't you want to know what actually happened. The reason the truth community is so 'rabid' is beacuse the official perception of 9/11 is a fairy tale. Nobody in the media wants to talk about the facts."
What I have always argued for is solid evidence not the wild unsupported speculation that goes on here. I don't think many of you know the difference.
You talk about 'facts' but whatever you think those are do not refute all of the known evidence. There not even correct most of the time. You'll never convince anyone of needing another investigation if you can't produce solid, overwhelming evidence.
A lot of you sit here thinking the interview of Jon Gold was great. I don't know how to emphasize any stronger than I have that it was a complete bust for him and your ideas. How you all can be blind to that fact is beyond me.
The only truth is pursuing the truth wherever it takes you. It is not in trying to make the facts fit a desired conclusion.
"Frank Farley, Spencer
"Frank Farley, Spencer Meredith, Arlington County Fire Department Chief Scott McKay, Michael Newman."
Did they address any of the information I presented. Any of the information I presented in my hour and a half talk with Keith Phucas?
Don't trust common sense,
Don't trust common sense, your good judgement, or your own eyes. Believe your government instead. Your Government would never lie & put lives in danger...BTW, what ever happened with those WMDs that were definitely a sure thing??? How many people have died for Bush's lies so far???
Or did they just make a
Or did they just make a blanket statement without looking into anything that was said with colorful adjectives to describe people like me.
This is off-topic, but
This is off-topic, but relevant to 9/11: I found this little “piece” in my travels across the ether in search of other things.
-- --
"Nor, finally, is it in any way a "theory" that the one, single name that can be directly linked to the Third Reich, the US military industrial complex, Skull and Bones, Eastern Establishment good ol' boys, the Illuminati, Big Texas Oil, the Bay of Pigs, the Miami Cubans, the Mafia, the FBI, the JFK assassination, the New World Order, Watergate, the Republican National Committee, Eastern European fascists, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the United Nations, CIA headquarters, the October Surprise, the Iran/Contra scandal, Inslaw, the Christic Institute, Manuel Noriega, drug-running "freedom fighters" and death squads, Iraqgate, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, the blood of innocents, the savings and loan crash, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the "Octopus," the "Enterprise," the Afghan mujaheddin, the War on Drugs, Mena (Arkansas), Whitewater, Sun Myung Moon, the Carlyle Group, Osama bin Laden and the Saudi royal family, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States, is: George Herbert Walker Bush.
"Theory?" To the contrary.
It is a well-documented, tragic and—especially if you're paranoid—terrifying fact.
-- --
Permission to reprint is granted, provided it includes this autobiographical note, and credit for first publication to Online Journal.
The entire article is well worth the read: http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011 ... )
(link no longer active)
But itÂ’s archived here : http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-01-10-shift.php
-- --
Michael Hasty is a writer, activist, musician, carpenter and farmer. His award-winning column, "Thinking Locally," appeared for seven years in the Hampshire Review, West Virginia's oldest newspaper. His writing has also appeared in the Highlands Voice, the Washington Peace Letter, the Takoma Park Newsletter, the German magazine Generational Justice, and the Washington Post; and at the websites Common Dreams and Democrats.com. In January 1989, he was the media spokesperson for the counter-inaugural coalition at George Bush's Counter-Inaugural Banquet, which fed hundreds of DC's homeless in front of Union Station, where the official inaugural dinner was being held.
Permission to reprint is granted, provided it includes this autobiographical note, and credit for first publication to Online Journal.
See also:
http://www.onlinejournal.org/Commentary/092404Hasty/092404hasty.html
*****************************
***********************************
I AM WATCHING "ROAD TO 9/11 ON PBS!!
In the first couple minutes, it shows a short beginning collapse video...you CAN SEE THE EXPLOSIONS!!!! Flashes..clear within the collapse...unmistakable..not present on other videos....holy shit!!
Why has no one picked up on this?..clear as day, I have NEVER seen, I have been researching for over a year now..never have I seen this. I have a dvr and turned it on..Has anyone seen?????
Anybody got the video of
Anybody got the video of Controlled Demolition Inc. demo of the 500 foot(largest in the U.S.) Trojan nuclear water cooling tower today. The picture on Rawstory earlier today(gone now) looked interesting. Check out how the top of this massive structure leaned over before the whole thing fell "mostly into its' own footprint". The picture and brief description of the event is gone now so you'll have to search. Nice to see more of these guys' work. Congrats to Jon Gold as well!
Thanks Rod.
Thanks Rod.
Recent video of Jamie
Recent video of Jamie McIntyre, circa May 16, 2006:
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/Video/CNN%20reporter_new_vid1.WMV
Video of Jamie McIntyre on September 11, 2001:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/27_1-mcintyre.swf
"Quick Guide & Transcript: New Pentagon 9/11 video released, BBC interviews wrong 'Guy'," CNN, May 16, 2006:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/
"New Video of 9/11 Pentagon Attack Released; Interview With Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; Immigration Wars," CNN, May 16, 2006:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/16/sitroom.03.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/16/sitroom.02.html
"America Under Attack: Bush Holds Press Briefing," September 11, 2001:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.35.html
Excerpt from the above transcript:
""
WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.
Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?
MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Now, even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed; that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
""
"New Pentagon video shows no Boeing airliner," Total 911 Info, May 17, 2006:
http://www.total911.info/2006/05/new-pentagon-video-shows-no-boeing.html
"VIDEO: CNN reported no plane hit Pentagon," Total 911 Info, February 24, 2005:
http://www.total911.info/2005/02/video-cnn-reported-no-plane-hit.html
"CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane crashed there. VIDEO: CNN reported no plane hit Pentagon," Fathers Canada 4 Justice:
http://www.fathers.ca/special_feartures.htm
So does that mean from J
So does that mean from J McIntyres statement that he believed the plane crashed somewhere else than at the pentagon? He was asked if the plane had fallen short of the targeted Pentagon and then he says if I understand the statement that the plane didn't really crash there but the exterior wall was damaged.
I still haven't seen any
I still haven't seen any evidence consistent with a 757 hitting the Pentagon. It doesn't matter what shill they bring on.
I think the movement is starting to take effect. I think they're starting to panic
Truthout, one can make a
Truthout, one can make a conclusive case proving the U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks even without any physicalist inquiry into the plane crashes or collapsed buildings (even though the case for that is conclusive), i.e., via historical inquiry into the public record in conjunction with deductive reasoning. For example, in regard to such facts as listed below:
- The PNAC document in 2000 calling for "a new Pearl Harbor" as a pretext for Middle East domination;
- the fact that the October 2001 Afghanistan invasion was planned months beforehand (thus, the U.S. government was certain months before the 9/11 attacks that a pretext would present itself allowing the U.S. government to invade Afghanistan, and lo and behold such a pretext arives right on time);
- the fact that the supposed hijackers weren't Muslim extremists but did cocaine, hired prostitutes, drank alcohol, partied hard, etc.;
- the fact that many of the supposed hijackers were trained on U.S. military bases and had their legal residences on U.S. military bases;
- the fact that the supposed hijackers apparently knew that they had protection from the highest levels of the U.S. government and repeatedly went out of their way to draw attention to themselves as crazed, potential terrorists, as if to build a "legend" back-story;
- the fact that the many FBI agents attempting to invastigate these supposed hijackers were repeatedly and consistently blocked and ordered not to investigate these supposed hijackers, despite forceful protestations from said FBI agents that terrorist attacks were going to happen;
- the fact that U.S. government agents who tried to investigate the supposed hijackers were persecuted yet those in the government who blocked the investigations were promoted and given bonuses;
- the fact that many of these FBI agents went to David Schippers, the former Chief Council for the House Judiciary Committee, informing him (in an attempt to try and get something done) about the planned terrorist attacks and that they were threatened with the National Security Act not to pursue their cases and not to talk about them;
- the fact that David Schippers tried to get high-level functionaries (such as John Ashcroft) in the U.S. government to listen to him but they weren't interested;
- the fact that Osama bin Laden is a protected CIA asset and that before the 9/11 attacks a number of governments offered to arrest Osama and turn him over to the U.S. government but every time the U.S. government wasn't interested, despite the fact that he was supposedly wanted in connection to a number of previous terrorist attacks;
- the fact that the U.S. government worked with, supplied and used Osama's al-Qaeda terrorist network against the Serbian government all the way up into at least 1998, despite the fact that Osama was supposedly wanted in connection to a number of previous terrorist attacks.
And the list of such facts documented by the mainstream major media news articles and in primary documentation (such as the PNAC report) go on and on and on. The above is barely even scratching the surface on such facts as can be found in the mainstream public record. Add to that the fact that the U.S. government has a well-documented history (i.e., modus operandi) of staging such Hegelian dialectical PsyOps attacks as the Pearl Harbor attack, Operation Northwoods (which although didn't go forward due to John F. Kennedy, all the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff approved it for implementation), the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, etc., etc.
For mainstream documentation on the above facts, as well as on more such facts, see the below documentation resources:
The below post by me contains the November 10, 2003 article "September 11--Islamic Jihad or Another Northwoods?" by Tim Howells, Ph.D., which is a very good, short introduction to just some of the more damning mainstream major media articles and U.S. government primary documentation which proves up one side and down the other that the 9/11 attacks and the following anthrax attacks were a Hegelian dialectical PsyOp staged by the U.S. government as a pretext in order to obtain more power and control. I append my own additional endnotes at the conclusion of Dr. Howells' article, in order to add further mainstream documentation.
From: James Redford
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.education,alt.education.alternative,alt.education.research,misc.education
Subject: The U.S. Government Staged the 9/11 Attacks
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:49:56 GMT
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.college/msg/cdb2f90b15ea3233?dmode=so...
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/tim-howells-september-11-islamic-jihad...
And:
The Truth About the 9/11 Attacks:
http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/ (Note that this website by me hasn't been updated in a long time, so some of the links on it have gone dead. You can use http://www.archive.org to revive some of the dead links.)
For more on government-staged terrorism, see the below post by me:
"Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005:
http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth
Truthout-- What about the
Truthout--
What about the 911 Comission? It's obvious that they completed ignored certain facts or testimony given in their presence.
Aren't you behind a real independent investigation of these crimes? At the very least there was extreme negligence on behalf of the military. How could no fighters have been launch? Why have those in positions of authority that day rather than reprimanded?
At the very worst, a group of criminals have hijacked are country.
Don't you want to know what actually happened. The reason the truth community is so 'rabid' is beacuse the official perception of 9/11 is a fairy tale. Nobody in the media wants to talk about the facts.
Also- answer this: Osama is "still out there" and we continue the Endless War On Terror. Bush even said in March that he wasn't interested in catching him, that "he doesn't think about it".
We just want some goddamn justice for a terrible, vicious crime.
"Why have those in positions
"Why have those in positions of authority that day rather than reprimanded?"
I meant promoted rather than reprimanded.
Star Wars In Iraq Is The
Star Wars In Iraq
Is The U.S. using new experimental "Tactical High Energy Laser" weapons in Iraq?
RAI - Italian TV Investigation
" It was a very strange and horrible situation. In the roof of the car there were parts of the body: intestines, brains, all parts of the body. It was a very very very miserable situation."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13129.htm
There is a transcript of the video at the ICH web site. Note, especially, the comments section in HaloScan at that web site.
I think we should have a
I think we should have a MESSAGEBOARD to coincide with the blogs...
That way you don't comment in the actual posts, you take it to the board where it can be moderated.
Rod Underleaf, Image and
Rod Underleaf,
Image and video:
http://www.columbian.com/news/breakingNews/breakingNews.cfm?story=30019
FYI- truthout, you didn't
FYI- truthout, you didn't answer any of my questions.
lots of new pentagon videos
lots of new pentagon videos popping up on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no4IF_mE9NE&search=pentagon
"FYI- truthout, you didn't
"FYI- truthout, you didn't answer any of my questions."
Fooooooooocus...
They're just words people...
They're just words people... they're just words.
I AM WATCHING "ROAD TO 9/11
I AM WATCHING "ROAD TO 9/11 ON PBS!!
In the first couple minutes, it shows a short beginning collapse video...you CAN SEE THE EXPLOSIONS!!!! Flashes..clear within the collapse...unmistakable..not present on other videos....holy shit!!
Why has no one picked up on this?..clear as day, I have NEVER seen, I have been researching for over a year now..never have I seen this. I have a dvr and turned it on..Has anyone seen?????
aenima1 | 05.21.06 - 10:14 pm | #
They are there, clear as daylight, in the new 911eyewitness film that was premiered on thursday in London. When that movie reaches Chicago, this whole ''controlled demolition is not provable'' thing will seem ridiculous
"When that movie reaches
"When that movie reaches Chicago, this whole ''controlled demolition is not provable'' thing will seem ridiculous"
It already does.
anyone speak spanish? i
anyone speak spanish? i think this language is in spanish on the pentagon, what is the military guy saying with the model airplane?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGH-Ziy1AbM&search=pentagon
Best 9/11 truth banner I've
Best 9/11 truth banner I've seen:
http://www.peaceproject.com/graphics/cards/CR5-front-lg.jpg
"What I have always argued
"What I have always argued for is solid evidence not the wild unsupported speculation that goes on here. truthout | 05.21.06 - 10:25 pm "
But said:
"He made the reason very clear as many of us have for years: all of the other evidence proves without a doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon. WHY do you need a video?"
This person is a complete IDIOT and SHILL!
In one statement IT talks about AA77 is a fact that it hit the Pentagon. Then in another statement IT claims that IT believes in "solid evidence not the wild unsupported speculation". There is NO EVIDENCE that flight 77 hit the pentagon! There IS evidence that a plane hit the building, but none that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Yeah, this IT believes in FACT!
This THING is here to disrupt the blog. IT has no FACTS and CONTRADICTS IT's SELF over and over!
It would be best if everyone just ingnores this THING and DO NOT ANSWER IT ANYMORE!
And I know that IT will say
And I know that IT will say that there is proof, and I have asked IT multiple times for the NTSB reports matching the traceable parts to AA77.
IT comes back and says that the FBI was in charge that day. So in other words, there is no proof! Just because there were parts found does not make it AA77, parts do not constitute PROOF!
Matching the traceable parts are truth, not the government telling us what happened.
"What I have always argued
"What I have always argued for is solid evidence not the wild unsupported speculation that goes on here. I don't think many of you know the difference.
You talk about 'facts' but whatever you think those are do not refute all of the known evidence. There not even correct most of the time. You'll never convince anyone of needing another investigation if you can't produce solid, overwhelming evidence.
A lot of you sit here thinking the interview of Jon Gold was great. I don't know how to emphasize any stronger than I have that it was a complete bust for him and your ideas. How you all can be blind to that fact is beyond me.
The only truth is pursuing the truth wherever it takes you. It is not in trying to make the facts fit a desired conclusion."
_______________-
You can make a 270 degree turn faster than Hani Hanjour!
Just a few post ago you were the one claiming that THERE'S ONLY ONE EXPLANATION. You're so full of yourself, you don't even realize when your arguments are circular. If you present information, you call it evidence. If anyone else does, it's a theory and elicits your immediate dismissal and ridicule.
BTW, for someone who likes to call themselves "Truthout", you sure do have an easy time making untrue accusations against other people. In fact, you've made it painfully clear that the truth matters very little to you. How can we trust anything you write if you're constantly typing distortions and lies about others on the board?
You have zero credibility, and your insults and name-calling just reveal your many social and intellectual inadequacies. Please, let us be if we disgust you so. Be gone.
Truthout, perhaps you would
Truthout, perhaps you would care to address my previous post to you, as reproduced below.
---
Truthout, one can make a conclusive case proving the U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks even without any physicalist inquiry into the plane crashes or collapsed buildings (even though the case for that is conclusive), i.e., via historical inquiry into the public record in conjunction with deductive reasoning. For example, in regard to such facts as listed below:
- The PNAC document in 2000 calling for "a new Pearl Harbor" as a pretext for Middle East domination;
- the fact that the October 2001 Afghanistan invasion was planned months beforehand (thus, the U.S. government was certain months before the 9/11 attacks that a pretext would present itself allowing the U.S. government to invade Afghanistan, and lo and behold such a pretext arives right on time);
- the fact that the supposed hijackers weren't Muslim extremists but did cocaine, hired prostitutes, drank alcohol, partied hard, etc.;
- the fact that many of the supposed hijackers were trained on U.S. military bases and had their legal residences on U.S. military bases;
- the fact that the supposed hijackers apparently knew that they had protection from the highest levels of the U.S. government and repeatedly went out of their way to draw attention to themselves as crazed, potential terrorists, as if to build a "legend" back-story;
- the fact that the many FBI agents attempting to invastigate these supposed hijackers were repeatedly and consistently blocked and ordered not to investigate these supposed hijackers, despite forceful protestations from said FBI agents that terrorist attacks were going to happen;
- the fact that U.S. government agents who tried to investigate the supposed hijackers were persecuted yet those in the government who blocked the investigations were promoted and given bonuses;
- the fact that many of these FBI agents went to David Schippers, the former Chief Council for the House Judiciary Committee, informing him (in an attempt to try and get something done) about the planned terrorist attacks and that they were threatened with the National Security Act not to pursue their cases and not to talk about them;
- the fact that David Schippers tried to get high-level functionaries (such as John Ashcroft) in the U.S. government to listen to him but they weren't interested;
- the fact that Osama bin Laden is a protected CIA asset and that before the 9/11 attacks a number of governments offered to arrest Osama and turn him over to the U.S. government but every time the U.S. government wasn't interested, despite the fact that he was supposedly wanted in connection to a number of previous terrorist attacks;
- the fact that the U.S. government worked with, supplied and used Osama's al-Qaeda terrorist network against the Serbian government all the way up into at least 1998, despite the fact that Osama was supposedly wanted in connection to a number of previous terrorist attacks.
And the list of such facts documented by the mainstream major media news articles and in primary documentation (such as the PNAC report) go on and on and on. The above is barely even scratching the surface on such facts as can be found in the mainstream public record. Add to that the fact that the U.S. government has a well-documented history (i.e., modus operandi) of staging such Hegelian dialectical PsyOps attacks as the Pearl Harbor attack, Operation Northwoods (which although didn't go forward due to John F. Kennedy, all the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff approved it for implementation), the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, etc., etc.
For mainstream documentation on the above facts, as well as on more such facts, see the below documentation resources:
The below post by me contains the November 10, 2003 article "September 11--Islamic Jihad or Another Northwoods?" by Tim Howells, Ph.D., which is a very good, short introduction to just some of the more damning mainstream major media articles and U.S. government primary documentation which proves up one side and down the other that the 9/11 attacks and the following anthrax attacks were a Hegelian dialectical PsyOp staged by the U.S. government as a pretext in order to obtain more power and control. I append my own additional endnotes at the conclusion of Dr. Howells' article, in order to add further mainstream documentation.
From: James Redford
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.education,alt.education.alternative,alt.education.research,misc.education
Subject: The U.S. Government Staged the 9/11 Attacks
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:49:56 GMT
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.college/msg/cdb2f90b15ea3233?dmode=so...
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/tim-howells-september-11-islamic-jihad...
And:
The Truth About the 9/11 Attacks:
http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/ (Note that this website by me hasn't been updated in a long time, so some of the links on it have gone dead. You can use http://www.archive.org to revive some of the dead links.)
For more on government-staged terrorism, see the below post by me:
"Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005:
http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth
Leaks feared as sacked MI6
Leaks feared as sacked MI6 spy launches blog:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1779917,00.html?gusr...
Too bad that he might not have anything on 7/7 or 9/11
->aenima1 About "Road to
->aenima1
About "Road to 9/11" on PBS,
What building exactly is it where you see the flashes of the controlled demolition ?
Is there a link where we could see it ?
Thx
the audience was dead silent
the audience was dead silent and jamie looked nervous.
still waiting for someone to show me the damn 757 at the Pentagon.
Dick Durbin told me that the parts were being stored at an undisclosed location until after the investigation. i replied, "what investigation" because this was after the 911 Omission Commission finished.
lets keep the heat on. they are starting to publicly deny this and doing so they plant a seed of doubt in millions of people who haven't thought about this. Put it in context with all the other Bushco lies and people are getting more receptive to the notion.
"no"
"no" Thanks for the link to the nuclear cooling tower going down.(http://www.columbian.com/news/breakingNews/breakingNews.cfm?story=30019) Looks sort of like somthing i've seen before. Can't wait to check out the new film mentioned a few posts above. I Want to see if the explosive flashes in WTC look like the ones in the nuclear tower. I am not saying that the two are necessarily examples of the same modus operandi but it is curious. Looking forward to getting high speed connection next week. By the way maybe it's time for the board moderators to TAKEOUT "TRUTHOUT". Just a suggestion.
Rod Underleaf, I haven't
Rod Underleaf, I haven't followed truthout's past postings very closely, but besides not backing up his assertions with evidence, from what I have observed of him I see no reason to ban him.
James , Maybe you're
James , Maybe you're right-not my call anyway. My apologies if I offended you.
be at ease. if __________
be at ease. if __________ says something foolish then so be it. but if __________'s task is to cause you to get all mad and write a 10" comment in reply and you do then he has done his job, ya?
I believe almost 6000
I believe almost 6000 AMERICANS died over Bush's lies including 911, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I have no other estimates of how many people died worldwide.
Check the video again. Watch
Check the video again. Watch the body language. Enough said.
It bothers me that when they
It bothers me that when they mention alternative theories they stick with the missile theory and never talk about A3 skywarrior theory or other smaller jet. You can see people in the audience not totally convinced flight 77 hit it yet they dismiss it when they hear about a missile hitting the pentagon because we do see some small debris. It would make a big difference if they were presented with the possibility that a smaller jet
hit the pentagon.
Does anybody agree?
Can someone please provide
Can someone please provide us with more information re: "Road to 9/11" mentioned above?
Which video is this? Who made it? Is it on PBS?
What's this about seeing the flashes & explosions of the controlled demolition?
Thank you in advance.
I dont know if this is the
I dont know if this is the same footage as from the Road to 9/11 documentary, but heres a nice capture of the squibs at WTC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7BnTaWMyoc
Undenyable. multiple seperate, visable, simultaneous explosions
That fuselage can not be
That fuselage can not be from a AA airplane. No matter how you turn that part around, you wont get a match to a AA-plane. Not any of the letters either.
Just download some AA pics and start looking. I guess you have done so already, but take a close look and see where you could put that piece.
I still say this Pentagon
I still say this Pentagon thing is just a distraction. Even if a plane did hit the Pentagon who did the flying. Surely not some flight school drop-out. The controlled demolition of the towers and building 7 can be proven. Not even the neocons can change natural law. This Pentagon thing reminds me of a dog chasing it's tail. Let's put it to rest and focus on something more constructive.
It bothers me that when they
It bothers me that when they mention alternative theories they stick with the missile theory and never talk about A3 skywarrior theory or other smaller jet. You can see people in the audience not totally convinced flight 77 hit it yet they dismiss it when they hear about a missile hitting the pentagon because we do see some small debris. It would make a big difference if they were presented with the possibility that a smaller jet
hit the pentagon.
Does anybody agree?
kirk | 05.22.06 - 5:13 am | #
___________________________________--
I kind of do. I just discovered this interesting picture
http://www.migandi.org.uk/news/ p...tagon_proof.jpg
The nosecone and shape of the cockpit are, for sure, the same as on the pictured A3 skywarrior.
Still think, however, that the penatgon is a minefield. As you can see, im a bit divided on the issue.
I'm sure none of you get it
I'm sure none of you get it but you all made my case for me.
Thanks for the help.
I still say this Pentagon
I still say this Pentagon thing is just a distraction. Even if a plane did hit the Pentagon who did the flying. Surely not some flight school drop-out. The controlled demolition of the towers and building 7 can be proven. Not even the neocons can change natural law. This Pentagon thing reminds me of a dog chasing it's tail. Let's put it to rest and focus on something more constructive.
Good point, maddog. It's just so frustrating to me (and many others I'm sure) that the authorities are playing games with the public via these Pentagon videos.
I wish that SOMEONE would just release the other 9/11 Pentagon footage so we would know for sure one way or the other what really happened...
Below are the direct
Below are the direct download URLs for the two videos released to Judicial Watch on May 16, 2006:
Video No. 1:
http://youtube-975.vo.llnwd.net/d1/05/81/L75Gga92WO8.flv
2,853,523 bytes; MD5 checksum: 80dd6202922c58396cb8ab3592afceb5
Video No. 2:
http://youtube-507.vo.llnwd.net/d1/05/8F/TAaP4Z3zls8.flv
3,486,581 bytes; MD5 checksum: 76bc0c33da87d342df461dee8b256a29
You can also download these videos via the below webpage:
http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php
Use the below two URLs on the above webpage to download the videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8
When is Judicial Watch going to release the bit-identical videos that they obtained? Judicial Watch Director of Investigations & Research and former military intelligence officer Chris Farrell said on the Alex Jones radio show on May 17, 2006 that the two videos were released to Judicial Watch on a CD-ROM.
That means the videos hosted on YouTube are transcoded into the FLV (Flash Video 1) format, as I doubt that Judicial Watch obtained the videos in this format. And unless they were transcoded into a lossless format (I'm not sure if Flash Video supports a lossless format), that means that the image fidelity is degraded.
So again I ask: when is Judicial Watch going to release the bit-identical videos that Chris Farrell said they obtained on CD-ROM? If they are concerned about server overload on their own website, they can put an hourly maximum download rate on the files, or send the files to someone who would be willing to host them unaltered. Judicial watch should also publish the MD5 checksums for these two video files as they exist in the same bit-identical state on the CD-ROM they obtained.
Below is the unaltered frame from from the YouTube video No. 1 which shows the nose cone of the object that hit the Pentagon, extracted with the GIMP animation package and saved in the PNG format (i.e., lossless):
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/6806/judicialwatchvideo1nosecone9yp.png
Below are some image detail from the above frame:
Size: 320 x 239 pixels
Number of unique colors: 26122
Just to be more precise, the
Just to be more precise, the above frame I posted above at "05.22.06 - 10:51 am" is frame 2604 as extracted with the GIMP Animation Package.
Somebody please tell me ,if
Somebody please tell me ,if it really was a plane,then how come the wings didn't either penetrate the building or weren't sheared off outside the building?.If the plane hit those lamp posts,wouldn't that have been caused by the wings?I have never seen any accounting either by photgraphs or video of the wings.What happened to them?Also,being that the engines are attached to the wings and are actually lower then the body of the plane,wouldn't they have hit the ground being that the plane was so low to the ground according to that video just released.Not to mention that the engines as big as they are would have created their own holes in the building just like they did at the towers.And if someone says that they wouldn't have penetrated the exterior of the building keep in mind 2 things.The engines are more of a solid object then the nose of the airplane and if they didn't enter the building they should be easily identifiable outside the building.Also how is it possible that not one of the cameras stationed around the pentagon captured that plane?It's almost as crazy as believing that 4 planes could make it past America's defense systems.I also don't believe that this should be the main focus of truth movement.
The truth lies in building 7 and all the eyewitness accounts of the firemen who were in the towers.There's a reason why they were gagged and why the complete transcripts and recordings of all the firemen and 911 calls were never completely released.They said it was for the benefit of all the families,but it really was for the benefit of the government.Can you image the lawsuits and criminal cases that would come about if someone who was intricately involved ever flips.I hope somehow that happens.
Truthout and others. You can
Truthout and others.
You can believe Flt 77 hit the Pentagon, I've seen no proof of it. I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but I have no solid reason to believe it was Flt 77. I believed the OCT for 4 years, before I did the research. I won't go back to faith-based thinking on this issue again. Prove to me, using all the available evidence - while debunking David Ray Griffin's "9-11 Commission Report" chapters on the topic and Jack White's photo studies (link at www.st911.org) point by point - that Flt 77 hit the Pentagon. Hell, just prove that a 757 was what hit the Pentagon.
My email is provided.
ummm, "its our job
ummm, "its our job (mainstream media) to present the facts, not some Weired website"
Its your job is it? or is it the job of scientists that relise that a lot doesn't add up and then make or help make a documentry about the pentegon crash which us subseqently posted on the internet because no mainstream media will show it...??
Journalists must be getting training in physics now as well as being professional eye witness's.
think about it.