Visibility 911 Interviews Kevin Barrett
This broadcast features an interview with Kevin Barrett, founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Nine Eleven Truth or MUJCANET. Kevin Barrett has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin. Kevin recently appeared on the Jessica McBride radio talk show, after which he was attacked by members of the Wisconsin state legislature who have called for his ouster from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he is currently scheduled to teach a course in Islamic studies this fall.
http://www.visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=106499&comments=on
Also available at 911podcasts here:
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=15
- Login to post comments
So leave it that at the
So leave it that at the Pentagon is extremely suspicious!
the point regarding the
the point regarding the pentagon is that it is NOT A STRONG ARGUMENT
what happened is neither here nor there, the point is we all think it was an inside job
whether it was a remote controlled plane or a missile or pre-planted bombs and holograms - WHATEVER
people need to stop trying to put together the entire narrative (i.e. THEORISING) and start to deconstruct the official narrative (i.e. CRITICISING)
anyone who doesn't realise this is an idiot
"which is sad, because that
"which is sad, because that means crucial questions wont even make it into the movie, considering the media and Jersey Girls have ignored sustantial amounts of evidence."
You mean the NIST report, and the collapse of building 7?
Wrong.
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 8:50 pm | #
will they approach the subject of controlled demolition in the towers? its good to hear that at least WTC7 will be in it though.
3. Never reply to Anonymous
3. Never reply to Anonymous cowards, or obvious shills, especially those who make non-referenced statements.
Never believe that AA77 & passengers struck the Pentagon. Be extremely suspicious of anyone's motives who insists or implies that it did!
MUJCANET is a great acronym
MUJCANET is a great acronym
From Michelle
From Michelle Malkin:
Protest the New York Times Revealing of U.S. Secrets,
Monday, July 10, 5 p.m.
We have a sound permit, and we will be across the
street from the New York Times. They are at 229 West
43rd Street.
The groups on board so far are Free Republic, Caucus
for America, the Congress for Racial Equality, and
Protest Warrior, NYC Chapter. We have reached out to
several other groups as well, and are waiting to hear
back from them.
Some high-visibility media people are interested in
speaking at the protest. More information will be
coming on this as we gather groups and speakers.
So hold the date! If you have been as sick about the
Times's unconscionable blabbing of our classified
information as the rest of those who care about the
nation, now is your chance to do something to make
your outrage heard.
__________________________________________________________
Also I will be in New Haven Wed. for this:
by IraqVet4Peace @ 9:00 am
The following is a statement that is being circulated
regarding an incident at the military recruiting
station on Orange Street in New Haven on Wednesday,
June 28. A baseball bat-wielding Marine recruiter
engaged in an unprovoked assault on two demonstrators
outside the recruiting center and then seized the
cellphone belonging to another demonstrator who had
witnessed and photographed the assault. There are
plans for a rally and press conference outside the
recruiting center for July 5 at 5PM.
The National Lawyers Guild was contacted immediately
after the incident by organizers who were looking for
legal assistance because, among other things, the New
Haven police were trying to discourage the victims
from making a complaint against the recruiter —
apparently at least one officer expressed the opinion
that having an anti-war demonstration outside a
military recruiting center was a “provocation.”
The question that this incident must raise is this: if
a US Marine recruiter, while safely ensconced behind a
desk in an air-conditioned office in New Haven,
working in a position that plainly keeps him in the
public eye, feels free to use a baseball bat to beat a
protester . . . then how much restraint do we imagine
that his compatriots use against Iraqis?
I would strongly urge people to participate in the
rally on July 5. The movement needs to respond in a
strong and clear voice to violence against
demonstrators, and all the more so when it comes from
government personnel and is calculated to discourage
political opposition.
Peter Goselin
NLG-CT
Interesting exchange
Interesting exchange here:
http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display/38278/index.php
;-)
Another name not mentioned
Another name not mentioned nearly enough is Paul Craig Roberts, economist for the Reagan administration.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/080206towerscollapse.htm
This is off topic, but for
This is off topic, but for anyone who hasn't noticed, on kos and america blogs some 9/11 truth is breaking through. With the recent news to some that the Bushies were spying before 9.11 will hopefully open the flood gates.
Yes, Itsaputon: Paul Craig
Yes, Itsaputon:
Paul Craig Roberts is another person of strong import. He is a unique feature, and rarity for CounterPunch to still have on. His letters are so strong there, that by including him in there ranks, I give them a pass for not jumping on the band wagon all together.
A slowpoke leftgatekeeping rag, but they haven't shunned PCR.
A credible job by Kevin
A credible job by Kevin Barrett of defending himself and of also disseminating the truth. Seems to me the interviewer was neutral until certain times she went off on tangents trying to have Kevin explain events like the attack on USS Cole and embasy bombings.
Good job Kevin, best of luck to you.
? MOVING BUILDING ? Off
? MOVING BUILDING ?
Off topic, but Nico's right. Necessary to post here- see:http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/2006/07/moving-building-070206.html
The real mystery here is that it appears to have been a truly stupid A-B switching issue, as though nobody knew that the first frame had an incoming plane in it at that time! Possible, but not that probable. IN ANY EVENT, a good producer would have IMMEDIATELY re-fed the first camera take! NEWSCASTER: "Let's have a look at that re-play!"
>>Rational explination>>
Here we have moved a full Avenue Eastward. The first position looked bluish, as shot through standard glass. The second, was from a rooftop without glass.
The 'rational' purpose of switching the live-cam view would have been to capture Both buildings relatively completely. Also, when shooting from position 1, the natural switching progrssion was fulfilled. Assumption:, 'logically' the news anchor required more time to get there from the Network HQ at 7th ave. When he stood ready, the cam operator did a quick gray-balance. He had already 'lost' the shot, or may not have knowh he lost the feed. So, I don't see a real problem here
>>UNLESS THE NETWORK NEVER RELEASED THE FIRST TAKE IN FULL!
Isn't it interesting that
Isn't it interesting that "some high-visibility media people" will be on hand at the NY Times protest... to silence the media.
We live in an age of "high-visibility" entertainment but also high-risk, low-visibility investigative journalism.
Isn't it interesting that they get a legal permit but protestors are shapherded into free-speech zones that are cages topped with razor wire?
Isn't it interesting that organized events like these are applauded and encouraged, but veterans wearing T-shirts are arrested in the cafeteria at the VA Hospital?
This is faux-mobbing of the worst nature... Welcome to Amerika.
I wish Kevin Barrett would
I wish Kevin Barrett would have responded to the questions about Bin Laden with this: "Bin Laden hasn't been convicted of anything in American courts unlike many republicans."
I LOVE asia.
I LOVE asia.
TheBob... I'm a regular
TheBob...
I'm a regular lurker at americablog and I've noticed some 9/11 truth breakthroughs in the blog myself as well especially in the comment section where it is flooded with 9/11 truth comments. I'm still pissed that the bloggers of the blog has not yet spoken out against the official story. Someday they will though...
Take this for what it is
Take this for what it is worth:
A friend of mine works for the power company and a supervisor of his told him that some skyscrapers are built with prepositioned explosives in case it is necessary to ensure a "safer collapse" or "controlled collapse".
Has anyone heard anything like this before? I am skeptical on this issue, as I have not found anything to corroborate it.
HOT-SELLING DVD SAYS 9/11
HOT-SELLING DVD SAYS 9/11 WAS ONE BIG LIE
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,109368,00.html
QUOTE:
'(T)ake nothing we say at face value. We highly encourage you to research this information yourselves and come to your own conclusions.'
- so it IS possible to do it without the bias against 9/11 truth, but only in Asia, not America...
I AM RIGOROUSLY PROMOTING
I AM RIGOROUSLY PROMOTING "9/11 THE FAIRY TALE FROM HELL"
http://tyrannyalert.com/800.html
PDF, Video Clips, etc...
= + = ST. PETERSBURG
= + =
ST. PETERSBURG TIMES
Things aren't what they seem
A distrust of authority and a desire to make sense of irrational events can fuel conspiracy buffs.
By SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN, Times Senior Correspondent
susan@sptimes.com
Published July 2, 2006
GAINESVILLE — You’ve probably heard it:
The mob ordered President KennedyÂ’s assassination.
The Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a plane, on Sept. 11.
MORE, see:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/07/02/news_pf/Worldandnation/Things_aren_t_w...
= + =
One of the most gutwrenching
One of the most gutwrenching stories Ive ever heard, couragous...soul crushing, and profound...here's William Rodriguez' shattering talk at the LA Conference. People who want to continue to believe the official version of events need not listen:
part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xDkc9gvGlwM
part 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=w_afED3IkQc
part 3
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lgt7Nr_6mdY
part 4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fkvvbm5zSWU
part 5
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ixqAPu6o_wU
part 6
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MX8n-GLFDCM
I'd like to see the "anti 9/11 Truth" idiots talk smack about this true hero.
Can anyone get this video to
Can anyone get this video to work?
Where did it go?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#
off topic but here's an
off topic
but here's an excellent site about the 7/7 london bombings:
http://www.officialconfusion.com/77/
I went to the premiere of the Mind The Gap movie yesterday
excellent film
Shayler gave an interesting speech before and after which should be on the internet soon
peace
I AM RIGOROUSLY PROMOTING
I AM RIGOROUSLY PROMOTING "9/11 THE FAIRY TALE FROM HELL"........Great Job!
Take this for what it is
Take this for what it is worth:
A friend of mine works for the power company and a supervisor of his told him that some skyscrapers are built with prepositioned explosives in case it is necessary to ensure a "safer collapse" or "controlled collapse".
Has anyone heard anything like this before? I am skeptical on this issue, as I have not found anything to corroborate it.
DHS | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 4:48 am | #
this is EXACTLY the excuses that will be used once the general public accepts that explosives were used to bring down the towers. i have indeed heard this before DHS, and mark my words, this WILL be the excuses they use when CD becomes too hot to ignore.
Michelle Malkin is
Michelle Malkin is deplorable. she would support this administration if they said it was necessary to kill your own children to stave off "terrorist" attacks. ive never seen someone so willing to serve their "leaders" as Michelle Malkin.fuck her and every other rightwing asshole trying to bast the New York Times for actually reporting on something for once.the Times is another mainstream rag in my opinion, but when they have the guts to actually report on the news, we need to support them. i hope there is a counter-protest when this nazi whore Malkin shows up in NYC.
North Korea Vows
North Korea Vows "Annihilating Strike" If Attacked; Threatens Nuclear War
http://prisonplanet.com/artic
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/010706casestudy.htm
I like this.
off
off topic.
http://www.gregpalast.com/stealing-it-in-front-of-your-eyes#more-1440
STEALING IT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES
Published by Greg Palast July 3rd, 2006 in Articles
Matt Pascarella in Mexico City
Greg Palast in London
Monday, 3 July for The Guardian
Dispatch from Mexico City
Gore v. Bush.
Kerry v Bush.
Lopez Obrador v Calderon.
As in Florida in 2000, as in Ohio in 2004, the exit polls show the voters voted for the progressive candidate, but the race is “officially” too close to call.
But they will call it — after they steal it. Reuters News agency reports that, as of 8pm Eastern time, as voting concluded in Mexico, exit polls show Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the “left-wing” Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) leading in exit polls over Felipe Calderon of the ruling conservative National Action Party (PAN).
We’ve said again and again: Exit polls tell us how voters say they voted, but the voters can’t tell pollsters if their vote will be counted. In Mexico, counting the vote is an art, not a science — and Calderon’s ruling crew is very artful indeed. The PAN-controlled official electoral commission, not surprisingly, has announced that the presidential tally is too close to call.
CalderonÂ’s election is openly supported by the Bush Administration.
DHS... that case study was
DHS... that case study was incredible. The final minutes between the fish-eye cam, and the impact were incredible. I never thought that the back fin of the plane was visible in that video, but the way they presented it, it clearly was.
Does that put the no-plane hit the Pentagon argument to rest?
regarding the pre-positioned
regarding the pre-positioned explosives in buildings - I believe they are actually designed with EMPTY CAVATIES in which explosives will later be placed, not the actual explosives
off topic
bbc article about plans to increase terror law from 28 days:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5138294.stm
discussion here:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&threadID=2392&editi...
very suspicious timing given the anniversary is this friday
Does that put the no-plane
Does that put the no-plane hit the Pentagon argument to rest?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 9:39 am | #
im sure your hoping it does.
CalderonÂ’s election is openly supported by the Bush Administration.
R | 07.03.06 - 9:21 am | #
consider it stolen.
* cavities
* cavities
"im sure your hoping it
"im sure your hoping it does."
I would LOVE for people to start focusing on different aspects of 9/11. Especially those who get national media spots.
personally,i think a plane
personally,i think a plane hit the Pentagon, but its very hard to say for sure it was Flight 77. i didnt know jumbo jets nose cones acted like missiles during a crash. that perfect circle is amazing if it really was only Flight 77 and not a smaller plane capable of shooting a missile.
Does that put the no-plane
Does that put the no-plane hit the Pentagon argument to rest?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 9:39 am | #
Maybe...
I hope Jim Fetzer sees it. I am still baffled by his choice of ammunition the past couple weeks.
Jon have you watched any of these? Particularly #12, #3, and #13
"THE FAIRY TALE FROM HELL"
http://youtube.com/results?search=fairy+tale+from+hell&search_type=searc...
i agree with that, the
i agree with that, the Pentagon shouldnt be the main thrust, but i dont get all pissed like some people when its mentioned. its just when its the ONLY thing that gets talked about that it gets annoying.
That Michael SmurfConItch
That Michael SmurfConItch MSNBC segment with Berger made me sick.
Yes DHS... I watched #12
Yes DHS... I watched #12 last night with Sibel. Very good.
yes like Norman Mineta's
yes like Norman Mineta's Testimony...
thought I always thought that Cheney couldn't care less about "do the orders still stand" if the incoming plane was not 77. It's much easier for him then to let the plane impact the Pentagon.
Then again, he is a ruthless bastard...
though* i always thought
though* i always thought
Debunking 9/11
Debunking 9/11 Myths.com
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths.htm
I've been a little out of
I've been a little out of the loop lately. Everyone seen this?
www.savetheinternet.com
I wonder how long it would take 911blogger to load?
I sent that Pentagon video
I sent that Pentagon video to Fetzer.
DHS, I hope this remarkable
DHS,
I hope this remarkable video you linked to:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/010706casestudy.htm
puts the "No plane" story to bed. The REAL questions include:
1. How did a lousy pilot make that incredible manuever?
2. How could the most protected building in the world (or at least ONE of the most protected) be completely vulnerable to attack?
3. Why did the plane hit the most reinforced/least populated area?
Dr. Fetzer and other spokespeople MUST focus on the above questions instead of the plane itself. To do otherwise is to add to the other quasi-truth being spread around that is undermining the truth movement's progress.
off topic: What the Hell is
off topic:
What the Hell is going on in New Jersey?
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/14954963.htm%3E
4. Why did the FBI
4. Why did the FBI confiscate videos from a surrounding gas station and hotel?
5. Obviously more than 1 video camera focuses on the Pentagon than the parking lot handy-cam. Satellite imagery, and so on. Why haven't the 84 existing videos not been released?
6. Why didn't the 9/11 Commission subpoena them for their release?
7. Shouldn't an "Independent Commission" tasked with giving a "Full & Complete Accounting" of the attacks of 9/11 look at all of the existing evidence?
I know some have speculated
I know some have speculated that the Pentagon's defenses actually were activated, and THAT'S the reason why the videos have not been released.
I know some have speculated
I know some have speculated that the Pentagon's defenses actually were activated, and THAT'S the reason why the videos have not been released.
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 10:30 am | #
Jon:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24426
Unlike the White House, the Pentagon has no anti-aircraft batteries to defend against attacks from the air.
"It's tough to defend such a big building," the Pentagon official said.
look at the TIMESTAMP of this article
Jon... thanks for those
Jon... thanks for those additioanl questions. I'm keeping the combined 7 for easy reference.
DHS... thanks for that WND article. If Rumsfeld hadn't lost track of 3 trillion dollars (that's the latest figure I've heard, anyway), maybe they could afford to protect the Pentagon sufficiently.
What a load of typical B.S.
...and Jon, thank you for
...and Jon, thank you for sending that video on to Dr. Fetzer. I hope he takes it to heart and starts focusing on the real issues.
but did you look at the
but did you look at the TIMESTAMP of that article. It makes no sense. 1am EST 9/11/2001?
besides that the article
besides that the article says that officials were aware of the idea of a plane attacking the pentagon.
someone should've told condi. :-)
I think whomever that
I think whomever that official was, was lying...
"April Gallop, an enlisted member and survivor who worked at the Pentagon and brought her infant child to work that day, told me that when she was assigned there she got a classified tour of the building introducing her to its defenses, and she was told it was the best defended and safest building in the world. To this day she cannot comprehend why those defenses would have failed on 9/11."
Would you leave the headquarters for America's military undefended?
Would you leave the
Would you leave the headquarters for America's military undefended?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 10:57 am | #
If I wanted to emotionally and psychologically scar the American people, I would.
And leave America's military
And leave America's military leaders vulnerable?
If the Pentagon is
If the Pentagon is "defenseless" then I think whomever planned building it should be fired.
And leave America's military
And leave America's military leaders vulnerable?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 11:01 am | #
They're on the other side of the building ; nothing to worry about. Of course the orders still stand.
That's not what I was
That's not what I was talking about... I'm talking about in general... leaving our military leaders vulnerable... that makes PERFECT sense... not.
Jon: I know what you
Jon:
I know what you mean.
Who would bother defending the most important military/defense building in our nation, a building that routinely houses some of the most prominent members of the military and government?
Seems like a waste of money to me.
Some interesting stuff from
Some interesting stuff from Tarpley's show this week. He will be helping to launch a website later this week called false flag news. He had crazy Jimmy Walter on the show. Walter says that this guy he met with in Venezuela already knew much about 9/11 Truth, and Venezuela and some others are waiting for some sort of green light to do an investigation. I love Chavez, but I don't know if aligning 9/11 Truth with him and Castro is the best thing. Walter admitted on the show that talking about CGI with newbies is a bad idea and that such issues should only be discussed "within" the movement.
My correspondence with Jim
My correspondence with Jim Fetzer. In full.
Professor Fetzer,
The following 3-D simulation supplied by Prison Planet makes a VERY compelling argument for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. I hope you will watch this. Notice the fin shown for a split second, and then watch it disappear from the video. At the very least, I hope this will convince you that the "No-Plane At The Pentagon Argument" might not be the best piece of "evidence" to present when given the opportunity to speak the case nationally, or publicly.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/010706casestudy.htm
Thanks,
Jon Gold
His initial response...
Jon,
I will of course take a look. Do you have any idea how easy it is today to create phony images? I have been waiting for a new digital version to emerge. You can make anyone or anything do or say anything you like. I cannot tell you how disappointed I have been that you appear to have been taken in by rubbish on the blogger forum. Without even making any effort to verify what you were being told, you swallowed it, hook, line and sinker. Have you read my pieces about Jim Hoffman? Or do you still believe in him?
Jim
My response to that...
Jim,
I don't know exactly which "rubbish" you're referring to. If you're talking about the plethora of crtiques put forth by some of Blogger's particpants, well... welcome to the club Professor Fetzer. This isn't a game. This isn't Jim Fetzer's 9/11 Truth Movement. People of the movement expect that their spokesmen, when given the opportunity, put forward the BEST arguments possible, and to not give our adversaries any ammunition. As of late, you haven't lived up to those expectations, and as a result, you've heard about it. At least it's better than having your deceased grandfather's name, the man you've dedicated your 9/11 research to, dragged through the mud. At least you haven't had porn from 70+ gay men depicted as your deceased grandfather. At least you haven't been threatened physical harm for your efforts. If you think what's being said about you on blogger is "rubbish", then you need to take a serious look at others who have suffered in this movement. I hope you understand that the purpose of the critiques is to better help you when you do get appearances.
Jon
His response to the original question...
Jon,
This is an interesting animation, since it was obviously designed to off-set concerns raised by the image in the first of the five frames. Alas, although prisonplanet may know no better, it is physically impossible as a function of the laws of aerodynamics for a large plane to fly at high speeds so close to the ground. I have made this point several times in my public presentations and it has been elaborated with great clarity and force by Nila Sagadevan. So I am sorry to say that, once again, you have been taken in. I wonder if you have any familiarity with science. Do you understand that phenomena that violate laws of nature cannot possibly occur? Even the impacts with the lampposts appear to be fake, because they would have done substantial damage to the plane and probably altered its course. And everything I have said before about no Boeing 757 remains true. The smooth, green, and unblemished lawn remains the "smoking gun" here. So I greatly appreciate your advice, but it confirms my growing disappointment.
Jim
P.S. You may post this response to your inquiry on 911blogger if you like.
My final response to that...
Jim,
I haven't been "taken in" by anything. I formed my own opinion regarding Flight 77 long ago when I met Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowsi at the 9/11 People's Commission in Washington D.C. She was there at the Pentagon on 9/11. She lost a lot of friends that day. She mentioned seeing plane parts in the rubble. I have chosen to focus on other aspects of 9/11. More incriminating aspects of 9/11. John Judge had a stewardess friend who supposedly inspected the wreckage of the Pentagon. She supposedly flew that route, and was luckily off that day. When she inspected the wreckage, she saw upholstery she recognized as well as windows from the plane, and so on. I have no reason to doubt John's friend. I don't believe you need the "What hit the Pentagon" argument in order to prove complicity. Obviously you think differently.
Jon
Why the Pentagon was so
Why the Pentagon was so vulnerable.
If WND.com is using a content management system then its possible that this date was auto generated and does reflect the true time at which this was posted.
Maybe it was noticed latered but changing it seemed more problematic then claiming it was a mistake sometime in the future.
No science here but the date is interesting.
Yes Alex, those are the
Yes Alex, those are the issues about the Pentagon on which people should concentrate.
How could the Pentagon be hit almost one hour after the first WTC strike had taken place?
The Mineta and FAA testimony showing that flight 77 was tracked long before the strike. The Commission's lie.
Perhaps the reason why videos clearly showing an airplane hit the building have not been released is that the no plane theory keeps discussion away from the real issues. The media need to be given access to the no plane argument. They want to resort to it at every opportunity (and avoid discussing WTC 7 if only they can).
"Though I always thought
"Though I always thought that Cheney couldn't care less about "do the orders still stand" if the incoming plane was not 77. It's much easier for him then to let the plane impact the Pentagon."
DHS, I understand all the individual words above, but I still don't understand what you mean.
LOL, people fall for the
LOL, people fall for the "OMG IT WAS A MISSLE, OR IT WASNT A 757!"
No see thats the trap. Dont fall for it.
Whatever hit the Pentagon AND Towers was remopte control. I can almost bet on it. Way too pinpoint.
Whether it be the real Flight 77 or duplicate, it was an American Airlines plane. And was remote control
Also, if you believe it was bombs in the towers, then you ALSO have to accept it was remote controlled:
otherwise no telling where those planes would go.
Im going with remote control of real flights,(tho small possibility of duplicates) into pentagon and wtc. There are so many anomalies of the pentagon without falling for the no plane bullshit
Also, what about Mohammed Atta, dupes, patsies and possible doubles?
Answer the question! Why so
Answer the question! Why so nervous?
This thread has turned into
This thread has turned into a time-wasting argument thanks to assholey shill fucktard Anon. I'm done.
Vesa: If Cheney knows that
Vesa:
If Cheney knows that whatever is coming towards the Pentagon is not really Flight 77 (despite what the lowly military man he is having the conversation with thinks), then of course Cheney has no problem letting an empty vessel hit a practically vacant spot in the Pentagon (as planned).
But I am agnostic to the pentagon, just trying to sift through both sides...
Jon, it's terrific you have
Jon, it's terrific you have Dr. Fetzers ear... and I very much appreciate Dr. Fetzer responding so quickly.
Even if it's "physically impossible" for the plane to fly so close to the ground (which I would like further verification of) I maintain that the previously listed questions need to take predominance in any presentation of Pentagon/911 issues. I wish Dr. Fetzer would see that.
I wrote this to someone at
I wrote this to someone at Boeing just now:
Hello Ms. Angers:
A colleague and I were having a discussion regarding 757s and how low to the ground they can fly. My colleague told me that he heard that a 757 can fly 500MPH a foot or two above ground without any problem.
Can you help settle our debate regarding how low a 757 can fly at such high speeds? If my colleague is not correct to suggest that a 757 can fly a few inches above the ground at 500MPH, then how close to the ground could a 757 fly at 500MPH?
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
I'm going to tweak the
I'm going to tweak the message a bit and send it to this list:
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=483
look at the TIMESTAMP of
look at the TIMESTAMP of this article
DHS | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 10:35 am | #
HOLY COW - they certainly got to press quickly with that story!!! (wink wink)
I got a pretty fast response
I got a pretty fast response from Ms. Angers:
Hi, Don. I no longer handle communications for the 757. It is no longer in production and therefore, communication/PR issues for the airplane are handled by our Commercial Aviation Services organization.
Can you tell me why you and your colleague need to know this information?
I do not have Fetzer's ear.
I do not have Fetzer's ear. I know his email address, and he responds to me. It doesn't appear that he's "listening" to me so I do not have his ear. Sorry for getting involved in this altogether.
"Even the impacts with the
"Even the impacts with the lampposts appear to be fake, because they would have done substantial damage to the plane and probably altered its course."
From pentagonresearch.com:
This limited damage factor is why the FAA requires these type of poles in the "safety zones" around airports and helipads. They recognize that this type of pole minimizes damage to aircraft, "FAA regulation requires any structure located within 250 feet of runway centerline has to be frangible, which means the structure needs to break away when hit by an aircraft to minimize damages to the aircraft and its pilot."
http://pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html
Would this apply in the case of the Pentagon? There was a helipad next to the building, and as I understand, an airport was located fairly close.
Please make Mr Fetzer *and* other 9/11 scholars aware of this fact. It might be a good idea to bring all this into the attention of some other 9/11 scholars, too, to inspire "peer pressure", so to speak. :)
I also read a detailed argument that it is perfectly possible to fly a passenger plane at high speed close to the ground, ie that the ground effect is minimal and easily compensated for. Alas, I failed to archive the source. The author Fetzer quotes, Nila Sagadevan, is not always very accurate, as when he wrote that the pilot of flight 77 would have performed a kamikaze maneuver in an attempt to break the cockpit-intruding terrorists' necks. Well, who would care about the passengers' necks...
Here is my response to Ms.
Here is my response to Ms. Anger, hopefully it is good bait. :-)
Hi Ms. Angers:
Thank you for the prompt reply. I don't think we necessarily "need" to know the information, it was just one of many arguments we have regarding different aspects of science from time and time. However, he did bet me lunch that he was right but we do not know anyone who can confirm or refute his statements, which prompted me to email you. I apologize for any inconvenience, but if anyone you can contact will entertain our curiosity it would be most appreciated (especially if I end up with a free lunch out of it).
Thank you again.
>wreckage, she saw
>wreckage, she saw upholstery she >recognized as well as windows from >the plane, and so on.
Then shall they finally release the pictures/videos or storage location of this wreckage!
There's no dialogue with Bushco. - they don't answer your questions, you just have to believe what they say, just trust them, when they are the most untrustworthy people around.
If a 757 hit the Pentagon, then that would be the first true thing ever told by Bushco.
No actual 757 pilot could comandeer the plane to the position where it allegedly struck, at the speed that it allegedly struck. There has to be a simpler explanation.
I don't get you guys at all!
I don't get you guys at all! To me that video explains some but not all. What about that woman on loose change who states that a bomb went off at 9:32. If this thing was highly organized they needed to weaken the structure there also.
I still don't buy the light pole problem either. The wings should have been shorn off. I just can't understand it otherwise. It's too neat. I don't know what hit the pentagon and I know you guys are afraid the pentagon is a honey pot, but a lot of it still makes little intuitive sense.
Vesa, you said: "the no
Vesa, you said:
"the no plane theory keeps discussion away from the real issues."
I can certainly see a strong argument for that. In fact, at this point I think it's stronger than the "we're hiding the fact that there is no plane hitting the building" theory.
That asia article was
That asia article was terrible. You're delusional to think otherwise. People read only the headlines and the first few lines generally and that writer slandered the truth movement by suggesting write off that it was all about greedy american filmakers. No one read beyond that Im sure.
Note that they put all the real info at the end. It's a quick who, what when where and why and most people don't read beyond that unless very interested.
A bunch of you want to
A bunch of you want to convince everyone that holograms or cartoons struck the 2nd Tower; another bunch wants to convince everyone that AA77 did indeed strike the Pentagon. Is it all the same bunch of disinfo artists peddling this b.s.???
Our latest go 'round... His
Our latest go 'round...
His response to the "I don't know exactly which "rubbish" you're referring to." email...
Jon,
You appear to know no more of my history than I know of yours. I have no objections and actually welcome serious criticism of my work. I am, after all, a professional philosopher. Philosophers thrive on criticism. What I despise is phony criticism, invalid arguments, false premises, and other "rubbish", which seems to crop up in abundance on these blogger sites. In the course of my JFK research, I have been attacked thousands of times. I have even been honored by whole web sites being created just to attack me! I see you as someone who has been taken in by an edited and annotated version of my Ingraham interview, for example, which was such an obvious piece of disinformation intended to tarnish my reputation on that forum that I could not believe you were deceived! Go to st911.org and read the clean but still imcomplete transcript and you will have an entirely different impression. I am arranging for the whole mp3 to be posted there, but it may take a while for technical reasons. Meanwhile, are you a fan of Jim Hoffman? Have you read my pieces about him on st911.org? If not, then you don't have a clue.
Jim
My response...
Jim,
You're obviously taking this correspondence as an "attack" against you. That is not the case. I was just trying to help you refine your arguments for national appearances. Am I a fan of Jim Hoffman? Not particularly. You're talking to someone who has avoided the Controlled Demolition, Pentagon arguments for the better part of my involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have never needed them to prove complicity.
Jon
His response to my, "I haven't been "taken in" by anything. " email...
Jon,
Thanks. This tells me quite a lot about where you are coming from.
Believe what is physically impossible, which is any variation on the official scenario at the Pentagon that approximates the video which you have now endorsed. My stupidity. I took you for your better.
Jim
My final response, and the end of this conversation...
Really Jim? Where am I coming from? If you know, I'd sure like you to tell me. If "where I'm coming from" is different than a normal American citizen who disapproves of their Government murdering 3000 people then please let me know. You don't get it. THIS ISN'T A FUCKING GAME OF WHO'S RIGHT AND WHO'S WRONG, AND WHO'S THEORY IS THE BEST.
WAKE UP.
Jon
The end, and I'm done for the day.
I am extremely worried about
I am extremely worried about the Controlled demolition evidence being released so late. It seems to me that if Rove is creating his own reality, watch that the highjackers are lousy pilots but great demolition experts who brought down those buildings and that the lousy 9/11 truthers were right, but have scared the public unnecessarily. The backlash on truthers would be tremendous. I wish Jones had released before anyone had time to counter the argument.
My new reply from
My new reply from Boeing:
I'll forward your e-mail note to the appropriate department, but please understand that resource constraints may prevent a response to your question.
it's like pulling teeth to
it's like pulling teeth to get anything from boeing.
Jon, I'm NOT sorry you got
Jon, I'm NOT sorry you got involved... your exchange underlines the challenge we have in clarifying the issue with Dr. Fetzer. Thank you for your efforts.
DHS... nice work. Jon, DHS and others: you inpire me to get more active. My new goal is: 3% posting, 97% action.
"I still don't buy the light
"I still don't buy the light pole problem either. The wings should have been shorn off. I just can't understand it otherwise. It's too neat."
This limited damage factor is why the FAA requires these type of poles in the "safety zones" around airports and helipads. They recognize that this type of pole minimizes damage to aircraft, "FAA regulation requires any structure located within 250 feet of runway centerline has to be frangible, which means the structure needs to break away when hit by an aircraft to minimize damages to the aircraft and its pilot."
http://pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html
http://news.moneycentral.msn.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=AP&Da...
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - New Jersey's courts didn't open Monday, lottery ticket sales shut down, and the same could happen to betting at race tracks and the Atlantic City casinos. By Wednesday, state parks and beaches could also be closed.
As the first weekweek under a state government shutdown began, more than half the state work force was off the job and those who were working might not get paid.
>It seems to me that if Rove
>It seems to me that if Rove is >creating his own reality, watch that >the highjackers are lousy pilots but >great demolition experts
No. The opposite is true. The official 9/11 version is like a house of cards: if one part of it is untrue, the rest falls, too.
But they will stonewall every effort to get at the truth to the utmost of their power, as long as they have control of Congress and the WhiteHouse
What were the so-called
What were the so-called "frangible" light poles made of, paper??? How did they knock the crap out of cars but not rip off some plane wing @ 530 mph???
That new animation of the
That new animation of the Pentagon is garbage. I don't know why Alex Jones would even post it.
Again, please keep posting
Again, please keep posting Fetzer and other 9/11 scholars about these issues. The Scholars cannot afford, and the movement cannot allow them, to speak based on lax research.
Some have argued that the five lamp posts were exploded to imitate a plane hitting them. They would have needed to be exploded both at the bottom and in the middle -- see the photographs on the right side of this page:
http://pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html
Really, I find that an absurd scenario, especially as all eyewitnesses who actually saw something talk about some kind of a plane:
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
http://pentagonresearch.com/eye.html
The lamp post explosion scenario is summed up at Pentagonresearch.com as follows:
"If there was no plane or an aircraft with a wingspan of less than 100 feet then the light pole damage would still have to be accounted for. The no plane proponents suggest a faking of this damage. I will just list the implications of this scenario since I have not come across a realistic explanation for how this could have been done.
1) The perpetrators would have to have decided on what type of aircraft and what the wingspan of the "imaginary" plane would be in advance.
2) They would have to have agreed on a flight-path and predetermined the poles to be "damaged".
3) They would have to have had caused the poles to break up high and at the base assuming an imaginary altitude for the aircraft.
4) They would have to have had total control of all witnesses in the area including suppressing the witnesses who noticed the poles falling for no reason.
5) They would have to have had briefed the controlled witnesses on the type of plane, the flight-path, the poles being hit and the change to the engine sound.
6) They would have to have synchronized the falling of the poles with the explosion at the wall.
That gives just some idea of what you are up against in a no plane scenario. Keep in mind when you look at the photos in the sidebars there is no evidence of explosives at the upper break or the base of the poles. Also, remember they would have gone to all of this trouble to account for about 12 feet of altitude. Why not just say the plane came in at a slightly steeper angle?"
http://pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html
Jon, perhaps you should
Jon, perhaps you should leave Fetzer alone re: the Pentagon. You have a very weak grasp of that subject.
Anonymous said: " That new
Anonymous said: " That new animation of the Pentagon is garbage. I don't know why Alex Jones would even post it."
Interesting comment, Anon. Care to back-up your claim with some facts and references? I'm always ready to learn.
Dear Mr. Gold. All theories
Dear Mr. Gold. All theories should be considered valid. None of us really knows the truth and discounting one view over another makes no sense.
No one knows everything. Only together may we find the truth.
Vesa, who the hell really
Vesa, who the hell really knows what sorts of drones, missiles, modified airliners, etc. the gov't had as its disposal to pull off that bullshit at the Pentagon.
It's becoming too important for some of you to buy the "official story" that AA77 struck the Pentagon. It did NOT.
this is frustrating as
this is frustrating as hell.
there's no infighting on the other side.
Fetzer's last two
Fetzer's last two comments.
In response to my, "Really Jim?" email...
Listen, A Cessna at full throttle could not come closer to the ground than about 15 feet! Think about a huge airliner at 400 mph. Not even close. I cannot abide that someone I have taken to be so smart could be so dumb! I
assure you I know the stakes. I am commiting my life to dealing with them. But to find someone who falls for shit like a phony animation and who does not understanding that laws of nature--like the freezing point of water or the melting point of steel or the hottest temperature that can be attained by a jet-fuel based fire or the lowest altitude that a plane can reach at high speed--cannot be violated and cannot be changed, even after they have been explained to him!, does the search for truth no damn good! As long as
you don't grasp these things, you are part of the problem, not the solution.
His response to my "You're obviously taking this correspondence as an "attack" against you." email...
Jon,
I'm not taking it as an attack on me. I get them all the time. I am quite disillusioned that someone of your calibre would fall for demonstrable false arguments about my interviews and the Pentagon flight, even after they have
been pointed out to you. I am lamenting your very low learning trajectory!
You are a good man who doesn't believe his own "lying eyes"! That's all.
Jim
I'm not responding because as Anonymous said above, I have a "very weak grasp of that subject".
I don't understand why someone would promote arguments that make us look like FOOLS.
That is the extent of my "very weak grasp of that subject".
Allow me to educate you
Allow me to educate you then, Alex. See that massive fireball of whatever blew-up the Pentagon in any & all the pics/videos??? It is said to be an aircraft zooming in at 530 mph, correct???
How the f*ck could anyone have IDÂ’ed 63 of 64 passengers using DNA or any other method??? How could any biological samples survive that devastation??? These invented DNA results were fabricated as proof that AA77 & passengers stuck the Pentagon. ItÂ’s total bullshit!
"Dear Mr. Gold. All theories
"Dear Mr. Gold. All theories should be considered valid."
Such as Holograms, Pods, etc...?
I think not.
And incidentally, my quote,
And incidentally, my quote, "No one knows everything, only together may we find the truth" is a statement of unity. It is not meant to be used as a divisive statement as you did.
Good day.
Good day.
How did Hani Hajour fly
How did Hani Hajour fly several hundred miles back from Kentucky? How did Hanjour make those amazing acrobatics???
Why hide the other 80+ videos for five years?
Stop the bullshit!
Jon, nothing personal, but
Jon, nothing personal, but you suck on the Pentagon.
I know NOTHING of aircraft
I know NOTHING of aircraft and trajectory and all that jazz, but would the poles just sort of bend over and land close to where they were anchored in the ground as shown in that video?
I know NOTHING of aircraft
I know NOTHING of aircraft and trajectory and all that jazz, but would the poles just sort of bend over and land close to where they were anchored in the ground as shown in that video?
I don't know, but if ducks nearly rip the wings off planes, I would think metal poles would do extremely severe damage.
http://www.rawstory.com/showa
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwfrv.com%2Fwisc...
What was that 25-minute
What was that 25-minute Barbara Olson cell phone call to her husband b.s.?
Many of you jerks are
Many of you jerks are willing to believe that the 2nd plane at the WTC was a hologram or cartoon, you know, the plane seen, heard, photographed & videod by thousands of people; but the unseen, totally mysterious object at the Pentagon, oh, that was AA77. Sure.
Get out of my face with that junk reasoning.
end => end up
end => end up
I've been looking into 9/11
I've been looking into 9/11 for a while now, and my views about what happened at the pentagon have changed. I've talked to Russell Pickering of http://www.pentagonresearch.com
and his site definately has the most comprehensive research on the subject. I think now that a plane did hit the pentagon, but that the exit hole and the collapse of the outer wall was made with explosives.
Hani Hanjour could not have been the pilot. The plane may have been smaller, but it is hard to know the exact size or model. The most credable eyewitness in my opinion is loyd the cab driver. I'm telling this third hand now (russel told me) that he was more concered with his cab than looking at the plane, but that the plane had 2 engines and was big like ones at the airport. This guy is just some random cab driver, and he saw a plane. He also commented on how small the hole was and that there were other explosions.
So the reason for them holding back the video footage could be that it would show an airplane, but it would prove that it wasn't flight 77.
In any case, the evidence will seem to contradict itself, and the overall argument is far weaker that evidence for controlled demolition, and even United 93.
I still do think that anything to get people talking about 9/11 is good, but it's better to talk about the trade center towers and WTC 7 as a public arguement.
I still don't think i know what really happened at the pentagon, but we shouldn't go playing in their backyard. Of all the aspects of 9/11, they have the most control over the pentagon, so we have to be careful. We need to go after them where we know they're weak and can't be proven wrong.
My site just got posted on st911.org as the first link on their site. Check it out, send me some feedback or things i should add/change, error check, etc.
http://www.truth911.net
Jon have you ever seen a
Jon have you ever seen a large commercial plane land. It approaches at an ANGLE, YES ANGLE.
It cannot travel for hundreds of feet parralel to the ground as the simulation suggests. Only military jets can do that.
This thread reminds of the
This thread reminds of the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian.
There are three groups fight each other:
The People's Judean Front
The Front of Judean Peoples
The People's Judean Front
When some calm observer asks:
"Shouldn't we join together and fight the Romans?"
The mob of Judeans shout, "No no . . .we could never beat the Romans, they are too strong".
http://www.911studies.com/911
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies8.htm
proof the us government photoshopped pictures of the 9-11 incident of the pentagon
i suggest you give jack white his due, he nailed the government
>Many of you jerks are
>Many of you jerks are willing to >believe that the 2nd plane at the >WTC >was a hologram or cartoon, you >know, >the plane seen, heard, >photographed &
Only a few 'freaks' are trying to prove video fake at the WTC. But they have a point in that the witnesses are few, especially for the first plane, especially for a city as populated as NYC. Almost no one saw the first plane.
Here's a good smoking
Here's a good smoking gun.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO INVESTIGATE 9/11
Here's another smoking gun.
WHEN THEY WERE FORCED TO INVESTIGATE 9/11, THEY IMPROPERLY FUNDED THE INVESTIGATION, THEY STACKED THE COMMISSION IN FAVOR OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, THEY PUT A BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION, THEY IGNORED THE MAJORITY OF QUESTIONS PUT FORWARD BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THE WHITE HOUSE VETTED THE REPORT BEFORE ITS' RELEASE.
Another smoking gun.
THE STAFFERS OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION SAID THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE CHENEY'S VERSION OF EVENTS THAT DAY.
Another smoking gun.
NO ONE BENEFITTED FROM 9/11 MORE THAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Why doesn't anybody ever mention these points?
Why doesn't anybody ever
Why doesn't anybody ever mention these points?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 1:00 pm | #
They aren't as sexy as bombs and missles.
NO ONE BENEFITTED FROM 9/11
NO ONE BENEFITTED FROM 9/11 MORE THAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Larry Silverstein benefitted more than just about anyone. And so did the right-wing in Israel. That's not to say the Bush admin did not, but why leave out the obvious, Jon?
I read somewhere that the
I read somewhere that the accountants who would have handled the missing $2.6 trillion (yes, trillion with a t) that Rummy announced was missing on 9/10/01, were seated in the newly-renovated area of the Pentagon & many were killed. (anyone have a link?)
round and round the mulberry
round and round the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel........
They also stonewalled for
They also stonewalled for 414 days before intiating the so-called 9/11 investigation. Gee, any evidence trail wouldn't have gotten cold by the, would it. What a joke.
"I don't know, but if ducks
"I don't know, but if ducks nearly rip the wings off planes, I would think metal poles would do extremely severe damage."
Once again:
This limited damage factor is why the FAA requires these type of poles in the "safety zones" around airports and helipads. They recognize that this type of pole minimizes damage to aircraft, "FAA regulation requires any structure located within 250 feet of runway centerline has to be frangible, which means the structure needs to break away when hit by an aircraft to minimize damages to the aircraft and its pilot."
http://pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html
How many times do I need to repeat this for you to actually pay attention?
Also, I'm not saying that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. I'm saying that some kind of an airplane did, and its width was a minimum of 100 feet and a maximum of 140 feet:
"The minimum wingspan required to create the pole damage was approximately 100 feet. The maximum wingspan before you would have had additional poles impacted is approximately 140 feet."
Same page as linked above.
Whatever plane hit the Pentagon, I don't think Hani Hanjour drove it. Perhaps it was remote-controlled.
I'm also saying that the no plane at Pentagon is a completely unsupported notion and causes damage to the movement.
" NO ONE BENEFITTED FROM
" NO ONE BENEFITTED FROM 9/11 MORE THAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Larry Silverstein benefitted more than just about anyone. And so did the right-wing in Israel. That's not to say the Bush admin did not, but why leave out the obvious, Jon?"
Larry Silverstein made a lot of money. Israel got what it wanted, the U.S. in the Middle East for their protection.
The Bush Administration:
1. Used 9/11 for both wars.
2. Used 9/11 to torture.
3. Used 9/11 to make money for Halliburton, Bechtel, The Carlyle Group, and many other corporations.
4. Used 9/11 to take away our civil liberties.
5. Used 9/11 to win the 2004 election.
6. Used 9/11 ANYTIME the administration has been questioned on any of its' nefarious policy decisions.
I'm sure the list goes on, but NO ONE benefitted more from 9/11 than the Bush Administration.
Oh, so these magical poles
Oh, so these magical poles do little no damage to airliners @ 530 mph??? Get lost.
I'm also saying that the no plane at Pentagon is a completely unsupported notion and causes damage to the movement.
Ok, so just word it properly: AA77 did not strike the Pentagon.
"AA77 did not strike the
"AA77 did not strike the Pentagon."
How about this?
"I don't know what hit the Pentagon because the Government won't release the 84 videos in existence."
It IS ok to say you don't
It IS ok to say you don't know something rather than present something speculative as fact.
Sorry, I just want these
Sorry, I just want these people to STFU about AA77 & passengers striking the Pentagon. Overwhelming evidence indicates that it did NOT strike the Pentagon, so why promote the "official story."
Because why? Because it's
Because why? Because it's not our job to answer the unanswered questions. It's our job to make them answer the unanswered questions.
"Sorry, I just want these
"Sorry, I just want these people to STFU about AA77 & passengers striking the Pentagon."
And I would like people to STFU about something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. I guess you can't always get what you want.
"Overwhelming evidence indicates that it did NOT strike the Pentagon, so why promote the "official story."
THEN WHY THE FUCK ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON?!?
I will say this just one more time. You do not need the argument of "what hit the Pentagon" in order to prove complicity.
R said: this is frustrating
R said:
this is frustrating as hell.
there's no infighting on the other side.
***
Another hint that there are motives for doing so...
"Another hint that there are
"Another hint that there are motives for doing so..."
Sorry Sitting-Bull... my aggression stems from my discussion with Fetzer, and people's insistence that we should only focus on the towers, and the Pentagon.
Jon, Nice go-around with
Jon,
Nice go-around with Fetzer - now you see what he's like. His goal, it seems -- that is, if someone doesn't agree with no plane at the Pentagon -- is to infuriate them, cut them down to the point where they blow up with personal attacks. It's what he wants. He's one of these people that thrives on hostile interactions. At the same time, however, he fawns over Steve Jones, protecting him from attacks by people like Holmgren and the Webfairy, taking on the media for Jones when Jones couldn't, etc. It seems pathological to me.
Whether or not you support Hoffman's theories, it's also obvious that Fetzer seems obsessed with discrediting Hoffman, saying things like how they can't both be 'for real' etc., and then interjects his name into virtually every discussion. Why? You have to wonder when someone who is promoting the weakest points and won't listen to reason or criticism and then is constantly trying to discredit another 9/11 researcher.
People need to speak up on that whether they agree with Hoffman's points or not. Constantly trying to attack one researcher is wrong for any 9/11 researcher to be doing. Critiques are one thing, but constantly trying to discredit people personally is not academic.
"War" has not been
"War" has not been officially declared yet, right?
Oh, so these magical poles
Oh, so these magical poles do little no damage to airliners @ 530 mph??? Get lost.
"FAA regulation requires any structure located within 250 feet of runway centerline has to be frangible, which means the structure needs to break away when hit by an aircraft to minimize damages to the aircraft and its pilot."
http://www.dodsbir.net/sitis/archives_display_topic.asp?Bookmark=28508
Moreover, it appears that smoke was emitted from a motor of the plane that hit the Pentagon as a result of lamppost damage. So perhaps damage was done.
"I'm also saying that the no plane at Pentagon is a completely unsupported notion and causes damage to the movement.
Ok, so just word it properly: AA77 did not strike the Pentagon."
There is no proof of that.
There is proof that a plane hit the Pentagon.
>questions. It's our job to
>questions. It's our job to make them >answer the unanswered questions.
>Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.03.06 - >1:32 pm | #
Many just want to find out the truth of what happened, so if a reasonable explanation for the Pentagon could be found, supported by new evidence (a la 'Barbara Olson alive' by TomFlocco.com) it would be sufficient to give some their peace back, whether or not it's the official truth in Washington.
And trying to get anything changed in the MSM and Congress seems ever more impossible, given that they all know it by now but all conspire to continue the cover-up.
if they were made to easily
if they were made to easily break away, wouldn't the poles have ended up hundreds of feet away after being whacked at that speed?
it's amazing to think that small details like this pole discussion/disagreement would make the other side say "SEE! YOUR STORY HOLDS NO WEIGHT!" yet the OFFICIAL story is total bullshit and NO ONE in the mainstream or in a political position even question it.
I'm pissed at the high profile politicians that KNOW the truth or parts of the truth and do NOTHING.
Disgraceful Americans.
And the fact is that five
And the fact is that five lamp poles were knocked off their base and cut in the middle. This is consistent with a fast-moving object hitting them.
If someone says that no plane hit the Pentagon, he or she needs to explain what caused this damage to the poles. A missile could not have done that -- unless, of course, it was one of those zigzag missiles (TM). Were the poles exploded from their bases and in the middle in tight synch with something else than a plane hitting the Pentagon?
I think the idea of exploding the lamp poles to imitate a plane hitting them is absurd, especially when all the eyewitness testimony is taken into account.
like a sword cutting a thin
like a sword cutting a thin wooden pole. the top of the pole would drop to the ground close to the base.
I get where you're coming from.
"if they were made to easily
"if they were made to easily break away, wouldn't the poles have ended up hundreds of feet away after being whacked at that speed?"
If you cut something with a scythe, does it end even meters away? No, it doesn't. The energy is directed at cutting the object, not throwing it far away.
And again: the poles WERE cut at the width of 100 feet. What caused them to be cut?
truth911.net, Lloyd the
truth911.net, Lloyd the cabbie is a joke.
A plane whizzes past his cabbie, tearing up a lightpost and throwing it on his cab. Lloyd stops his cab gets out and starts manhandling that post off the cab. Another car stops and the driver proceeds to help Lloyd. THEN they hear an explosion and see that flash.
Now; did it take Lloyd and that other driver just a second or so the manage what they did BEFORE they allegedly witnessed the Pentagon event or did it take them say 30 seonds or a minute? Remember that plane was going at 700-800 feet per second as per the official story. :)
You can´t have it both
You can´t have it both ways. Either that explosive event took place thousands of feet from where those chaps were located or they have superhuman speed. :)
As far as I understand your
As far as I understand your concerns getting the truth out, for me it is just circumstancial, how they did it en detail. All speculation leads to nowhere, besides the goal of endless discussions.
We can argue to our life-end, without ever trace the truth,
and so please do believe that this was one of their intentions as they drove their plans.
We do not have to proof or speculate how they did it. Basta.
911 was an inside job. That's what nobody who look into the facts can dismiss. And this is the point we should all sing in choir.
I wonder if those guys could
I wonder if those guys could do an animation with a skywarrior. Wonder if the same damage would apply.
That could account for the close-to-ground approach and the possible tail being visible.
As long as we're on the
As long as we're on the internet asking the same questions, and repeatedly arguing over the same points, we are contained, and not a threat. It is time to get outside people. It is time to start doing what you can off of the internet.
Now That You Know, What Can You Do?
And if you're old, handicapped, or just plain lazy, this is for you.
Jon & Vesa a talking
Jon & Vesa a talking nonsense about AA77 having struck the Pentagon.
Vesa--"frangible" poles softer than a duck's ass? Any metal light-pole is still going to jack-up a B-757 @ 530 mph!
Jon, stop promoting the Pentagon b.s. story as a shill would.
Both of you, htf did they ID the passengers who slammed through concrete walls @ 530 mph??? If you can't answer that, then maybe you should both STFU about the Pentagon.
i don't know what you have
i don't know what you have against Lloyd the cab driver. I think you don't understand his story. Russel talked to him for a long time, and i've talked to russel, and what happened was (as far as i remember), the plane flew over his cab, hitting a light pole which hit his cab. He saw an airplane, a 2 engine plane like at the airports. Then the white car stopped to help him, but then there was another explosion (probably several minutes after the plane hit). He then was told he had to leave his car and walk away from the area in case there were more explosions.
Rigth on SB. All we have to
Rigth on SB. All we have to do is demonstrate that the official story doesn't add up and there is a big cover-up in order to have a really independant investigation on every and all the matter that surround 911 and then, the details will show up. I don't understand why truthers try to demonstrate silly theory instead of QUESTIONNING the administration and the media. I just don't get it. ?!?!?
"Jon, stop promoting the
"Jon, stop promoting the Pentagon b.s. story as a shill would."
Listen fucktard, either tell me who you are, or shut the fuck up Anon.
I wonder if they could do an
I wonder if they could do an animation of them DNA-ing 63 of the 64 passangers too?
thanks for those activist
thanks for those activist links, jon.
Let's see, I'm going to tell
Let's see, I'm going to tell Jon Gold, someone who RELENTLESSLY fights for this cause what he can and can't do, and I'm going to remain Anonymous while doing so.
S-T-F-U.
You're a real asshole or a
You're a real asshole or a shill (or both) on the Pentagon, Jon.
Hey, check out this high
Hey, check out this high res. video of WTC7. Best video of the collapse by far. JUST LOOK AT THE WALLS GIVE WAY!
http://www.knowordie.co.uk/WTC7.avi
And to think, I got this video from a debunking site! http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/overp.htm
I asked you a direct
I asked you a direct question: HTF did they ID the passengers who slammed through concrete walls @ 530 mph???
"You're a real asshole or a
"You're a real asshole or a shill (or both) on the Pentagon, Jon."
Because I don't promote theories about it that bring up questions like, "Well, then what happened to the passengers?"
Who's the assholey shill fucktard Anon? Shut the fuck up.
"I asked you a direct
"I asked you a direct question: HTF did they ID the passengers who slammed through concrete walls @ 530 mph???"
The same way they ID passengers that slam into the ground at 530mph.
Hey the fighting and name
Hey the fighting and name calling ain't doing anybody any good.
"Answer the question! Why so
"Answer the question! Why so nervous?"
The same way they ID passengers that slam into the ground at 530mph.
I believe that's twice I answered your question assholey shill fucktard Anon. Good day.
"Hey the fighting and name
"Hey the fighting and name calling ain't doing anybody any good."
You are correct.
truth911.net, you sound real
truth911.net, you sound real desperate to support the official Pentagon fable. Stick to the nonsense from Lloyd the cabbie, don't reinvent it.
The same way they ID
The same way they ID passengers that slam into the ground at 530mph.
Bullshit! An explosion, huge fireball, enourmous busted walls, no plane left, 63 of 64 people IDed with DNA.
You are a fool to believe (and promote) this bullshit!!!
The pentagon incident is the
The pentagon incident is the soft underbelly of the official 9/11 nonsense, which is why so many disinfo artists are diverting your attention from it.
Jon, you seem to have a
Jon, you seem to have a strong agenda to protect the official Pentagon fable.
Why can't you just say you don't know what happened at the Pentagon? Why do you need to slyly endorse the official lie?
I don't think the majority
I don't think the majority of the people here believe (or promote) bullshit more then you.
Why can't "I don't know what hit the pentagon" be a good enough answer for some people?
Why do you need to slyly
Why do you need to slyly endorse the official lie?
Anonymous | 07.03.06 - 2:55 pm | #
________________________________________________________________________________
What the hell does that mean?
I know, I usually agree with
I know, I usually agree with Jon on 98% of things, but I just can NOT let him slide on this Pentagon bullshit.
Mikejr, that's what I'm
Mikejr, that's what I'm saying.
Why can't Jon just say he's not sure about the Pentagon, why does he have to imply that AA77 struck it, thus supporting the "official story"?
The pentagon incident is the
The pentagon incident is the soft underbelly of the official 9/11 nonsense, which is why so many disinfo artists are diverting your attention from it.
Blob | 07.03.06 - 2:53 pm
_________________________---
Seems to me the disinfo artists can't get passed the pentagon and look at the countless number of other incriminating evidence.
Anon, I can see both sides
Anon,
I can see both sides of the coin on the pentagon.
BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.
We'll all see who's wrong, if they ever release the tapes.
The authors of the official
The authors of the official nonsense refure to join the discussion of their fairy tales. Until that criminal garbage is forced to start talking this case won´t go anywhere. But then again they're not likely to help facilitating their own execution.
"What the hell does that
"What the hell does that mean?"
It means Anonymous is someone the movement should avoid.
Please don't come back at me
Please don't come back at me with 50 reasons why you don't think flight 77 hit the pentagon. Cuz, I done heard them all.
Scores of disinfo agents
Scores of disinfo agents must eventually be executed along with the perpetrators of the scam. There simply will be no way around this.
I find Fetzer's position
I find Fetzer's position regarding Hoffman childish.
To suggest that one of them must be a disinfo agent is just paranoid lunacy.
Whether or not a plane hit the pentagon is not the issue at hand - neither is the number of seconds which it took the towers to fall. Neither Hoffman or Fetzer are experts regarding these matters so why should we care what they argue?
What is of importance is the ability of each of them to argue accurately and sensibly citing facts when they are in the public eye.
In this matter Hoffman is far superior - anyone who has seen his talk on '9/11 guilt' or heard his radio appearances will know this. He is able to cite detailed facts from memory, something Fetzer generally lacks.
Don't get me wrong, Fetzer was great on Hannity and Colmes and could be an asset to the movement. He has an excellent arguing style/ voice and he's assertive.
These two need to stop their petty feud and learn from each other. Fetzer could benefit from Hoffman's precision with facts and Hoffman could benefit from Fetzer's charisma and style.
As for the pentagon/ collapse time issues, they should simply continue in a mature academic discourse in an attempt to find the truth.
C'mon guys - we're all friends here!
;)
"THE FAIRY TALE FROM
"THE FAIRY TALE FROM HELL"
http://youtube.com/results? searc...e=search_videos
DHS
_______________--
Thanks DHS, I've been checking these out.
Jon, I think you've been
Jon, I think you've been working too hard. Take a rest. Go see a movie. Maybe Flight 93 is still playing. You believe in that shit anyway.
ben, you can´t be
ben, you can´t be serious.
Whether or not a plane hit the pentagon is not the issue?
The issue is whether the official story is true or false. If it's false then that means that they're covering up for the real perpetrators or are themselves culpable. No way around this I'm afraid.
"Jon, I think you've been
"Jon, I think you've been working too hard. Take a rest. Go see a movie. Maybe Flight 93 is still playing. You believe in that shit anyway."
As I said, someone the movement should avoid. To say that I believe in the official account regarding 93 is a blatant lie. Too bad we don't know which Anon this is, or what his real name is, or what his agenda is.
Come on man, at least give
Come on man, at least give us a name! Stop hiding behind Anonymous.
Please don't come back at me
Please don't come back at me with 50 reasons why you don't think flight 77 hit the pentagon. Cuz, I done heard them all.
MikeJr. | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 3:02 pm | #
Okay, so how about believing AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, until THEY prove it did???
I'm done arguing with an
I'm done arguing with an "Anonymous" individual.
THE PEOPLE WHO PREPARED THE
THE PEOPLE WHO PREPARED THE OFFICIAL 911 NONSENSE MUST JOIN THE DISCUSSION OF THEIR FABLES. UNTIL THEY DO THE DISCUSSION WON'T GO ANYWHERE.
"Come on man, at least give
"Come on man, at least give us a name! Stop hiding behind Anonymous."
That is his/her protection. Fat chance of that happening.
Jon, you sound like a shill
Jon, you sound like a shill today. What's up with you? Snap out of it already.
You know my name. You know
You know my name. You know what I think. You know the arguments I make. You know the effort I put behind this. I'm not the one who has something prove here.
"Jon, you sound like a shill
"Jon, you sound like a shill today. What's up with you? Snap out of it already."
Exactly.
I'm the anon who refuses to
I'm the anon who refuses to believe or promote that AA77 hit the Pentagon. That's all you need to know for now.
HOWEVER; ONCE THE AUTHORS OF
HOWEVER; ONCE THE AUTHORS OF THE 911 FABLES JOIN THE DISCUSSION THEIR FABLES WILL SOON COLLAPSE AND THEY WILL BE ON DEATH ROW FOR HIGH TREASON. SO, THIS IS THE HUGE OBSTACLE.
Okay, so how about believing
Okay, so how about believing AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon, until THEY prove it did???
Anonymous | 07.03.06 - 3:07 pm | #
_________________________
Because I've heard all the reasons why AA77 DID hit the pentagon. I told you, I see both sides on this issue. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON. I WILL KNOW WHEN THEY RELEASE ALL OF THE VIDEO!
Gentlemen, Perhaps we are
Gentlemen,
Perhaps we are being played off each other?
Consider this technique someone over at DemocraticUnderground stumbled across posted at the FreeRepublic;
______________________________-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032299/posts
Lynn Stulter -- The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "Lay, or community, participation in the decision-making process, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."
A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid., p. 123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.
1. The "change agent" or "facilitator" goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on.
2. While she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument - the "weak or non-committal."
3. Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." He/she dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, he/she manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." He/she wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate.
4. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.
5. The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. He/she will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.
The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect this is happening, they do not know how to end the process.
This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.
"I'm the anon who refuses to
"I'm the anon who refuses to believe or promote that AA77 hit the Pentagon. That's all you need to know for now."
Jim? Jim is that you?
Come on guys, before they
Come on guys, before they recycled that ridiculous Pentagon video, shills here told you that you'd look silly when that useless video came out. Those shills are still singing the same tune.
Maybe reprehensor, maybe?
Maybe reprehensor, maybe?
The people who prepared the
The people who prepared the official bunk must be forced to discuss their bunk. It's as simple as that. Until this happens they'll continue siccing shills on the 911 truth movement. And why shouldn't they? Who wants to be executed for high treason? :)
Ummmm, I remember people
Ummmm, I remember people being damn happy at hearing they was going to release a new pentagon video. Thinking it was finnaly going to end this debate once and for all.
We all know how that turned out.
But I will say, it is damn suspicious!
Come on guys, before they
Come on guys, before they recycled that ridiculous Pentagon video, shills here told you that you'd look silly when that useless video came out. Those shills are still singing the same tune.
Blob | 07.03.06 - 3:14 pm | #
i know some people in the movement were praying that the video would be clear and prove how right they were for staying away from the questions about the Pentagon,but even Bill O'Reilly had to admit the video didnt prove shit.
I feel this fighting is my
I feel this fighting is my fault. I'm sorry I posted the link now. :-(
Good thing dz didn't read my feedback and post the study in its own thread.
Maybe I'll just hit up the
Maybe I'll just hit up the arcade.
http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/arcade.php?
>>why does he have to imply
>>why does he have to imply that AA77 struck it, thus supporting the "official story"?
It doesn't support the official story. That's the classic tactic of the no-planers, to equate anyone saying the plane was AA77 with supporting 'the official story.' In reality, those supporting AA77 are not supporting the official story in all other ways, so to say that they are is simply a smear effort.
The most important question about the Pentagon crash is WHY any crash ever was allowed to happen in the first place. No plane of any kind ever should have been able to hit it in the first place, and with ZERO warning to anyone in the building. That was a complete set-up. BUT . . . because Thierry Meyssan, Holmgren, Killtown, Serendipity, In Plane Site, Webfairy, and others created the 'missile/drone/truck bomb' hype early on, everyone ONLY focused on how a plane didn't hit, not these other key points that could have really moved us forward.
The Mineta testimony shows that they knew. We should be focusing on the war games, Mineta testimony, which side that was hit, the lack of any warning at all to the building inhabitants, etc.
Those positions are NOT supporting the official story, but most no-plane supporters only care about proving a missile/drone, so they'll deride anyone who doesn't support their position with baseless attacks, or, like Fetzer, personal attacks.
That's what's holding back our movement - the idea that a plane didn't hit, and the people who have to scream about that over and over to the exclusion of anything else, instead of focusing on the really strong stuff. If you haven't yet proved 'no plane,' 5 years on, let it go for the sake of the rest of the important points. While you're sitting there in your armschair saying, "I won't believe the plane hit until I see video a, b and c," the official version is rolling on ahead of us with no real attention to the Mineta testimony, the fact that the building never should have been hit by anything, the fact that there was no warnig at all, the fact that the commission made up a timeline, etc. Because all the MSM needs to say is, "Those crazy conspiracy theorists even think that a plane didn't hit there! Where did all the passengers go?" And that's all they have to do over and over and over so that Mineta is never talked about, nor are the war games or the Commission's timeline.
reader... do I know you? If
reader... do I know you? If so, email me at Gold9472@comcast.net
It may be too complicated
It may be too complicated for some people to comprehend but until the authors of the official fables are forced to join the discussion the case won´t get anywhere.
Thanks reader!
Thanks reader!
The wisdom of
The wisdom of 'reader'.
Don't you get it, drone-missile-cgi-hugger????
http://911conspiracysmasher.b
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/
A new blog to trash 'conspiracy theorists'
Maybe reprehensor,
Maybe reprehensor, maybe?
MikeJr. | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 3:15 pm | #
Uh, no. What I'm trying to point out is basically the same point that I tried to make in the Zwicker "Canada Day" post ... the defenders of the OCT study us.
They identify the points on the curve that divide us.
They amplify those points, and encourage division. They put on a white hat and egg us on.
While you/me/they are arguing with someone who is generally on your/our side, about minutae, I suspect plans are afoot for an even bigger "incident".
Arguing about facets of the old scam while a new scam brews, is unproductive. That includes arguing about technique, or, "points for style".
Some, (most?), of you will disagree. That's fine. I beg those of you who disagree to consider Zwicker again;
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/barrie-zwicker-on-agents-of-state_01.html
Watch his presentation. He comes across as 100% legitimate to me. Yes, he loses it on Chomsky at the end, he admits his failing there.
We are only human.
Quick question: A couple of
Quick question: A couple of months ago a Japanese journalists association held a meeting on 9/11 truth, where the members concluded that the U.S. media has done a horrible job of covering 9/11.
Anyone have the link?
reprehensor... I love
reprehensor... I love Barrie, and have a tremendous amount of respect for him, and think he is one of our best speakers. I hope by my "assholey shill fucktard" remarks you aren't swayed to think that I am one of "them". ;)
We are only
We are only human.
__________
True.
Why are some many worried
Why are some many worried about the Pentagon backfiring in our faces. If the government had something to shut us up they would have used it by now in order to kill the movement. The longer they go without addressing us the more momentum we get. And I don't care how vurnerable people think we are with flight 77. If it gets people talking about 9/11 I'm all for discussing it.
GeorgeWashington, did you
GeorgeWashington, did you get this William Odom link?
“The hypocrisy is deeper than this. By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism- in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00259.htm
GW, Do you know what year
GW,
Do you know what year that meeting took place? And maybe where?
Gold and others: You're
Gold and others:
You're taking quite a lot of flack here by not choosing between Plane/No plane. The question should have been, could easily have been, answered by the NTSB, FBI, or DOD releasing the physical and forensic evidence years ago. Instead, by their unintelligible decision NOT TO, the Government is now simply culpable of inducing speculation and devision across the Union.
Lamp polls, rotor sections, vague debris photos, ground-effect, pilot vs. droned flight paths and even a reinforced building holding up so well when encountering a 20-40 ton "THING"...... All of these cause even ME, a pilot and A+P, trouble to reconcile.
I agree Mr. Gold.... It doesn't matter, and drains our energy.
Lack of air-defense response of any noticeable kind.
Lack of compelling ATC testimony and radar capture play-back.
Lack of sound and honest description of transponder function (role in ATC and Defense), disseminated to the public.
Lack of log book and historical records produced for time-in-service parts linked to ANY specific aircraft in this disaster. (never before in NTSB history).
AA77 or not, the complete failure of the Government to "clear this up" causing great unrest in the public, is still The Governments fault.
...If it gets people talking
...If it gets people talking about 9/11 I'm all for discussing it.
ahern29 | 07.03.06 - 3:55 pm | #
______________________________---
I believe those points are smarter than the pentagone no-plane honey-pot to get people talk about 9/11
1. How did a lousy pilot make that incredible manuever?
2. How could the most protected building in the world (or at least ONE of the most protected) be completely vulnerable to attack?
3. Why did the plane hit the most reinforced/least populated area?
4. Why did the FBI confiscate videos from a surrounding gas station and hotel?
5. Obviously more than 1 video camera focuses on the Pentagon than the parking lot handy-cam. Satellite imagery, and so on. Why haven't the 84 existing videos not been released?
6. Why didn't the 9/11 Commission subpoena them for their release?
7. Shouldn't an "Independent Commission" tasked with giving a "Full & Complete Accounting" of the attacks of 9/11 look at all of the existing evidence?
IMHO.
reader, that was very well
reader,
that was very well put.
Someone implied that if one doesn't believe that all the lamp posts were exploded, one would have to believe that they really DNA'd people. That is a non-sequitur. Of course CLAIMING that they DNA'd almost everyone in the alleged AA 77 supports the official story, REGARDLESS OF whether AA 77 really hit the Pentagon or not.
Although now apparently threatened with execution, I'm not saying that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. I'm not saying that it did, either. There is very strong evidence that some kind of a plane hit the building. It could have been a drone. I don't know.
What I keep wondering is what these Blobs think they can accomplish. Everyone who has come to this forum should be able to see through that kind of behavior. I think the way they argue is counterproductive for their argument.
"GeorgeWashington, did you
"GeorgeWashington, did you get this William Odom link?"
Yes, thank you Isaputon!
Investigation Over 9/11
Investigation Over 9/11 Teachings
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/07/03/madison
So Vesa... "Assholey Shill
So Vesa... "Assholey Shill Fucktard" is no good? I don't follow you. ;)
"GW, Do you know what year
"GW,
Do you know what year that meeting took place? And maybe where?
MikeJr."
Mike, yeah the meeting was this year (2006) in Japan (maybe in Tokyo).
Chris... in a few threads
Chris... in a few threads below you said "it actually looks like its only gonna be LIHOP, sadly." in regards to "9/11: Press For Truth".
It's neither LIHOP or MIHOP. It's just a presentation of the facts as put forward by the media, from the perspective of the family members.
"The pentagon incident is
"The pentagon incident is the soft underbelly of the official 9/11 nonsense"
I remember someone (else?) using almost exactly the same expression a while ago. Perhaps it has been included in some "recommended catch phrases" list?
"Hey, check out this high res. video of WTC7. Best video of the collapse by far. JUST LOOK AT THE WALLS GIVE WAY!"
http://www.knowordie.co.uk/WTC7.avi
Indeed, Mike. I think I can even see some flashes a few seconds into the collapse. Can you spot them? I see them on the front wall, at the right.
I found the Japanese
I found the Japanese journalist thing I was talking about:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=27
That's what's holding back
That's what's holding back our movement - the idea that a plane didn't hit, and the people who have to scream about that over and over to the exclusion of anything else, instead of focusing on the really strong stuff. If you haven't yet proved 'no plane,' 5 years on, let it go for the sake of the rest of the important points. While you're sitting there in your armschair saying, "I won't believe the plane hit until I see video a, b and c," the official version is rolling on ahead of us with no real attention to the Mineta testimony, the fact that the building never should have been hit by anything, the fact that there was no warnig at all, the fact that the commission made up a timeline, etc. Because all the MSM needs to say is, "Those crazy conspiracy theorists even think that a plane didn't hit there! Where did all the passengers go?" And that's all they have to do over and over and over so that Mineta is never talked about, nor are the war games or the Commission's timeline.
reader | 07.03.06 - 3:29 pm | #
WOW. What HE said.
I feel like an idiot now.
He's 100% right.
It's so easy to get off the path.
Thank God for guys/gals? like this and like J. Gold.
That is sincerity...not ass kissing.
"So Vesa... 'Assholey Shill
"So Vesa... 'Assholey Shill Fucktard' is no good? I don't follow you."
You mean expressionwise? My Finnish restraint prevents me from using such language in public. ;-)
1. How did a lousy pilot
1. How did a lousy pilot make that incredible manuever?
Unwise argument to pose, IMHO. MANY an airplane "driver" can be born, with little need of "training" beyond cock-pit lay-out.
2. How could the most protected building in the world (or at least ONE of the most protected) be completely vulnerable to attack?
Better, bugs the shit out of me too.
3. Why did the plane hit the most reinforced/least populated area?
Moot. This questions opens up too much speculation.
4. Why did the FBI confiscate videos from a surrounding gas station and hotel?
Again better. Because it stinks of CYA behavior so soon after a "surprise". Reasonable, in the logic of National Security. But by this time, non of the NS rationales outweigh the Public Right to Know, thereby quashing further unrest in the Union.
5. Obviously more than 1 video camera focuses on the Pentagon than the parking lot handy-cam. Satellite imagery, and so on. Why haven't the 84 existing videos not been released?
Asked, answered.
6. Why didn't the 9/11 Commission subpoena them for their release?
Why weren't they submitted into evidence, even without a request?
7. Shouldn't an "Independent Commission" tasked with giving a "Full & Complete Accounting" of the attacks of 9/11 look at all of the existing evidence?
They most certainly should have.
Now that so much time has
Now that so much time has passed, they have blown most any credibility, should they even try to fix this "first thing tomorrow morning."
Even IF, there was a quick and surprising release of crystal clear videos, the unrest across the Union is damage already done.
Release of such "evidence" now, must be taken as suspect (too many handling and "storage" questions) and subsequently inadmissible as exculpatory evidence releasing the Government of liability for damage done to the Union beyond the original event itself.
9/11 recovery workers:
9/11 recovery workers: ‘Gov’t deceived, abandoned us’
"Thank God for guys/gals?
"Thank God for guys/gals? like this and like J. Gold."
I'm a gal.
Man... do you guys remember
Man... do you guys remember sitting on your couches watching ALL of those people down at Ground Zero, and all of the reports of the massive influx of people coming to help, etc... and thinking... if I was close enough, I would go help to...
BushCo let them all be exposed.
BuchCo hangs for this alone.
In case you haven't read
In case you haven't read it... here are the two pieces I wrote about the environmental disaster regarding 9/11...
A Fallen Hero - Video Inside
The Horror Continues
Both are link intensive.
Very powerful article on the
Very powerful article on the central bankers.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13833.htm
We should never forget where our problems came from in first instance.
QUOTE OF THE DAY. Source:
QUOTE OF THE DAY. Source: DailyKos
Joe Lieberman
"I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party."
---
Do tell!
Why wouldn't Cheney and Bush
Why wouldn't Cheney and Bush testify to the commission under oath and seperately if they had nothing to hide? That is a huge red flag. Ray Mcgovern mentioned this in his interview on electricpolitics.com saying that those two wanting to testify together sounded like two people who wanted to make sure they told the same story or something to that effect. Can't find the interview anymore on the website.
"3. Why did the plane hit
"3. Why did the plane hit the most reinforced/least populated area?
Moot. This questions opens up too much speculation."
Not sure about that. In the book "9/11 Revealed" the reinforced section has been marked in a picture of the Pentagon. It appears to comprise only a narrow segment of the west wall, NOT the entire west wall, and the plane hit right in the middle of THAT. The strike point was also farthest away from where the top brass were. The plane made a 330-degree turn to hit that point of the Pentagon. Griffin regards this as important.
Very powerful article on the
Very powerful article on the central bankers.
http:// www.informationclearingho...rticle13833.htm
We should never forget where our problems came from in first instance.
Sitting-Bull | 07.03.06 - 4:57 pm | #
Reading this article now. I want to weep. Sweet lord.
Sitting Bull "The issue
Sitting Bull
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks." Lord Acton
"I see in the near future a
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.....corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." Abe Lincoln, cartwheeling in his tomb
QUOTE OF THE DAY. Source:
QUOTE OF THE DAY. Source: DailyKos
Joe Lieberman
"I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party."
---
Do tell!
African American | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 5:17 pm | #
HAHAHA, you dont say Joe. he doesnt realize how true that statement is. fuck Lieberman.
Chris... in a few threads
Chris... in a few threads below you said "it actually looks like its only gonna be LIHOP, sadly." in regards to "9/11: Press For Truth".
It's neither LIHOP or MIHOP. It's just a presentation of the facts as put forward by the media, from the perspective of the family members.
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 4:24 pm | #
which is sad, because that means crucial questions wont even make it into the movie, considering the media and Jersey Girls have ignored sustantial amounts of evidence.
substantial*
substantial*
Sitting-Bull: In a recent
Sitting-Bull:
In a recent correspondence with my sister; "My suspicion, is that The Federal Reserve Note and the IRS, MAY overshadow 9.11 later this year, if 9.11 doesn't break the bank first.
Vesa:
I appreciate that Griffin regards this as important. It points to some sense of "self preservation" for the Top Brass.
Can't blame the bastards, and they're still bastards. But I wouldn't rase the point in court, and wonder how much time we could spend on other things. Transponders, anyone?
Erin S. Myers, I'm all ears
Erin S. Myers,
I'm all ears for the transponder stuff you have alluded to whenever you want to lay it out. Enquiring minds want to know.
casseia: Thanks for the
casseia:
Thanks for the interest. I was just having a look here before heading out the door for the eve. Really! I've got a date, thank you very much.
Tomorrow? I've got a demonstration to attend first thing am... If I don't get pinched by The Man, I look for ya in the upper blogs.
Have a good night.
New personal goals I'd like
New personal goals I'd like to share. See what you think:
1. Time use: 911 Truth posting; 3%, 911 truth action: 97%
2. Only make posts that are condusive to constructive action.
3. Never reply to Anonymous cowards, or obvious shills, especially those who make non-referenced statements.
Thanks for looking.
"which is sad, because that
"which is sad, because that means crucial questions wont even make it into the movie, considering the media and Jersey Girls have ignored sustantial amounts of evidence."
You mean the NIST report, and the collapse of building 7?
Wrong.
Larry Silverstein made a lot
Larry Silverstein made a lot of money. Israel got what it wanted, the U.S. in the Middle East for their protection.
The Bush Administration:
1. Used 9/11 for both wars
what the hell, why did 95%
what the hell, why did 95% of my comment not make it into the post?
I'll sum it up. Israel's
I'll sum it up. Israel's dirty little paw prints are all over 9-11.