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

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!

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

Another name not mentioned nearly enough is Paul Craig Roberts, economist for the Reagan administration.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/080206towerscollapse.htm

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.

? 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!

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."

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 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 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 "9/11 THE FAIRY TALE FROM HELL"

http://tyrannyalert.com/800.html

PDF, Video Clips, etc...

= + =
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 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 work?

Where did it go?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#

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 "9/11 THE FAIRY TALE FROM HELL"........Great Job!

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 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 "Annihilating Strike" If Attacked; Threatens Nuclear War

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/010706casestudy.htm

I like this.

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 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 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 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

"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 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.

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 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 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 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 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. 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 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! 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 get anything from boeing.

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 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.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 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 "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 Pentagon is garbage. I don't know why Alex Jones would even post it.

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 leave Fetzer alone re: the Pentagon. You have a very weak grasp of that subject.

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 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 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 hell.
there's no infighting on the other side.

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 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 should be considered valid."

Such as Holograms, Pods, etc...?

I think not.

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.

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 you suck on the Pentagon.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 animation of them DNA-ing 63 of the 64 passangers too?

thanks for those activist links, jon.

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 shill (or both) on the Pentagon, Jon.

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 question: HTF did they ID the passengers who slammed through concrete walls @ 530 mph???

"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 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 calling ain't doing anybody any good.

"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 calling ain't doing anybody any good."

You are correct.

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 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 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 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 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 endorse the official lie?
Anonymous | 07.03.06 - 2:55 pm | #

________________________________________________________________________________
What the hell does that mean?

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 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 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 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 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 mean?"

It means Anonymous is someone the movement should avoid.

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 must eventually be executed along with the perpetrators of the scam. There simply will be no way around this.

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 HELL"
http://youtube.com/results? searc...e=search_videos
DHS
_______________--
Thanks DHS, I've been checking these out.

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 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 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.

"GeorgeWashington, did you get this William Odom link?"

Yes, thank you Isaputon!

Investigation Over 9/11 Teachings

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/07/03/madison

So Vesa... "Assholey Shill Fucktard" is no good? I don't follow you. ;)

"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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: ‘Gov’t deceived, abandoned us’

"Thank God for guys/gals? like this and like J. Gold."

I'm a gal.

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 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 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: DailyKos

Joe Lieberman

"I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party."

---

Do tell!

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 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 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 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 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: 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 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*

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 for the transponder stuff you have alluded to whenever you want to lay it out. Enquiring minds want to know.

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 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 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 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% of my comment not make it into the post?

I'll sum it up. Israel's dirty little paw prints are all over 9-11.