View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
waking life Minor Poster
Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 32
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: What Do You Think About The Pentagon? |
|
|
I don't mean the usual speculation and focus on what hit the pentagon.
What about all the facts surrounding it? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4529
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What facts do we know about the Pentagon issue ? _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
waking life Minor Poster
Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 32
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
The fact that on sep 10th 2001 the pentagon announced that $2.3 trillion had gone missing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
The fact that at 8:50 ATC lost contact with the plane and it went off course at 8:54, so 9 minutes before the second plane hit the towers they knew flight 77 had been hijacked.
The fact that it took another 44 minutes to hit the pentagon, yet the skies over Washington remained completely unprotected.
The fact that the section that was hit was nearly empty and had been newly renovated.
That fact that in a building where 40,000 people were working there was only 125 people killed.
I think the fact that the pentagon was even hit is one of the biggest smoking guns of all. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4529
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They are all pieces in the larger conspiracy jigsaw of 9/11.
The Pentagon missing trillions are, well, missing.
It was a good day to bury bad news.
I have spent much time contemplating why the Pentagon was in fact targeted at all.
My confusion eventualy gave way to the obvious, so forgive me for stating it.
If we begin at the start of the propaganda.
America Under Attack.
The Twin Towers, those icons of evil western materialism were chosen, in the propaganda war as representing the economy. Twin Towers merited one attack each. The second hit was the killer propaganda blow.
Flight 93 and "Let's Roll" symbolised the heroic American People and their willingness to fight.
The Pentagon strike served to consolidate the idea that the US Military were vulnerable, had been attacked and would all seek revenge.
It was therefore to be told as:
"not just an attack on the people and their freedoms, it was an attack on all of the American poeple, becauee they hate our freedoms"
"We're all in this together. You're either with us or with the Terrorists. "
You know the rest.
I'm beginning to sound like Bliar. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
waking life Minor Poster
Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 32
|
Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just watching the channel 4 documentary last night was very telling, as they had footage of one firefighter who had to stay behind and man the fort. He was watching the TV, when it was reported that the Pentagon had been hit.
He immediately said "this is war", which was the designed response, and just in case anybody might have been thinking it was an inside job, they apparently go and directly attack themselves.
The fact that the alleged hijackers went out of their way to hit the nearly empty section was never even considered. Apparently Rumsfeld was still in his office in the other side of the building, which was right in the path of the plane before it turned around.
Just to add I think the theory that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon has been promoted from virtually day one by the US government.
They even went as far as to claim the pilot was Hanjour, who it has been well reported was basically useless. Then there was the alleged slip from Rumsfeld, when he mentioned a missile. The 5 frames they released twice actually support the theory it wasn't flight 77.
So why would they actually promote the theory if it was true? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
optimus79 Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006 Posts: 50
|
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
waking life wrote: | Just watching the channel 4 documentary last night was very telling, as they had footage of one firefighter who had to stay behind and man the fort. He was watching the TV, when it was reported that the Pentagon had been hit.
He immediately said "this is war", which was the designed response, and just in case anybody might have been thinking it was an inside job, they apparently go and directly attack themselves.
The fact that the alleged hijackers went out of their way to hit the nearly empty section was never even considered. Apparently Rumsfeld was still in his office in the other side of the building, which was right in the path of the plane before it turned around.
Just to add I think the theory that something other than flight 77 hit the pentagon has been promoted from virtually day one by the US government.
They even went as far as to claim the pilot was Hanjour, who it has been well reported was basically useless. Then there was the alleged slip from Rumsfeld, when he mentioned a missile. The 5 frames they released twice actually support the theory it wasn't flight 77.
So why would they actually promote the theory if it was true? |
There is always the chance that they can promote an apparantly absurd theory to raise interest amongst the conspiracy theories only to then release numerous clips in later years of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. This would be very damaging to the whole truth movement and it would put them on the back foot, anyone who was tempted to look in to the subject would then dissmiss it, and believe the official stories.
It does make you wander why these "no plane" halfwits have not questioned why there are no CGI videos of Flight 77 hitting the pentagon. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4529
|
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
optimus79 wrote: |
It does make you wander why these "no plane" halfwits have not questioned why there are no CGI videos of Flight 77 hitting the pentagon. |
That's a very good point.
Considering the obscurity surrounding the Pentagon and what hit it, if anything.
In comparison to the two very public hits in New York, packed with people and therefore many more eye witnesses, allegedly live TV cameras filming the second hit, the Pentagon was a relatively "private" affair in a highly secure area.
Also, one very important factor you are overlooking when considering the possibility of a CGI of a passenger aircraft being employed at the Pentagon is that the portrayal of such would require cameras to have filmed the event in the first place, which would need some imaginative explaining.
The visual record of the event remains obscure precisely because we have only been shown a few frames allegedly taken from a 1 frame per second parking lot security camera and no other camera evidence has been shown.
Notwithstanding the evidence that Flight 77, along with Flight 11 did not in fact fly on Sept 11th 2001.
The few "eye witnesses" that claim to have seen something travelling at least 500 feet per second at the Pentagon, if you believe reports that the FDR from Flight 77 has been recovered, or 777 feet per second, if you believe the US Governments 9/11 Commission Report, were considerably less of a threat to the official story than the many thousands of potential eye witnesses in New York.
Can anyone meaningfully interpret the video frames that have been "released" from the Pentagon ?
The only meaningful thing I would say about them and all the evidence from the Pentagon, is that it remains unclear as to what caused the explosion there.
Maybe there is a possibility that what we are being shown is the equivalent of a Pentagon CGI. That is to speculate that nothing "hit" the Pentagon at all. It could have been an explosion pure and simple.
If that is the case then the videos we are reluctantly being spoon fed could be the Pentagon CGI's you suggest are missing. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|