| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:05 am Post subject: Question for skeptics |
 |
|
Which version of the ‘official story’ do you believe regarding the Pentagon and the cause of the hole in the C-ring?
I’ve read differing official explanations of the cause ranging from the nose cone of the plane, to the landing gear, to one of the engines. “Conspiracy theorists” are often accused of not getting their facts straight but who’s really the most guilty of that charge?
References….
http://www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm
PM Claims Landing Gear Made Pentagon 12 Foot Hole
| Quote: | | Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C. |
http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123026583
Remembering September 11, 2001: 5 years later, Airmen reflect upon personal experiences
| Quote: | A JPED was established to recover, inventory, photograph, clean and service, and return the personal effects of all Pentagon fatalities, both military and civilian, said Ms. Giles.
"One of the things I remember the most was donning the personal protective equipment (which includes a full body suit, respirator and mask, two sets of gloves, rubber boots and hard hat) and walking into the large hole in the exterior of the Pentagon," she said. "(It was) eerie and dark with emergency lighting providing enough light to see an interior hole caused by the aircraft's starboard engine crashing through." |
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackLegend.shtml
PentagonAttackLegend
| Quote: | Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, [WWW] said on Sept. 15:
The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. ... The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive. |
How can we trust any of these conclusions when they seem to change so much? If anyone has heard any other 'official version' explanations other than these I'd like to hear about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In what way can comments made by a variety of people at different times be considered to be official? These are simply individual experiences and comments, and it would be surprising if they did not vary.
Taking the separate statements, the Renovation Manager by saying the nose broke through into AE Drive probably does not mean that literally the nose itself broke through, so much as the debris that travelled furthest. Anyway, he is a construction manager, not an aircraft man. Ms Giles was a mortuary specialist looking for the personal effects of the dead in the rubble, again not an aircraft specialist. There is no reason she should be considering exactly what broke through the wall. Why take her casual assumption that it was an engine and say that is the "official story"? There is no reason at all to do so unless you are so desperate to validate a conspiracy theory with no evidence behind it that you have to seize on things like this and vainly pretend that they are some kind of rebuttal to flight 77 having crashed into the building.
Since a wheel was found outside the hole, and a landing gear strut was found inside, while no engine parts appear to have been nearby, the most likely explanation is that given in the third quote, the hole was made by the landing gear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By official I meant non-conspiratorial viewpoints. Thought that ought to have been obvious but apparently not?
With debunkers, anything that comes from a government source about 9/11 or a source that supports the government’s notion about 9/11 must be true. That’s why they get confused when presented with multiple versions of their story. "Enie meanie minie mo, which one should I pick to defend? Ah, the landing gear, that sounds like a good one. Yeah, that's it, it must've been the landing gear".
But if and when another explanation comes out they’ll defend that one as well no matter how ridiculous it is. I’ll bet that 99% of the debunkers out there have defended each one of these assertions at one point or another (probably even on this forum) figuring that this was the particular explanation that they were supposed to believe at any given time. In other words, it matters not what they’re being told, what matters is who’s doing the telling.
| Quote: | | Taking the separate statements, the Renovation Manager by saying the nose broke through into AE Drive probably does not mean that literally the nose itself broke through, so much as the debris that travelled furthest. |
Here we go again with misconstruing statements. You seem to feel that it’s up to you to interpret other people’s statements your own way as if people can never just say what they mean. Rumsfeld said the same thing.
| Quote: | | Anyway, he is a construction manager, not an aircraft man. |
Does that mean we can also rule out everyone at Popular Mechanics when they say landing gear? You never hear debunkers challenges the expertise of their own ilk.
| Quote: |
There is no reason she should be considering exactly what broke through the wall. Why take her casual assumption that it was an engine and say that is the "official story"? |
How would you accidentally misidentify an engine? What else could she have meant? How do we know that some “official” source didn’t tell her what to believe? That’s what I figured.
| Quote: | | There is no reason at all to do so unless you are so desperate to validate a conspiracy theory with no evidence behind it that you have to seize on things like this and vainly pretend that they are some kind of rebuttal to flight 77 having crashed into the building. |
| Quote: | | the most likely explanation is that given in the third quote, the hole was made by the landing gear. |
An almost perfectly round hole was made by irregularly shaped, oblong landing gear? Like I said, you'll believe anything. This really is Alice in Wonderland. You'd believe that a pancake made that hole if PM told you it was.
But it just goes to show that you don’t even know what the official explanation is do you? Please show me a link to where a government official has stated that this hole was made by the landing gear. I hardly consider Popular Mechanics to be an official source.
You talk about being desperate. Why are you so desperate to defend the Bush administration's version of 9/11 all the while calling yourself “Bushwhacker”? It’s like Fox calling itself “fair and balanced”. Sometimes the titles that one ascribes to oneself don’t amount to all that much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rumsfeld, "the plane went in through three rings", I’m told the nose is still there”. I think he ought to be able to tell the difference between the nose and landing gear. Or whoever allegedly told him that should have been able to.
Why doesn’t PM believe Rumsfeld? Why don’t you Bushwhacker? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Me wrote: | By official I meant non-conspiratorial viewpoints. Thought that ought to have been obvious but apparently not?
With debunkers, anything that comes from a government source about 9/11 or a source that supports the government’s notion about 9/11 must be true.
...................But it just goes to show that you don’t even know what the official explanation is do you? Please show me a link to where a government official has stated that this hole was made by the landing gear. I hardly consider Popular Mechanics to be an official source.
|
Eventually, frothing at the mouth, you work yourself up into saying exactly what I started off by saying! There is no "official" explanation for what caused the hole, there is simply what different people have said at different times. They have different explanations of the hole, which contradict each other. This does NOT mean that there are different versions of an "official" explanation for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Me wrote: | | Why are you so desperate to defend the Bush administration's version of 9/11 all the while calling yourself “Bushwhacker”? It’s like Fox calling itself “fair and balanced”. Sometimes the titles that one ascribes to oneself don’t amount to all that much. |
I called myself "Bushwacker" because I think Bush is the worst US President ever, and a despicable creature. I joined this site even thinking he might have in some way have a responsibility for 9/11, and the video of WTC7 collapsing looked for all the world like a controlled demolition. I was surprised at the very poor quality of argument put up by you truthers, and the desperate distortions you were prepared to put forward as "evidence". The more I looked, the more I found that there simply was no evidence at all that 9/11 was an inside job despite years of effort to prove it so, the elaborate conspiracy sites were just massive collections of distortions, misunderstandings, false assumptions and downright lies, and the people whose views were backed up by facts and logic were in fact the critics, while the 9/11 truth movement was becoming a kind of cult, where faith was everything and scepticism and dissent intolerable. Therefore I declared myself a critic. This does NOT mean that I am in any way a supporter of the Bush administration, my opinion of him is unchanged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louise
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 280
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally i'm the other way to Bushwacker.
The more i looked into 9/11 the more it became apparent to me that 9/11 was an inside job.
I looked at the towers and how they fell, the speed that they fell and asked myself would such big, strong structures just crumble and fall apart like that in just 10 seconds?.
I could have understood a partial collapse of the towers but a full and total collapse?.
And lets be honest the planes that crashed into the towers only affected a very limited area of the buildings compared to the entire building itself, the parts away from the point where the plane crashed into the buildings were completely intact and surely retained their original strength.
And surely if this was just a normal collapse not everything would be pulverised into dust, surely there would be some chunks or slabs of concrete around.
Then of course there was WTC 7, when i first saw it collapse it said to myself that this was a controlled demolition (like Bushwacker) i mean a 47 story steel skyscraper collapsing in just 6.5 seconds and in such an orderly fashion?.
Then there's the pentagon, restricted airspace and highly defended how could a commercial plane penetrate such airspace without either being shot down or intercepted by fighters?.
Also the survallance tapes of what hit the pentagon from the gas station and the hotel that were confiscated by the FBI minuets after the event with a warning to the people not to talk, and now they are refusing to release those tapes to the public.
IF those tapes show what they told us happened, then whats the big secret and why won't they release them, the only answer is if those tapes show and prove that what they said hit the pentagon is false (a lie) then they have every reason not to release them.
I also studyed documents like:
Project for the new american century
Operation Northwoods
I also studied past false flag events like:
USS Maine
USS liberty
Gulf of Tonkin
The WMD lies of Iraq.
To cut a long story short, the mound of evidence (including examples from the past) leads me to conclude that 9/11 was an inside job.
The entire 9/11 incident stinks of corruption.
Oh and by the way, some of the alleged hijackers that the FBI said were in those planes are still alive!!!!!!!!.
I must say considering that they "supposedly" smashed planes into buildings, they have made a remarkable recovery don't you think?  .
_________________
One sure way for evil to prevail, is for the good to do nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Louise wrote:
| Quote: | | And .........the parts away from the point where the plane crashed into the buildings were completely intact and surely retained their original strength. |
Firstly, I am not a critic, but this is fundamentally flawed. Whilst the parts away from the main impact point may have remained intact - they would be supporting more weight than they were designed for. Or another way, the stress and dynamics of load bearing would no longer be equally shared as before. Support a tray on each corner with an empty kitchen roll tube, then remove one - does it still have the same stability? This does not take the fires into account, temperatures not withstanding.
| Quote: | | Then there's the pentagon, restricted airspace and highly defended how could a commercial plane penetrate such airspace without either being shot down or intercepted by fighters? |
What is your view of what happened at The Pentagon?
| Quote: | | Also the survallance tapes of what hit the pentagon from the gas station and the hotel that were confiscated by the FBI minuets after the event with a warning to the people not to talk, and now they are refusing to release those tapes to the public. |
I really struggle with this aspect of 911 - all it would take would be one Japanese tourist testing his new video camera from his hotel window, he takes the footage home, it appears on TV and America descends into civil war when they see the Globalhawk/whatever. Far too many cameras to be certain you got them all.
There are many areas of 911 that could not be controlled by the 'perps' and it is this that I cannot explain when questioned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louise
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 280
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe but remember that the twin towers were built with planes crashing into them in mind so that being the case they would surely have been built in such a way as to take the additional load if a number of the steel supports were destroyed.
What happened at the pentagon?.
I think it was a missile, i think they fired a missile at their own building possibly to test that section of the building which was being strenthend or possibly to add effect to the whole 9/11 operation.
I still think that the FBI are refusing to release those tapes to the public because they show what really hit the pentagon and it wasn't a plane.
Somebody needs to get at those videos and get one leaked out, and also make sure that it's nit tampered with.
I think that the FBI who are supposed to serve the american people are covering up what really happened, these people should not be trusted at all.
i say again if what's on those tapes is what they said happened in the offical story, what have they got to worry about.
But i bet they are behind mounds of security in one of their vaults.
I feel that they are laughing at us, because they know 9/11 was an inside job, their duty is to the american people not the goverment.
Has none of them got the decency and humanity to leak what really happend and get the evil muderers who carried out 9/11 brought to justice whtch is what they deserve.
_________________
One sure way for evil to prevail, is for the good to do nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eogz
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 262
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Out of interest Bushwacker, what do you think to the collapse of WTC7? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Oh and by the way, some of the alleged hijackers that the FBI said were in those planes are still alive!!!!!!!!. |
Name one. Hopefully not one of the ones named by the BBC, or else you're about to look ridiculous.
| Quote: | | Then there's the pentagon, restricted airspace and highly defended how could a commercial plane penetrate such airspace without either being shot down or intercepted by fighters?. |
The Pentagon is less than 2 miles away from the Pentagon, and directly in the flight path of, Reagan
National Airport. The idea that hair drigger air defences circle the Pentagon is completely absurd and without any basis in fact.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Last edited by pepik on Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Louise wrote: | | Maybe but remember that the twin towers were built with planes crashing into them in mind so that being the case they would surely have been built in such a way as to take the additional load if a number of the steel supports were destroyed. |
The Titanic was designed to be unsinkable, the Space Shuttle's 'O' ring failed in a cold snap, whilst another was fatally compromised returning through the atmosphere by a few missing tiles. The last brand new car I bought needed a replacement auto gearbox after just two weeks. The view that the towers were designed to withstand aircraft impacts is a rather romantic one.
I am not saying that they collapsed following the impacts alone, but I personally take the 'withstand fully-fuelled airliner' hits with a different view to you.
As for terrorists still being alive - this is easily explained away with identity theft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Louise wrote: | | I think it was a missile, i think they fired a missile at their own building possibly to test that section of the building which was being strenthend or possibly to add effect to the whole 9/11 operation. |
The evening before 9/11 Rumsfeld announced 2.3 thousand billion dollars was "missing" from Pentagon accounts. The area hit was full of budget analysts and accountants as well as records of financial transactions. The news of 9/11 buried this massive scandal which amounts to over $8,000 for every man woman and child in the USA. It has remained buried since with Cynthia McKinney being the only politician I know who pressed for investigation. She became a target and subsequently lost her seat in the house of Representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney
| Quote: | | Other factors in her defeat were her controversial statements regarding Bush's involvement in 9/11, and her opposition to aid to Israel and a perceived support of Palestinian and Arab causes and alleged anti-Semitism by her supporters. On the night before the primary election, McKinney's father stated on Atlanta television that "Jews have bought everybody ... J-E-W-S" in the election, presumably referring to AIPAC involvement in orchestrating the "erase Cynthia" campaign. |
It is not surprising that the man in charge of Pentagon accounts was Dov Zakheim, a man with Israeli nationality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Louise wrote: | | I think it was a missile, i think they fired a missile at their own building possibly to test that section of the building which was being strenthend or possibly to add effect to the whole 9/11 operation. |
The evening before 9/11 Rumsfeld announced 2.3 thousand billion dollars was "missing" from Pentagon accounts. The area hit was full of budget analysts and accountants as well as records of financial transactions. The news of 9/11 buried this massive scandal which amounts to over $8,000 for every man woman and child in the USA. It has remained buried since with Cynthia McKinney being the only politician I know who pressed for investigation. She became a target and subsequently lost her seat in the house of Representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney
| Quote: | | Other factors in her defeat were her controversial statements regarding Bush's involvement in 9/11, and her opposition to aid to Israel and a perceived support of Palestinian and Arab causes and alleged anti-Semitism by her supporters. On the night before the primary election, McKinney's father stated on Atlanta television that "Jews have bought everybody ... J-E-W-S" in the election, presumably referring to AIPAC involvement in orchestrating the "erase Cynthia" campaign. |
It is not surprising that the man in charge of Pentagon accounts was Dov Zakheim, a man with Israeli nationality. |
This is unusually stupid, even for a conspiracy theory!
If Rumsfeld arranged for an attack on the Pentagon to assassinate these accountants and hide a financial scandal, why in heaven's name would he decide to tell the world about it himself the day before????????????
Even a small amount of research will show you that the Pentagon's accounting was in disarray for years before 9/11, and has continued to be a national scandal after. The 2.3 trillion dollar figure was mentioned by the Inspector General in a report dated March 2000. LINK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If Rumsfeld arranged for an attack on the Pentagon to assassinate these accountants and hide a financial scandal, why in heaven's name would he decide to tell the world about it himself the day before???????????? |
Now who is being stupid. The fact they were in disarray for years is a given. You can't purloin 2.3 trillion dollars overnight, though it was only over several years NOT decades as the supporters of the mass murderers like to lie. It had come to a head however and could no longer be ignored. Doubtless the accountants and budget analysts were screaming for something to be done and Rumsfeld had no choice but to acknowledge it. What better way to "come clean" than just hours before a monstrous attack which would help bury the story of the most massive fraud in history. How strange that you can't work that out Bushy. What an excellent job they have made of keeping this scandal off the news. I have noticed how the traitors get riled whenever it is mentioned. It is of course at the heart of why the missile targeted that part of the Pentagon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not being able to reconcile 2.3 trillion of transactions is not the same as losing 2.3 trillion.
I mean what kind of person would believe the Pentagon could "lose" 6 times their annual budget?
The same kind of person that would think they would publicly announce something to cover it up.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | If Rumsfeld arranged for an attack on the Pentagon to assassinate these accountants and hide a financial scandal, why in heaven's name would he decide to tell the world about it himself the day before???????????? |
Now who is being stupid. The fact they were in disarray for years is a given. You can't purloin 2.3 trillion dollars overnight, though it was only over several years NOT decades as the supporters of the mass murderers like to lie. It had come to a head however and could no longer be ignored. Doubtless the accountants and budget analysts were screaming for something to be done and Rumsfeld had no choice but to acknowledge it. What better way to "come clean" than just hours before a monstrous attack which would help bury the story of the most massive fraud in history. How strange that you can't work that out Bushy. What an excellent job they have made of keeping this scandal off the news. I have noticed how the traitors get riled whenever it is mentioned. It is of course at the heart of why the missile targeted that part of the Pentagon. |
You are being stupid! There is no suggestion that the 2.3 trillion dollars had been purloined, except by conspiracy theorists who have as little idea about finance as they do about physics, or indeed life in general.
It had not come to a head at all, it was a regular feature of the Inspector-General's reports before, as it has been since. It has not been buried, hidden or kept off the news, as anyone would know who looked at the main stream media. The conspiracy sites are not going to mention it, of course!
Of course Rumsfeld did not have to acknowledge it when he did, he could have kept quiet for another day. Actually of course, it shows he did not have foreknowledge that he did make that speech on Sept 10th. I also question whether accounting staff were in that part of the Pentagon, most reports say it was Naval Intelligence staff who were there.
Like most of the conspiracy nonsense, this does not begin to stack up, even on its own terms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | If Rumsfeld arranged for an attack on the Pentagon to assassinate these accountants and hide a financial scandal, why in heaven's name would he decide to tell the world about it himself the day before???????????? |
Now who is being stupid. The fact they were in disarray for years is a given. You can't purloin 2.3 trillion dollars overnight, though it was only over several years NOT decades as the supporters of the mass murderers like to lie. It had come to a head however and could no longer be ignored. Doubtless the accountants and budget analysts were screaming for something to be done and Rumsfeld had no choice but to acknowledge it. What better way to "come clean" than just hours before a monstrous attack which would help bury the story of the most massive fraud in history. How strange that you can't work that out Bushy. What an excellent job they have made of keeping this scandal off the news. I have noticed how the traitors get riled whenever it is mentioned. It is of course at the heart of why the missile targeted that part of the Pentagon. |
You are being stupid! There is no suggestion that the 2.3 trillion dollars had been purloined, except by conspiracy theorists who have as little idea about finance as they do about physics, or indeed life in general.
It had not come to a head at all, it was a regular feature of the Inspector-General's reports before, as it has been since. It has not been buried, hidden or kept off the news, as anyone would know who looked at the main stream media. The conspiracy sites are not going to mention it, of course!
Of course Rumsfeld did not have to acknowledge it when he did, he could have kept quiet for another day. Actually of course, it shows he did not have foreknowledge that he did make that speech on Sept 10th.
It does no such thing! What better way to make Congress forget about the loss of such an extraordinary amount of money than to announce it the day before 9/11! The timing was impeccable. For you to argue the opposite demonstrates breathtaking illogicality in your reasoning.
I also question whether accounting staff were in that part of the Pentagon, most reports say it was Naval Intelligence staff who were there.
Yes, it was such staff. But many of them were accountants. This a matter of public record.
Like most of the conspiracy nonsense, this does not begin to stack up, even on its own terms.
It is hardly surprising that your account does not stack up when it is so warped and uninformed.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | If Rumsfeld arranged for an attack on the Pentagon to assassinate these accountants and hide a financial scandal, why in heaven's name would he decide to tell the world about it himself the day before???????????? |
Now who is being stupid. The fact they were in disarray for years is a given. You can't purloin 2.3 trillion dollars overnight, though it was only over several years NOT decades as the supporters of the mass murderers like to lie. It had come to a head however and could no longer be ignored. Doubtless the accountants and budget analysts were screaming for something to be done and Rumsfeld had no choice but to acknowledge it. What better way to "come clean" than just hours before a monstrous attack which would help bury the story of the most massive fraud in history. How strange that you can't work that out Bushy. What an excellent job they have made of keeping this scandal off the news. I have noticed how the traitors get riled whenever it is mentioned. It is of course at the heart of why the missile targeted that part of the Pentagon. |
You are being stupid! There is no suggestion that the 2.3 trillion dollars had been purloined, except by conspiracy theorists who have as little idea about finance as they do about physics, or indeed life in general.
It had not come to a head at all, it was a regular feature of the Inspector-General's reports before, as it has been since. It has not been buried, hidden or kept off the news, as anyone would know who looked at the main stream media. The conspiracy sites are not going to mention it, of course!
Of course Rumsfeld did not have to acknowledge it when he did, he could have kept quiet for another day. Actually of course, it shows he did not have foreknowledge that he did make that speech on Sept 10th.
It does no such thing! What better way to make Congress forget about the loss of such an extraordinary amount of money than to announce it the day before 9/11! The timing was impeccable. For you to argue the opposite demonstrates breathtaking illogicality in your reasoning.
I also question whether accounting staff were in that part of the Pentagon, most reports say it was Naval Intelligence staff who were there.
Yes, it was such staff. But many of them were accountants. This a matter of public record.
Like most of the conspiracy nonsense, this does not begin to stack up, even on its own terms.
It is hardly surprising that your account does not stack up when it is so warped and uninformed.
|
|
Of course you are quite right, everyone has forgotten completely about the matter, it has never been heard of again.
No, hang on a minute, that is not quite right is it? I must be uninformed! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | Oh and by the way, some of the alleged hijackers that the FBI said were in those planes are still alive!!!!!!!!. |
Name one. Hopefully not one of the ones named by the BBC, or else you're about to look ridiculous. |
Identity theft would be the obvious explanation. No sane person would refute that. But...
How about these tidbits, then?
The fact that the FBI had suddenly discovered where they'd been hiding their efficiency all these years and had all the terrorists positively identified the day after 9/11? I mean, Mueller came out and said he was "fairly confident" the identities were genuine. What was the excuse offered again? Oh yeah, "The identification process has been complicated by the fact that many Arabic family names are similar."
.....
Yeah.
Also of note; to this day, the FBI still contains the original 19 names of the 'hijackers', despite the glaring discrepancies and falsehoods.
In a specific case, that of Flight 11, The identification of the terrorists on this flight supposedly came from flight attendant Madeline Sweeney. She provided seat numbers for four terrorists on the plane. Putting aside that according to the official story there were 5 hijackers, there are some glaring issues with this.
First off, the seat numbers Sweeney provided did not match those apparently registered in the terrorists' names. Second, the terrorists' names are nowhere to be found on the passenger lists. There's no logical reason for them not to be included.
Not to mention that, according to the FBI's website, there were five hijackers a piece for Flights 11, 77, and 175, and four for Flight 93.
According to the airlines and CNN.com, there were 92 people onboard Flight 11. The passenger list contains only 87 people. None of those names matches the names or aliases provided by the FBI. Now, the argument could be made that the hijacker's names were left off out of respect, but this makes no sense; there's no logic behind that. For one, this is a passenger's list, not a 'victims' list. Second, with the exception of Flight 11, leaving off the hijackers would not account for the total number of missing names.
For Flight 77, CNN.com claims 64 people. However, the list itself only contains 56 names. There is a discrepancy of eight names.
For Flight 175, CNN.com claims 65 people; 56 passengers, 2 pilots, and 7 flight attendants. Only 56 people are listed (and yes, that count does include the pilots and attendants.) This is a discrepancy of nine people.
As for Flight 93, CNN.com claims 45 people. Only 33 names make the cut this time, leaving a DOZEN people unaccounted for. Again, let me say for the people in the back row, not a one of these lists contains the names of any of the hijackers.
Certainly, at the least, this shows serious doubt as to who these guys were, where they were from, etc. So, in a sense, those hijackers still are very much 'alive'.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The lists published in the media were victim lists, not passenger lists. The passenger lists were not made public until the Moussaoui trial when they were produced as an exhibit. They are available on the internet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwhacker: ever get a feeling of deja vu around here?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Bushwhacker: ever get a feeling of deja vu around here? |
With your posts, certainly. You still don't learn
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obvious cock-up that I made in regards to that actually being a victims list, it still doesn't address passenger count discrepancies between the numbers provided by the US State Department and the passenger lists shown at the Moussaoui trial. Please, tell me how they don't have confirmed deaths by the point of the Moussaoui trial and as such, weren't listing them. It will earn you an incredulous look. You won't be able to see it, but it'll be there.
Nor do you address any of the other points I made, particularly in regard to her amazingly detailed account of the seating for the terrorists, information that was reportedly used to identify them (nevermind that it was wrong to begin with).
There are quite a few other problems with her call, not to mention Flight 11 in general, but that's not strictly the point of this discussion.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Bushwhacker: ever get a feeling of deja vu around here? |
there is certainly confusion over flight manifests including names of hijackers if you look around web, and i aint seeing any offical site where i can view them when i do a search. im just getting links to people talking about them (although i have seen something that is claimed to be flight manifests linked here but they were inbedded i think, no link to the site).
the reason for the deja vu pepik is because others have got around to questioning this area or are new here, they do their own research like many others do, we are not working as a team or briefed before posting on what has been discussed in the past or what to say. i can understand how it must seem to critics though, when a few critics are trying to answer many peoples questions, the same subjects will crop up from time to time which is always answered by the same people/person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TmcMistress wrote: | Obvious cock-up that I made in regards to that actually being a victims list, it still doesn't address passenger count discrepancies between the numbers provided by the US State Department and the passenger lists shown at the Moussaoui trial. Please, tell me how they don't have confirmed deaths by the point of the Moussaoui trial and as such, weren't listing them. It will earn you an incredulous look. You won't be able to see it, but it'll be there.
Nor do you address any of the other points I made, particularly in regard to her amazingly detailed account of the seating for the terrorists, information that was reportedly used to identify them (nevermind that it was wrong to begin with).
There are quite a few other problems with her call, not to mention Flight 11 in general, but that's not strictly the point of this discussion. |
You seem to be looking at the original victims lists, which were after a main page which stated, "Lists of victims - In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and the crash of United Airlines flight 93, officials across the country are working to piece together lists of victims.
While the official number of those missing and dead will inevitably rise over the next few weeks, authorities from American Airlines, United Airlines, the Department of Defense, the New York City Medical Examiners Office and the New York City Fire Department, have released partial lists. They are linked below."
Notice the word "partial"
CNN appear not to have updated those lists and have left them up on the web, I have no idea why.
Meanwhile, they have produced separately complete lists with some biographical details, which are on another part of their site. Here is Flight 77 for example, which has 59 names, with 5 hijackers that makes 64 people on the plane, as originally stated. I'll leave you to check the other planes.
I do not find it amazing that a flight attendant would know where passengers were sitting, I would have thought that actually a fundamental part of the job, and sensible to give that information to those on the ground to enable the hijackers to be identified, as happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zimboy69
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: Re: Question for skeptics |
|
|
| Me wrote: | Which version of the ‘official story’ do you believe regarding the Pentagon and the cause of the hole in the C-ring?
I’ve read differing official explanations of the cause ranging from the nose cone of the plane, to the landing gear, to one of the engines. “Conspiracy theorists” are often accused of not getting their facts straight but who’s really the most guilty of that charge?
References….
http://www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm
PM Claims Landing Gear Made Pentagon 12 Foot Hole
| Quote: | | Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C. |
http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123026583
Remembering September 11, 2001: 5 years later, Airmen reflect upon personal experiences
| Quote: | A JPED was established to recover, inventory, photograph, clean and service, and return the personal effects of all Pentagon fatalities, both military and civilian, said Ms. Giles.
"One of the things I remember the most was donning the personal protective equipment (which includes a full body suit, respirator and mask, two sets of gloves, rubber boots and hard hat) and walking into the large hole in the exterior of the Pentagon," she said. "(It was) eerie and dark with emergency lighting providing enough light to see an interior hole caused by the aircraft's starboard engine crashing through." |
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackLegend.shtml
PentagonAttackLegend
| Quote: | Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, [WWW] said on Sept. 15:
The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. ... The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive. |
How can we trust any of these conclusions when they seem to change so much? If anyone has heard any other 'official version' explanations other than these I'd like to hear about it. |
i think somthing else happend in pentagon maybe a defensive weapon took the plane out b 4 it hit the place but too close to stop it hitting the building
could the reason be they dont want to give u one answer because of a defence reason should a attack happen again they dont want to confirm a weak spot
imagin if the weapon can only hit slower targets then there not going to make this public
perhaps it shot and reduced most of the plane to small bits but the jet engine went in
just been wondering if this was a reason for the small hole
and the lack of any real info from the pentagon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:16 am Post subject: Re: Question for skeptics |
|
|
| zimboy69 wrote: | | Me wrote: | Which version of the ‘official story’ do you believe regarding the Pentagon and the cause of the hole in the C-ring?
I’ve read differing official explanations of the cause ranging from the nose cone of the plane, to the landing gear, to one of the engines. “Conspiracy theorists” are often accused of not getting their facts straight but who’s really the most guilty of that charge?
References….
http://www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm
PM Claims Landing Gear Made Pentagon 12 Foot Hole
| Quote: | | Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C. |
http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123026583
Remembering September 11, 2001: 5 years later, Airmen reflect upon personal experiences
| Quote: | A JPED was established to recover, inventory, photograph, clean and service, and return the personal effects of all Pentagon fatalities, both military and civilian, said Ms. Giles.
"One of the things I remember the most was donning the personal protective equipment (which includes a full body suit, respirator and mask, two sets of gloves, rubber boots and hard hat) and walking into the large hole in the exterior of the Pentagon," she said. "(It was) eerie and dark with emergency lighting providing enough light to see an interior hole caused by the aircraft's starboard engine crashing through." |
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackLegend.shtml
PentagonAttackLegend
| Quote: | Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, [WWW] said on Sept. 15:
The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. ... The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive. |
How can we trust any of these conclusions when they seem to change so much? If anyone has heard any other 'official version' explanations other than these I'd like to hear about it. |
i think somthing else happend in pentagon maybe a defensive weapon took the plane out b 4 it hit the place but too close to stop it hitting the building
could the reason be they dont want to give u one answer because of a defence reason should a attack happen again they dont want to confirm a weak spot
imagin if the weapon can only hit slower targets then there not going to make this public
perhaps it shot and reduced most of the plane to small bits but the jet engine went in
just been wondering if this was a reason for the small hole
and the lack of any real info from the pentagon |
so you acknowledge the hole in the pentagon was to small for all of the plane to fit through?
yet the offical version and critics claim it did fit through the small hole and then shredded into bits whilst the landing gear(not engine) caused the round hole on ring c.
you acknowledge the small hole and try to come up with a guess as to why the hole is small, which critics and the offical version claim the plane fitted through. then you cannot see why people are questioning the events of 9/11 going by your posts in the other thread yet you raise one issue yourself and acknowledge it and try to come up with a brand new explaination which still contridicts the offical version of events. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zimboy69
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:08 am Post subject: Re: Question for skeptics |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | zimboy69 wrote: | | Me wrote: | Which version of the ‘official story’ do you believe regarding the Pentagon and the cause of the hole in the C-ring?
I’ve read differing official explanations of the cause ranging from the nose cone of the plane, to the landing gear, to one of the engines. “Conspiracy theorists” are often accused of not getting their facts straight but who’s really the most guilty of that charge?
References….
http://www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm
PM Claims Landing Gear Made Pentagon 12 Foot Hole
| Quote: | | Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C. |
http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123026583
Remembering September 11, 2001: 5 years later, Airmen reflect upon personal experiences
| Quote: | A JPED was established to recover, inventory, photograph, clean and service, and return the personal effects of all Pentagon fatalities, both military and civilian, said Ms. Giles.
"One of the things I remember the most was donning the personal protective equipment (which includes a full body suit, respirator and mask, two sets of gloves, rubber boots and hard hat) and walking into the large hole in the exterior of the Pentagon," she said. "(It was) eerie and dark with emergency lighting providing enough light to see an interior hole caused by the aircraft's starboard engine crashing through." |
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackLegend.shtml
PentagonAttackLegend
| Quote: | Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, [WWW] said on Sept. 15:
The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. ... The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive. |
How can we trust any of these conclusions when they seem to change so much? If anyone has heard any other 'official version' explanations other than these I'd like to hear about it. |
i think somthing else happend in pentagon maybe a defensive weapon took the plane out b 4 it hit the place but too close to stop it hitting the building
could the reason be they dont want to give u one answer because of a defence reason should a attack happen again they dont want to confirm a weak spot
imagin if the weapon can only hit slower targets then there not going to make this public
perhaps it shot and reduced most of the plane to small bits but the jet engine went in
just been wondering if this was a reason for the small hole
and the lack of any real info from the pentagon |
so you acknowledge the hole in the pentagon was to small for all of the plane to fit through?
yet the offical version and critics claim it did fit through the small hole and then shredded into bits whilst the landing gear(not engine) caused the round hole on ring c.
you acknowledge the small hole and try to come up with a guess as to why the hole is small, which critics and the offical version claim the plane fitted through. then you cannot see why people are questioning the events of 9/11 going by your posts in the other thread yet you raise one issue yourself and acknowledge it and try to come up with a brand new explaination which still contridicts the offical version of events. |
yeh thats right i do come up with my own ideas its really good to think for ur self
somthing else ive noticed about ur picture to west of the exit hole there appears to be even more damage any reason for this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
of course its good to think for your self, i aint knocking that, although some evidence for what you claim may help or it will just be an opinon and nothing more, but an opinon that says the offical version is wrong none the less, which is what truthers have been saying all along.
do you believe the whole plane could of fitted through the hole seen before that portion of the pentagon collapsed?
regarding the damage i have not got a clue but im also not 100% sure which part you mean
better still ask the critics they are offical once they give an answer you must accept it and never question their answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
