Michael Moore on Pentagon cameras . . .

[defendandprotect]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1gk7iqNksg

"At least 100 cameras ringing the Pentagon" --

[LARED]

1. And................. ..................

so what? Why is this important?

[jakeXT]

8. I think it's the wrong highlight of the clip, the fact that firefighters have apporached him to tell

him about the explosions is much more important.

And Mr. Moore isn't doing anything to inform the public about it.

[whatchamacallit]

12. Maybe he doesn't want to take shit from

a bunch of cretins.

[defendandprotect]

21. Thin both important .. .we have film of firefighters talking about this and tapes . . .

but we need to open up the subject of the Pentagon defense -- it was an obvious

stand down and don't think that the "terrarists" could have arranged that!

[Neily]

37. Why is it not important?

Showing the videos would to put to rest many questions to say the least... What do they have to hide?

[LARED]

39. What questions exist in your mind?

For the sake of argument, lets say other cameras did not capture any video or only captured video that provided no additional information. Why would the Pentagon release that information. What purpose would it serve other than providing information about the location and gaps in surveillance.

Are you a no-planer?

[foreigncorrespondent]

44. Because...

...even if the footage doesn't show a damn thing, it is better for the public to see it and be put to rest rather than play this bloody guessing game we have been playing with the Bush* admin since 9/11.

[Neily]

47. Agree...

I am not a no-planer, a planer, or a mighty mouser. I don't have an opinion one way or the other since I have not seen any evidence proving any theory, OCT or otherwise.

[LARED]

49. You're agnostic about whether flight 77 hit the

pentagon? Yes? No?

[Neily]

50. No One...

from the public can definitively say what hit the pentagon.

[LARED]

56. That's nonsense nt

[elias7]

90. It's really not nonsense.

With potential footage from the pentagon perhaps not released, save for the release of 6 frames of unidentifiable projectile/explosion, as well as the failure to release at least two other potential sources-- a convenience store and another business-- which were confiscated immediately, the question is valid. The public does not know for sure.:shrug: :shrug::shrug:

[LARED]

100. More nonsense

The public knows for sure that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Just because there are a handful of people that think otherwise does not make it an unknown.

[elias7]

186. The two camps are "knows for sure" and "doesn't know for sure". Not "plane"/"no plane"

You're arrogance just really isn't warranted. Why does the public know for sure? The evidence leaves no room for question? I have given a fair reading to the observations regarding the pentagon attack and though a non-conspiratorial type person, I am troubled that I don't feel certain, but I don't feel certain.


I am troubled by one additional thing, and that is your certainty.

[SDuderstadt]

188. We "know" that a plane crashed there, because:

1. Over 100 witnesses SAW the plane hit the Pentagon.
2. There were many pieces of plane wreckage found both inside and outside the Pentagon, some of which were easily identifiable as wreckage from a AA flight.
3. The DNA of nearly every passenger was identified from the crash site.
4. There are ZERO witnesses who saw something other than a plane crash there.

I could go on and on. This just gets sillier and sillier.

[Realityhack]

281. No. you are forgetting that...

a number of people have positively committed themselves to some alternate explanation or made positive statements that it could NOT be a plane. So the categories would be:

a) Plane
b) Not sure
c) Definitely Not a plane but not sure what
d) Definitely Not a plane it was (insert BS here)

A is correct. B implies lack of research, laziness, lack of interest, or intellectual dishonesty on the part of a C or D group member. C and D are stupid on a profound level.

But please do NOT pretend that groups C and D do not exist. It is just as much a denial of reality as saying the world is flat.

Edited for bracket issue.

[Theobald]

206. Hi Elias

It would be nice if you stopped making false claims. The only convenience store with a view of that side of the Pentagon is a military personnel only Citgo station; that video has been released. There is also video footage from the Double tree hotel, which is the nearest hotel to the Pentagon; that video footage has also been released. You can see the videos here http://www.flight77.info/. The videos were released three years ago.

BTW, what constitutes immediately to you. I keep reading the claim that the FBI confiscated the videos immediately and there seems to be some sort of nefarious connotation, but I've yet to here anyone explain to me what they mean by immediately.

[chaddyt]

266. Except for the fact...

... that over 8 years after the fact, the general public STILL doesn't believe your no-plane crap.

[Theobald]

2. In the trees?

Ok, so Mikey Moore states that he has filmed at the pentagon before 9/11 and that there were 100's of cameras ringing the Pentagon; even in the trees!

Ok Mikey, please show us your video of the cameras in the trees or a dozen or so of the 100's of cameras you claim ring the Pentagon. If what he states is true than he should be able to provide us with documentary (video) evidence of these cameras since he filmed there prior to 9/11.

Prior to 9/11 the Pentagon did not have camera's trained onto the side of the buiding. The cameras they had were targeted at the entrances to the building and the entrances to the parking lot. I have two brother in laws who worked at the Pentagon at that time, one as a civilian and one who was in the Navy, and both of them state that Mikey Moores claim is false; the pentagon was not ringed with cameras.

[lovepg]

3. So if the cameras were trained looking out they still would see a plane approaching!!

Don't try and tell me not one of those cameras got an identifiable picture of the plane.
Oh and by the way prove your claim prior to 911 the cameras were not pointed at the side of the building?

[Theobald]

4. There was no entrance where the plane hit

so why would there be cameras looking out?

I find it hard to imagine that you were unable to comprehend my straight forward post. I stated that cameras were trained on the entrances to the building and the entrances to the parking. With that statement how would you discern that there were cameras pointing out where the plane hit the pentagon. The building being a Pentagon would proclude any of the cameras on a different side of the building being able to see the plane hitting the fifth wall.

I personally can't prove that there were no cameras pointed at that side of the building other than the cameras from the parking lot, and I doubt anyone could 'prove' to you that there were no cameras pointed at that side of the building other than the camera from the parking lot, but I drove by that side of the building hundreds of times and never noticed any cameras. Also, my brother in law who landed his helicopter there on a few occasions never saw any cameras pointed at the side of the building.

[lovepg]

6. Don't tell me all 100 cameras were placed at the exits.

and if the cameras were not pointed at the side of the building or looking out are you saying they were pointed in?
Looking at the walls ? REALLY?

[Mist]

57. I would assume that some cameras were trained on entrances, some on the grounds, and some

looking out at the perimeter of the Pentagon's lawn. I think it's silly to assume that ALL cameras would be trained in the same direction!

[Theobald]

204. Who assumed all the cameras were pointed in the same direction?

The building is a Pentagon; it has five sides facing in five different directions. Cameras at the different entrances would have to be facing in different directions. So your assumption that the cameras wouldn't be pointing in the same direction is spot on, the fact you are debunking an assumption that no one actually made is interesting.

[Theobald]

203. Where do you point cameras?

First off what 100 cameras are you speaking of?

The Pentagon had cameras; I'm not sure how many. They had cameras at the entrances to the parking lot and they had cameras at the entrances to the building. Some of those cameras were pointed out and some of those cameras were pointed in, so they could see people entering and exiting the building. They did not have cameras positioned to see if a plane flew into the side of the building.

[Gravel Democrat]

212. Since you drove by hundreds of times maybe you know what these are

Maybe sprinklers. Yeah. That's probably it









so why would there be cameras looking out?


*Seriously?* Wow

[Theobald]

214. Is English your second language?

I said, quite succinctly, that I am not aware of any cameras pointed at that side of the building. I did not state that there were no cameras pointed from the building, because It would have been very difficult if not impossible to identify a camera on a building that far away. If a camera was pointed at that side of the building it would have to have been very near the highway. If it was very near the highway I would have had a good chance of noticing it, since I drove on that road quite often.

You have pointed to an object on the building that could be a camera; is there any evidence that it is a camera?

[Gravel Democrat]

280. "You have pointed to an object on the building that could be a camera; is there any evidence..."

What do you think it is?

Bonus points: Guess what the other 2 things are

[Theobald]

283. I don't know what it is

It could be a camera. The other two things look like they are antentas of some sort.

[foreigncorrespondent]

45. But...

...on 9/11 they DID have 86 cameras trained on the Pentagon, including cameras from the service station across the road. Pentagon workers have stated that, and further they have stated that the FBI confiscated all the video footage from all 86 cameras.

[Theobald]

202. I need you to read this slowly so that you will understand.

The camera at the service station was not trained on the Pentagon. The camera at the service station was trained on the service station. Stating the camera at the service station was trained on the Pentagon is ignorant. The camera had a partial view of the pentagon, but it was not trained on the pentagon. Most of the other cameras you allude to were also not trained on the pentagon. They were cameras that were trained on the property to which they belonged and the pentagon happened to be in the view of the camera.

[defendandprotect]

246. And just how would you know what any of these cameas captured . . .???

If they didn't have a view of the Pentagon, they wouldn't have been confiscated --

and, if fact, there's some evidence that the hotel employees had seen the video and

certainly that original film had something on it!

Or nothing -- whichever it was it made an impression on the employees.

There is no now no way that any of this film could be considered original --

[Theobald]

251. Jesus H Fucking Christ! Stop making shit up.

I did not say I knew what all the cameras captured. We know what the two pentagon cameras, the Citgo camera, and the Double Tree cameras captured becuase we can see the videos. As to the other videos, I don't know what they captured.

DandP "and, if fact, there's some evidence that the hotel employees had seen the video and certainly that original film had something on it!"

I assume you are talking about the Double Tree hotel video? If you are then why don't you just look at the video instead of thinking what others might have thought they saw?

[defendandprotect]

259. You've seen "videos" which were confiscated and likely altered -- !!!

Again -- the videos were all confiscated --

Meanwhile, the idea that the Pentagon couldn't capture whatever allegedly hit it
with almost 30 frames per second is inane.

Except that they do prove that with their comment that --

"You can't see the airplane, because the plane passed in between frames" -- !!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



PS: And, try to get some control of yourself. Granted this is the dungeon, still human
rationality calls for some degree of containment.

[Theobald]

260. Yes, the federal government

altered the lame ass videos from Citgo and Doubletree. If they were going to alter them don't you think they would have done a better job.

[defendandprotect]

261. Yeah . . . they could have pasted some fake planes in those videos as well!!

So you trust Bush's "Federal Government" -- ???

[Theobald]

277. My statements do not rely on trusting the federal government.

The crap you are spouting is sort of like believing that 40 some odd years ago Barack Hussien Obama's birth certificate was faked so that a black man with some wierd ass name could be elected president. If they are going to do that, the least they would have done was give him a 'regular' name; it doesn't compute.

[Neily]

276. Link?

Hey I haven't read anything from the hotel employees regarding the videos. Do you have a link to that info? I would like to read it.

[whatchamacallit]

5. Oh great, now we'll get treated to "liberal" debunkers shitting all over a national treasure

I almost wish you hadn't posted it.

[defendandprotect]

7. Oh, stop with the fear-based thinking . . . how fragile are we all?

This video and Moore's comments opens up the entire issue of security and the Pentagon --

obviously if they had 100 cameras, they would have had defense --

Part of that came from Andrews airforce base -- where the planes were shipped off elsewhere -

South Carolina, if I recall correctly.

Michael remember made Fahrenheit 9/11 --

[LARED]

9. Obviously if they 100 apples they would have had apple pie...

obviously if they had 100 cameras, they would have had defense --

Do you see your flawed thinking?

[whatchamacallit]

11. OCTers, if you really want to stop wasting your lives in here and end the debate once and for all

Join us in Imploring the government to release the tapes from all those cameras. I agree with MM in his assumption there must be relevant events and information captured on those cameras. Certainly you'd love to finally shut up the no-747-at-the-pentagon crowd. We can work together for once for the common good. What do you say?

[SDuderstadt]

13. I say you already have enough evidence to know...

there was a 747 that struck the Pentagon and that it's stupid to expect a security camera taking one frame per second to capture a clear image of a plane going in excess of 500 MPH. Do the math, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

16. Here you are right on

TIME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC-9s8aR_MI

Your obsession with me is getting a little creepy.

1) Who gives a fuck what you say? Deluded-internet-debunk-o-bots don't get to decide how much information we're entitled to.

2) The further the distance a particular camera is from the point of impact, greater the chance of having time to capture an object moving at great speed. Notice how in the one camera they chose to release, the gate camera, the point of impact is nearly off the right side of the frame. With this orientation the most you could ever see is a few frames of blur and a fireball. Gee, wonder why they chose that one... If any cameras on the roof or wall, were facing the direction of the incoming object, there would be plenty of time to see the approach. We don't know, and won't know, until they release the videos.

3) As I have suspected for a long time you have no interest in the truth, and are obviously scared shitless by what might be lurking around every corner in relation 9/11. Dude.

[defendandprotect]

20. PLUS... the Pentagon said that the reason you can't see the airplane ...

in their film is because . . . ready . . . ???

"the airplane passed in between frames" . . .


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

25. Only someone who can't do basic math would say....

something so stupid.

[LARED]

40. Please tell me you're not so

clueless, you can't understand why a plane moving around 500 MPH doesn't appear in the parking lot footage.

Here's a hint; the parking lot footage is from a camera that does not continuously capture video.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Why don't you calculate the number of feet a plane moving at over 500 MPH...

will cover in one second, dude.

[lovepg]

26. First of all its impossible for that plane to reach 500 miles an hour that low to the ground.

The air resistance would not allow it.Those max cruise speeds are at 42,000 feet dude.
So your MATH is based on faulty calculations OooooopS!

[defendandprotect]

27. Right . . . plane would have shaken apart -- !!

[William Seger]

72. Completely wrong. A 757 can fly at Mach 0.85 without "shaking apart"

That's about 652 mph at sea level. You are easily deceived.

[lovepg]

213. Link please verify..nt

[SDuderstadt]

30. Yet, we know that's how fast it was going...

"the air resistance would not allow it"....LOLOLOLOL

[lovepg]

36. Perhaps you should ask an actual pilot about that little question..

The ones i have consulted laugh at the idea.
The fastest car goes 400 miles per hour with all the aerodynamic engineering at our disposal. On the salt flats. Why the salt flats? Because its very hard to steer anything at that speed manually.
In 2001 it was around 300 miles per hour. Yet you suggest this jet steered by a terrorist( who could not fly a Cessna) achieved the top cruising speed usually only attainable in very thin air
at essentially 5 feet above the ground. Stop it your killing me LOL LOL LOL!

[William Seger]

71. LOL LOL LOL?

Do you ever check your facts before posting? :eyes: In 1997, a jet-powered car broke the sound barrier averaging 763 mph, just a few inches off the ground. In October 2001, a wheel-driven car did 737.794 mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vehicle_speed_records

Are these pilots you have "consulted" selling a video, by any chance? Stop it your killing me.

[cherokeeprogressive]

209. I guess you've never heard of Craig Breedlove. His "Spirit of America" went over 400 mph

On September 5, 1963

Could you be any more stupid?

[LARED]

41. So you're saying planes can't go over 500 MPH when crashing - nt

[lovepg]

59. It was not coming straight down it was being flown under control with pinpoint accuracy.

the military could maybe make this happen.. with a remote control device of some sort.
not arab terrorists who flunked flying a Cessna.

[LARED]

62. Flown with point point accuracy. Says who?

Also can you provide any evidence a plane cannot be crashed at 500 mph unless it was coming straight down?

[lovepg]

64. Well judging by the manuever the pilot made he was aiming for the part of the pentagon he hit.

Why else go thru that slow desent and endanger your attack by flying very low over all sorts of obstacles to hit the part of the pentagon he hit. As it was he hit light posts and atruck coming in.
Why not just go straight down onto the roof?
Can you show any evidence of a commercial jet being able to achieve 500 miles per hour mere feet above the ground?

[SDuderstadt]

66. Because he initially overshot the Pentagon....

duh.

[Neily]

84. That's quite an assumption

According to NTSB flight information, the plane was at 7,000 feet high or less when it began its turn approximately 3.5 miles WSW from pentagon. At 7,000 feet and 3.5 miles away, wouldn't there be ample time to hit the pentagon?

[KDLarsen]

85. No

But of course, we don't know what Hani Hanjours intentions were, so it might as well have been that he wasn't sure where the Pentagon was, looked down and realised that he was closer than he thought. Keep in mind that your average commercial plane coming in to land, would be at no more than 1000-1500' at 3.5 miles from the airport. By doing the orbit he allowed himself more distance to set up the hit properly.

[William Seger]

73. Because he was not an expert pilot

An expert pilot might have been able to dive into the Pentagon roof from 7000 feet without overspeeding by "slipping" (holding the plane at an angle to the direction it was moving) but that would truly be a tricky maneuver. But Hanjour was not an expert pilot, so he had to do a spiral to lose altitude. You can watch the animation and see that it was a slow, sloppy spiral that never involved banking as much as 30 degrees. Then he damned near crashed into the bridge, and then barely managed to pull up enough to avoid plowing into the dirt. The argument that the plane couldn't fly that fast low to the ground because of "ground effect" ignore that A) ground effect drops off with speed rather than increases; and B) even at slow speeds, it's not nearly strong enough to keep a 757 in a shallow dive from hitting the ground, otherwise you'd never be able to land one.

These arguments are simply idiotic. You could do your credibility a favor by not parroting them, but I suspect that you won't take my advice.

[lovepg]

77. Your cred would be increased if you actually read the post you are answering.

At no time did I make the ground effect argument. I said it was hard to steer a passenger jet at that speed without hitting all the obstacles and endangering the mission SEGER.
Your speculation he overshot the target the first time is nothing more than your amusing idea based on no evidence SD.
The fact the jet hit the obstacles and was dragging the dirt at the time of impact (according to eyewitness reports) shows the folly of choosing this route.
Your BS about it being harder to crash into the roof is just that.
I notice neither of you gave any evidence of a commercial jet being able to achieve 500 miles at ground level.

[William Seger]

78. I notice that arm-flailing seems to be the extent of your rhetorical Kung Fu skillz

> I said it was hard to steer a passenger jet at that speed without hitting all the obstacles and endangering the mission.

No doubt. But, uh, since he did hit some obstacles, which certainly endangered the mission, then you're confirming my argument that he was not an expert pilot, ain't ya? Oh, wait...

> The fact the jet hit the obstacles and was dragging the dirt at the time of impact (according to eyewitness reports) shows the folly of choosing this route.

Don't we have one of those facepalm smilies around here?



> Your BS about it being harder to crash into the roof is just that.

Yeah, who cares about all that facts-n-reasoning crap.

> I notice neither of you gave any evidence of a commercial jet being able to achieve 500 miles at ground level.

Oh, I do believe I can do that, but you've got the shoe on the wrong foot. I notice that you are completely unable to present any logical reason, much less any evidence, why a commercial jet couldn't achieve 500 mph at ground level. Aren't you the one using that claim to "prove" something about 9/11?

[lovepg]

80. Ahhh another graphics display to hide the other ahhhem smaller display!

Well hitting the obstacles would not say anything about the pilots skill level except they must of had more than the training on Cessna's they were said to have flunked. And that the speed was less than what you say it was.
Because the pilots i have consulted on this matter find this a very troubling aspect of the official story. They stress the skill level needed to fly a commercial jet period let alone at the speed you say it attained is far beyond that needed to fly a Cessna.
Two of them questioned the ability of the jet to attain max cruising speed at ground level because of air resistance. One said it might be able to in theory but it would be next to impossible to control.
Of course I am sure your expertise is far greater than actual pilots.
I presented this argument earlier do try and keep up.

[William Seger]

83. That's not an argument. It's a naked assertion

Do try to learn the difference. And, btw, even other "truther" pilots are unconvinced by those unsubstantiated assertions: http://www.911blogger.com/node/20232

> Well hitting the obstacles would not say anything about the pilots skill level except they must of had more than the training on Cessna's they were said to have flunked.

Say what? Hitting obstacles doesn't say anything about a pilot's skill level? I didn't think you could dig that hole any deeper, but now you're claiming that it actually shows that he had more training than on a Cessna? That doesn't even make enough sense to call it a fallacy. But as mind-boggling as that piece of "logic" is, there isn't any need to ridicule it since Hanjour did not "flunk" Cessna training, and in fact had a commercial pilots certificate and had trained on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa, AZ.: http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour

Wanna try again?

[lovepg]

86. Well you guys do take the cake you bluster about ignorance and fail to even..

know the basic facts.
Three weeks before september11th Hanjour attempted to rent a Cessena at a maryland airfield.
Sceptical 0f what they called his dubious pilots license they insisted he take a chaperoned flight test in the plane before
rental would be approved. He failed his test miserably.It was like he had never flown before they said.
My point as you are well aware is it would take more skill than Hanjour had to do those manuvers.
The training he had that you referenced was seemingly phoney or entirely wasted on a man that could not fly a Cessna three weeks before his mission.

[William Seger]

91. You are as sloppy with your facts as you are with your reasoning.

They declined to rent Hanjour the plane because they said "he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172," not because he "could not fly a Cessna," which is what you said. It appears that he had trouble controlling and landing AA77, too. :eyes:

> My point as you are well aware is it would take more skill than Hanjour had to do those manuvers.

And my point is that you are full of bull, courtesy of the "truth movement." Those "manuvers" show that Hanjour was indeed a crappy pilot who came very close to failing in his mission. But instead of seeing the obvious, "truthers" simply lie about the slow, sloppy spiral he did to lose altitude, saying incredibly stupid things like highly experienced pilots would have trouble doing it, and then imagine that the pilot must have had some reason to deliberately hit the light poles and the generator trailer before just barely hitting the base of the largest office building in the world, but Hanjour didn't have that kind of "skill."

Here's a free clue: When you feel a need to distort the facts and use ass-backwards logic to make your "point," odds are your point sucks.

[lovepg]

97. Ohhhh excuse me do you realize how stupid that sounds?????

Your semantic nit picking is despersation at its finest.
As you clamed he never failed ANY test on the Cessena a flat out "mistruth" you accuse me of truther misleading.
Hysterical. And your characterization of the spiral as slow and sloppy is entirely yours as you have failed to back up that claim against the testimony of air traffic controllers at Dulles who refused to believe
that the plane was not military because of the speed and precision in which it executed its manuvers.
Oh well don't let the facts get in way why start now!

[Bolo Boffin]

101. You're way overstating the evidence.

Find a single ATC at Dulles that doesn't think Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and that they were looking at 77 on the radar. Not one has "refused to believe" this.

And the level of expertise required to aim a plane at a spot on the ground and hit it is far less than required to rent someone's aircraft. The manager at the rental place who denied Hanjour the ability to rent said that Hanjour had enough piloting skills to have hit the Pentagon.

[lovepg]

103. Straw man cometh...

It makes no difference if they thought they were looking at flight 77 because they thought it was a military jet at the time it was occuring.
The point was they thought this because of the flight path and manuevers the jet was making and the skill levels and ability to make those manuvers by the aircraft.
Hit the pentagon yes he may have had the skills to dive bomb into the roof but not the WAY he hit the Pentagon.

[William Seger]

107. O'Brian said exactly why they thought that

"You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Why do you prefer your imaginary "ability to make those manuvers" explanation instead? Why are you substituting your words for his?

[lovepg]

111. You said it was a SLOW And sloppy desent LOL. Its an easy extrapolation to make

That slow and sloppy takes less skill than radical precision to pull off.
Why else would you make that argument?
Now you and SD claim the fact he made those manuvers shows it must have been Hanjour because he had no concern for the comfort of the passengers or safety of the plane.
Don't you get dizzy when you make such about faces in your argument?

[William Seger]

113. Watch the animation

I have, and I call that spiral slow and sloppy because it was. You want to call it something else by quote-mining. Nope, I don't believe I'm the dizzy one.

[lovepg]

117. You are right you know more about the maneuver than the trained experienced

air traffic controllers at Dulles.
And I am disappointed you have no pretty pictures to help you make your point.
You could use the help. But i guess you already knew that.

[William Seger]

120. What I really need

... is a lot of self control to respond to you without violating forum rules. I asked you to watch the flight animation and to please point out where you see any "manuvers" that required extraordinary skills. Hmmm, it appears that once again you have failed.

[lovepg]

121. I defer to the experts at Dulles who said otherwise. nt

[William Seger]

123. You defer to your distorted interpretation of what they said

... rather than the actual FDR data?

OK, since words fail me, that's good enough to win you another graphic:

[SDuderstadt]

127. You mean the ones who said...

this?

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. " You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hijackeWr.htm

Could you please cite specifically where O'Brien is praising Hanjour's flying skills?

[SDuderstadt]

126. "Now you and SD claim the fact he made those manuvers shows it must have been Hanjour because...

he had no concern for the comfort of the passengers or safety of the plane".


Show me where I said that, dude. It was in the piece that I linked to.

[SDuderstadt]

108. Dude....I gave you the whole quote from the ATC...

I don't know how much more plainly she could have said it. Of course, little of this registers with you.

[Bolo Boffin]

131. You have no clue what a straw man argument actually is.

How did I misrepresent your argument?

[SDuderstadt]

102. As usual, you left out part of the story....

The ATC in Washington did not think it was a military jet because of the "speed and precision in which it executed its maneuvers". They initially doubted it was a commercial airliner because it was being flown so recklessly.

The story...

Air traffic controllers watching Flight 77 just before it hit the Pentagon, thought that it was a fighter, not a 757.

Our take...

This is commonly supported by the following quote from Danielle O' Brien:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane"
http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/location.html

But this is another example where a crucial part of the quote has been left out. Here's the oh-so-important extra two sentences:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. " You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hijackeWr.htm

O' Brien wasn't saying the plane couldn't be a 757, just that it was being flown in a dangerous way for a passenger jet. Of course the hijackers really didn't care about "safety" or the comfort of the passengers, so this quote doesn't really tell us much at all.

http://www.911myths.com/html/military_plane.html

This is what you get for relying on CT websites for your "facts", dude. I don't know how many times you'll allow yourself to be utterly embarrassed before you stop this nonsense.

[lovepg]

109. That changes everything............. NOT!!

You have topped yourself SD and thats hard to do.
Not only did you admit my quote was correct and therefore SEGERS point about the slow sloppy desent was total BS
You actually added to it by showing they felt it unsafe to fly a big jet in that kind of radical manuver.
Good one.

[SDuderstadt]

128. Dude...the last two sentences undermine your....

claim. She's saying that Hanjour was flying the airliner in an unsafe manner. Does that sound like she's praising his flying skills?

[lovepg]

145. She is saying that from the manuevers she saw she thought the plane was a military plane

Because what the pilot was doing would be to unsafe to try unless you had a military plane.
For an unskilled pilot to attempt it would Be insanity.
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TOO HARD A MANUVER FOR AN UNSKILLED PIOLT TO ATTEMPT!!
Sorry to shout but you have seemed to turn off your hearing aid
and turned on your graphic aid today.

[SDuderstadt]

147. Dude....

would a skilled pilot attempt to fly an airliner in an unsafe manner? Wouldn't part of the definition of skilled include practicing necessary safety? More importantly, is Danielle O"Brien part of the "truth movement" today? Why not?

In the first sentences, is O'Brien praising the pilot? How about when those sentences are read in conjuction with the last two? Do you really think you can carve out part of a paragraph and get it to mean something it clearly doesn't when the whole paragraph is read?

[lovepg]

149. I am not saying there was no plane. There are other possibilities a real investigation

could uncover however as to who or WHAT was flying that plane.
Just that it is exceeding unlikely Mr. Hanjour pulled it off.

[SDuderstadt]

151. Dude...

why you think it's so hard for a pilot with a commercial license to aim a plane at a very large building and smack it into it is beyond me.

[lovepg]

153. Because the AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER thought it was a smaller more mobile jet

that was doing it because it takes that to pull it off. And because the pilots I asked about it were very sceptical someone of Hanjours flying skill could do it.

[SDuderstadt]

155. No, O'Brien never said a larger jet couldn't do it or isn't capable of it...

she said it was unsafe. Jesus, dude. Your attempt to twist the clear meaning of what she actually said is laughable. Again, if she meant what you claim she did, why isn't she a "truther"?

[lovepg]

159. Unsafe because the plane was not built to do that manuver especially with an untrained pilot

[SDuderstadt]

163. Dude...

you're making my point....do you see that?

[William Seger]

110. Well, no, I don't "realize how stupid that sounds"

... but I do believe I explained why your arguments sound pretty stupid to me, but you don't seem to want to actually discuss those reasons. Instead, you seem to think you can nitpick definitions and maybe nobody will notice. Hanjour did not "flunk flying a Cessna" -- he got both a private license and a commercial pilot certificate -- and the guy who decided not to rent him their Cessna doesn't seem to have any problem believing that he could have flown AA77 into the Pentagon.

The animation made from AA77's FDR data shows exactly what those "manuvers" looked like; please watch it and please point out to me which "manuvers" were beyond Hanjour's skills.

And I think we've established that you are distorting what the Dulles people actually said, but you've got the chutzpah to say:

> Oh well don't let the facts get in way why start now!

Here's what your desperation looks like to me:

[lovepg]

112. When words fail you heh.........

I always know I have won an argument when the other person had to resort to graphics and "clever" pictures.
My work here is done.

[William Seger]

114. Uh-huh

I think I'd better run away before you bite my legs off.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Dude...

I'll gladly lay out the evidence for you. Unless you somehow claim the Pentagon was not the target, why in the world was Hanjour at 7000 ft before he executed that very clumsy loop? If you admit that the Pentagon was the target, what was he supposed to do at 7000 ft? Drop something on it? Nevermind that theory is totally implausible (although it frankly sounds realistic when compared to some of the doozies you come up with).

Beyond that, given the relative size of the Pentagon vs the size of the plane, which do you think would have caused more damage? Hitting it laterally in one of the wedges or dive bombing into the roof? Think about that for just a moment.

Frankly, there are so many logical holes in your goofy theories and arguments. it's impossible to get to them all in just one post or even in just one day. I've recommended critical thinking classes to you before and honestly believe they may make at least a little dent in your near-total illogicality. Your local community college will have them. Unfortunately, I don't thibk they will be able to help you with your frightening stubborness when repeatedly shown to be dead wrong about nearly everything.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lovepg]

146. I see you had to run to the moderator for help again tsk tsk. nt

[SDuderstadt]

148. I see you had to break the rules again and engage in...

name-calling. Pity.

[lovepg]

150. Oh come on SD.. If you say your posts smack of ignorance do you really say

you are not insulting the person just because the board rules say you are not?
Your posts can't be that moronic can they???

[SDuderstadt]

152. Show me where I have ever said that...

dude.

[lovepg]

165. " Your Frightning stubborness" is a complement then in your world?

It would certainly qualify as an insult in any place except the strange underground caverns that are the 911 forum.
But i am used to the "rules" being stretched for certain posters.

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lovepg]

169. Mine was open and intended after your insult was given.

You pull this crap all the time. And hide behind your technicalities.
Thats my observation.

[SDuderstadt]

171. Dude...

I play by the rules. The rules don't say that a member cannot criticize another member.

[lovepg]

175. Allright ,YOUR POSTS are ,..

Moronic, stupid, dumb, and without a shred Of any logic or truth. Your posts are not you. You just create them.
See I followed the rules. Feel better??

[SDuderstadt]

181. Now, you're catching on, dude...

finally.

[defendandprotect]

223. Misplaced --

Take my advice . . . recognize your own wisdom and put the ....
Posted by defendandprotect

"Moronic, stupid, dumb, and without a shred Of any logic or truth" poster on

IGNORE --

Join me!!
:)

[defendandprotect]

224. Take my advice . . . recognize your own wisdom and put the ....

"Moronic, stupid, dumb, and without a shred Of any logic or truth" poster on

IGNORE --

Join me!!


:)

[SDuderstadt]

227. Here's even better advice....

why not put everyone on ignore and you'll never have to challenge your wrong notions.

[lovepg]

245. Exactly which notions of his are wrong??

Come on and list them because you are so sure of yourself.
Name the posts produce the evidence to back up your claim DUDE!

[SDuderstadt]

247. You realize, of course, that I am responding to D&P who, in turn...

was responding to you, right? Do you always refer to yourself in the third person?

[lovepg]

255. Actually he is talking about you DUDE.nt

[SDuderstadt]

256. Omigod....

you can't even follow a simple thread. Read it again and see if you can spot your error, dude. Do you really think D&P is advising me to put myself on ignore???

BTW, since she claims to already have me on ignore, how do you suppose she would even know what I am saying, dude?

You seem to be no better at following a thread than RR. It's truly comical.

[lovepg]

257. Sorry your just embarassing yourself read it again....

He is telling me to put the dumb stupid moronic poster on ignore.
That was my reference to YOU!

[whatchamacallit]

28. 733

which means at 29.97 video frames per second the object was captured every 24 feet.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Except the security cameras were recording one frame per second...

dude. Did you ever wonder why the playback of security footage looks so funny?

[whatchamacallit]

33. link please. (no debunk sites)

[SDuderstadt]

58. Help, please....

I have a limited amount of time due to an upcoming business trip and I am having some difficulty locating an authoritative source for the frame rate of the Pentagon security cams. I seem to recall no more than 1-2 fps and I know they were certainly not shooting 29.97 fps as he claims.


Can anyone help?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Thanks, buddy...

I agree that it's hard to determine what would be "authoritative" in this circumstance, but I think it's fair to say that Rense is certainly not a debunker site.

So, using the 1 fps rate with a plane traveling at 763 ft/sec, that would mean in one shot it is still 2 1/2 football field lengths away and by the next frame it has slammed into the Pentagon. This is why I don't get why so many people have such a hard time understanding why we have no clear images of AA77 prior to impact.

[elias7]

92. The reason I have trouble understanding is because you're assuming a singular perspective

You're argument assumes a camera placed perpendicularly to the flight path, and the plane crossing across the field of view in less than one second. Those are two big hurdles for me.

[William Seger]

74. You can check it out for yourself

Download the released videos here: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi

These are WMV files that play at 30 frames per second, but if you step through them a frame at a time, the image only changes about ever 31 or 32 frames.

[LARED]

42. 29.97 frames per second for the parking lot camera you claim

Link please and no CTer sites.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Oh, yeah....

I'm so scared by what may be lurking around every corner. Are you going to produce it soon? What are you waiting for? Are you one of those guys that are going to put us on trial for opposing the "truth"?

[whatchamacallit]

29. drip... drip... drip... more is being revealed all the time

which is why you get more batshit by the day

[SDuderstadt]

32. When is it all going to come out?

What are you waiting for?

[whatchamacallit]

34. What color is the sky on your planet?

What am *I* waiting for?

[SDuderstadt]

35. One of these....

So far, all you seem to have is one of these:

[William Seger]

76. There's a hole in your bucket

News from Trutherland seems to have a very short shelf-life before being debunked.

[LARED]

14. The reality is the Pentagon could release

every single piece of film, digital image, and scrap paper that recorded the events of 9/11 surrounding the plane crash into the Pentagon and no-planers would not be convinced a plane crashed.

[wildbilln864]

15. the reality is....

that's your biased opinion! :eyes:

[LARED]

17. biased opinion!?

No, that's an empirically derived observation.

[whatchamacallit]

18. You shake this same nugget out of your pant leg

anytime anyone desires any information beyond what we already have. What you're really trying to say is "please no more information, I'm scared"

[LARED]

38. I've no issue with the Pentagon releasing addtional

information. My only point is it would do no good to the no-planers, as the evidence for the flight 77 striking the Pentagon is incontrovertible.

BTW why do you think I'm scared?

[William Seger]

95. We don't need to guess about that

At the Pentagon, we're told that the absence of clear videos proves that AA77 didn't hit the building, so all the witnesses must be lying and all the physical evidence must have been faked.

At WTC2, we're told that dozens of videos and photos proves that the perps put faked images into every camera in Manhattan, so all the witnesses must be lying and all the physical evidence must have been faked.

[foreigncorrespondent]

46. Pentagon Defence...

... in the documentary Zero An Investigation into 9/11 they interviewed someone who mentioned about the civil transponders VS the Federal Transponders and the no fly zone around Washington prior to 9/11. They said in this documentary that the only planes allowed in the no fly zone are those sporting the federal transponder, anything else would have been shot down by the surface to air missiles they have had around the Pentagon for years.

[hack89]

51. Nonsense

the Pentagon is a couple of miles from a major airport - hundreds of planes fly within a mile of the Pentagon everyday.

There is absolutely no evidence of surface to air missile at the Pentagon - it is a unsubstantiated Truther myth.

[foreigncorrespondent]

52. Well...

...I much prefer to believe the footage I have viewed, and the experts I have listened to reguarding what I have stated above.

[William Seger]

94. Why would you "much prefer" to believe something that...

A) doesn't make any sense, given that one approach to National is directly over the Pentagon;

B) isn't supported by a shred of evidence; and

C) flatly denied by people who should actually know?

This is not a rhetorical question: Why would you "much prefer" to believe unsubstantiated and extremely dubious claims about 9/11?

[defendandprotect]

229. Agree . . .

[defendandprotect]

228. No . . .Pentagon is 26 miles from Dulles/3 miles from RR national --

http://www.armyg1.army.mil/PIK/pik.asp

(By law, direct flights to National are limited to no more than 1,250 miles.)

Loose Change Website - Version 2.0
1. The distance from Dulles airport to the Pentagon 22 miles. But the distance flight 77 took from Dulles to get to the Pentagon was 627 miles. ...
z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?... - 67k - Cached


And, presumably, the Pentagon is unaware of scheduled flights at these airports -- !!

:evilgrin:


Supposedly, there is an inner core of protection 15/17 mile radius -- and Pentagon is protected
by jet fighters from Andrews.

Meanwhile, evidently nothing gets into this area . . .

unless you are a Democratic president and someone wants to run a private plane into your bedroom!!!

:evilgrin:

[KDLarsen]

250. What is this I don't even

Did you even have a point with that post? Because it's making absolutely no sense to me.

[defendandprotect]

263. That's clear --

[Theobald]

252. Really the Pentagon is 3 miles from National Airport?

The impact site of the Pentagon is less than 1 mile from the runway at National Airport.

[defendandprotect]

262. What "impact" site -- ?

The "alleged" plane was flying at a height too high to have hit the light poles

near the Pentagon according to FOIA information from the black box.

Needless to say, if birds can disturb the flight of an aluminum plane, so can light poles -

so that story is sunk twice.

The mythical path of the "plane" is also unlikely -- and the "plane" was seen flying OVER

the Pentagon and beyond while explosives went off simultaneously.


But, again, the Pentagon and NORAD are vulnerable - fragile --

unable to do their assigned tasks of protecting the nation and the Pentagon!!!



From the link . . .

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is three miles from the Pentagon.

[KDLarsen]

265. Sigh..

Birds disrupt flights by getting sucked into the engine and wrecking havoc, not by causing structural damage to the plane.

Have you ever heard of breakaway bases of lightpoles? It lets lightpoles snap very easily when hit by a moving object, such as a plane.

[defendandprotect]

267. eh . . . no . . .birds puncture the aluminum, as well . . .i.e., HOLE IN PLANE . . .

Plus hitting a light post will bring a plane down as we saw in '04 --

That was a plane scheduled to pick up Poppy Bush -- etal --

Again, the "plane" didn't hit the light posts -- it was flying too high to do so!

[SDuderstadt]

268. You might be a "truther" if you believe....

birds can puncture an aluminum plane, but the plane cannot penetrate an aluminum-clad building.

[KDLarsen]

269. Of course, that depends on the size of the birds

In this case: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Germania/Boeing-737-329/1589920/L/ lead to http://www.airliners.net/photo/Germania/Boeing-737-329/1589919/L/

In most other cases you will be let off with a dent: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France/Boeing-747-428M/0659978/L/ & http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM-Cityhopper/Fokker-70-(F-28-0070)/0477279/L/

And then of course, there's the extreme cases: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Unknown/Boeing-737-4.../0627304/L/

And really? Are you comparing a small business jet, going low and slow, to a medium sized jet going at 500 mph?

[defendandprotect]

271. This was not a small business jet --

Airplanes are aluminum tubes -- they are easily damaged by bird, light poles --

and not likely to survive trying to slice thru steel.

But, most of us know that!!

[SDuderstadt]

272. "Truther Logic"

AA 11 and UA 175 "survived" the collision with the WTC.

[KDLarsen]

273. It was a Gulfstream G-1159A / G-III

They're about the size of a small commuter jet. And the larger the airplane and the higher the speed, the more kinetic energy you get.

[SDuderstadt]

274. Do you really believe...

D&P understands kinetic energy?

[KDLarsen]

275. Not really

But what the hey, if I can convince a lurker or two, it's worth it.

[Theobald]

278. Your link is fucking wrong and that doesn't bode well for your other ass ertions.

I live less than 3 miles from the Pentagon and I'm South of National Airport. Of course being south of the pentagon and being further away then national probably means nothing to you. Why don't you buy a map and ruler and see how fucking wrong you are, or you can make it easier on yourself and just go to google maps and get the answer, but you probably can't figure out how to make it work.

[Theobald]

282. Of course we are talking about airplanes and not about cars.

If you were driving from National to the Pentagon it would be 3 miles:

Driving directions to Pentagon Metro Station (Blue & Yellow Line)
[phone]
3.2 mi – about 5 mins
Suggested routes




Ronald Reagan Washington National AirportVirginia 22202

1. Head north toward Aviation Cir/Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Access Rd 0.1 mi
2. Slight right at Aviation Cir/Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Access Rd 0.6 mi
3. Take the ramp onto George Washington Memorial Pkwy 1.2 mi
4. Take the I-395 S exit toward Richmond 0.2 mi
5. Take exit 10A on the left toward Boundary Channel/N Pentagon Parking 469 ft
6. Merge onto I-395 S 0.5 mi
7. Take exit 8A for VA-27/Washington Blvd toward Pentagon South Parking/S Arl Ridge Rd 0.2 mi
8. Keep left at the fork, follow signs for Pentagon South Parking/Carpool Staging Area and merge onto Pentagon Access Rd 0.3 mi
9. Turn left to stay on Pentagon Access Rd
Destination will be on the left 459 ft

Pentagon Metro Station (Blue & Yellow Line)
2 N Rotary RdFort Myer, VA 22211
[phone]

But since we are talking about planes flying around the Pentagon airspace your assertion that the Pentagon is 3 miles from National Airport is spurious. The end of the runway, nearest to the Pentagon is less than one mile from the Pentagon. In order for planes to land on that runway they have to go very near and sometimes over the Pentagon. This facts make your earlier statements that planes could not go anywhere neat the Pentagon factually incorrect.

[hack89]

54. Something to consider

can you collaborate anything in your truther movie? For example, can you provide an FAA link? Or do the folks that run the nations airways keep such things secret? Can you link to a general aviation site that talks about civil vice federal transponders?

Why is it that when I google "Federal Transponders" I don't find anything?

[lovepg]

60. Try military transponders. nt

[hack89]

63. Mode 4 IFF is on every civilian airliner

that lands at Reagan airport? Is that your argument? Because it is a dumb one.

[lovepg]

82. Was a 7500 code given on 911 by the jets?? If not why? nt

[hack89]

87. Code 7500 is a civilian IFF code

we are talking about the nonsensical idea that planes flying near the Pentagon must have military IFF transponders (ie Mode 4 IFF) or they are shot down. 7500 is a Mode 3 code, which is a civilian IFF code.

[lovepg]

98. Of course it is but the jets were civilian remember???? nt

[hack89]

200. Go read post 46 - that's what we are discussing. nt

[William Seger]

93. Because the pilot would need to set the 7500 code

Were you under the impression that airplanes automatically set that code when they feel like they've been hijacked?

[lovepg]

99. No but it takes mere seconds to do it. Its so easy to do in pilot traing they trainyou

not to do it by accident. So was a code 7500 sent by any of the pilots that day at the time of the highjackings?

[KDLarsen]

104. No

But that's hardly surprising, given that the hijackers didn't exactly waltz into the cockpit and struck up a casual, political debate with the pilots. The ATC tapes from the hijacking of United 93 clearly shows that.

Also, depending on the layout, the pilots would have had to dial 4 seperate switches to change the transponder code. Try doing that, while keeping someone from slitting your throat.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-757-223/1164757/L/

The transponder code is set at the bottom of the blue box below the throttle quadrant.

ETA: In any case, the hijackers could easily have changed the code to something else. At least one of the hijackers (AA11 or UA175, can't remember which one) changed the code a couple of times, before switching off the transponder.

[lovepg]

115. Wow more bluster....

AS many as Four nobs, two pilots, seconds to perform. You think one of the pilots would have managed this "difficult" task.
Switching it off again would do nothing because the reason they train you NOT to do this by accident is that it will get you an escort of fighter jets even if you do this for mere seconds.

[William Seger]

106. Hmm, maybe they were too busy with something else

... like trying to defend themselves from being murdered.

[lovepg]

116. Pilots are trained to do this manuever in mere seconds.

Why have a high jack code that takes too long to set during an actual highjacking?
And it is expected a knowledgeable highjacker will reset this code when they get control of the plane.
Thats why an accidental setting of this will still bring the fighters.

[William Seger]

118. Back up a second. Did you have some POINT you were trying to make

... with this particularly idiotic argument?

[lovepg]

119. What no pictures?? Can it be?

The point is none of the pilots managed to do that day something they are trained to do when a hi jacking occurs.
None of the hijackers had a gun. Yet none of the pilots were able to find enough time to get off this code warning that takes mere seconds to do.
Just another in a long line of unbelievable events that occur with regularity in official story world.

[William Seger]

122. "Unbelievable" to whom?

Where would these "mere seconds" come from when they were fighting for their lives -- ask for a time-out?

And what exactly is the "point" of your incredulity, or is that supposed to be sufficiently impressive all by itself?

[KDLarsen]

124. Rubbish.

The hijack code was intended for use in situations where a guy with a gun demands to be flown to Cuba. The pilots remain in control of the planes and will have plenty of time to change the code.

The 9/11 hijackers had no use for the pilots, so the first thing they did when they entered the cockpit, was to go straight for the pilots' throat and slit it.

Again, it doesn't matter if it takes mere seconds to do, when the pilots are busy fighting for their lives. When the hijackers stormed the cockpit, the pilots' position meant that they were vulnerable to attacks from behind.

[lovepg]

161. The cockpit doors did have locks you know. And clear warnings of impending hijackings

had come in. Why would the pilots leave a door unlocked giving them no time to resist or call for help??
That would be criminal negligence given the warnings right??

[SDuderstadt]

164. You must have missed the part where the Bush administration...

failed to pass those warnings onto the airlines, dude.

[lovepg]

167. Why the same Bush administration whose story YOU believe was criminally negligent

about passing out hijack warnings?
What motive would they have for doing that ???

[SDuderstadt]

170. Dude....

we've been down this road before...the "official story" is not solely from the Bush administration and one does not have to rely upon them to get information about that day. For example, the 9/11 Commission was not a creature of the Bush administration. It was a creature of Congress and half of the members of the Commission were appointed by the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate.

This is just your backhanded way of trying to tie anyone who dares disagree with you to the Bush administration. I have asked you repeatedly and politely in the past to refrain from doing this.

[lovepg]

172. I asked a simple question if you cannot answer it admit... nt

[SDuderstadt]

174. Show me where I said they were criminally negligent, dude...

Also, point to where I "believe" the Bush administration story.

This just gets sillier and sillier.

[lovepg]

178. Its fact they got many warnings. Its fact they did not pass them on.

As a result thousands of people died when they failed to warn the airlines to take some simple anti hijacking procedures.
How does that fail the test of criminal negligence??
Yet I notice you are defending them.

[SDuderstadt]

179. I am not "defending" the Bush administration, dude...

You don't seem to understand the test for criminal negligence, espcially when it appears in a political or governmental context. Get back to me when you've finished law schoold, dude.

BTW, taking issue with your claims is NOT defending the Bush administration. I have asked you repeatedly and politely to quit trying to tie me to the Bush administration. How many times do I have to ask you? You seem to think they must be guilty of any charge you might make simply because it was the Bush administration.

[lovepg]

201. I love how you try and take the reasonable and extrapolate the unreasonable from it by adding..

your own spin. "you seem to think they must be guilty of any charge you might make simply because it was the Bush administration"
No I think they are guilty because there is amble evidence of the warnings they got.

[KDLarsen]

199. Got a source for that?

ie. something more specific than "bin Laden plans to attack the US, maybe with planes"?

[defendandprotect]

230. Also, not even one of these 4 experience pilots ever hit the button to signal hijacking . . .!!!

[defendandprotect]

248. Correct . . . but I understood it was simply a button to be pushed ...???

[KDLarsen]

249. No single button to push

They had to manually change 4 rotating knobs to the code 7500, while at the same time struggling to keep the hijackers from slitting their throat. And since there's no audio-visual alert that you've entered 7500 as your transponder code, they would have had to look below and slightly behind them to the transponder box to see what code they were dialling in.

[defendandprotect]

258. Certainly NOT what I've read on this . . .

if I come upon the info again, I'll post a link --

However, no one designing any function like this would make it that difficult
realizing any true hijacking event could be chaotic. Additionally, any time the
transponder goes off NORAD would be responding immediately. Additionally, even
with the transponder off, the airline and the military can still ID the plane.

Also keep in mind that the entire fiction of "box cutters" and "hijackers" comes to
you from cell phone calls -- which the FBI has proven were never made.

NO CALLS FROM THE PLANES --

Now ... what do you actually know?

[KDLarsen]

264. You're missing the point

Prior to 9/11, there had only been a handful of cases (PSA flight 1771, FedEx flight 705 comes to mind), where hijackings had involved the (attempted, in the FedEx case) killing of both pilots and the hijacker taking control of the fligt himself. In every other case, the pilots were allowed to fly the plane and would have plenty of time to set the code himself.

Also, just about every hijacking so far has involved the hijacker demanding a ransom of sorts, which meant letting the world know that the plane was hijacked. The 9/11 hijackers had no such thing in mind, they intended to hide for as long as possible.

[rollingrock]

10. At 500mph if you're off by a hair, you're in the river

or in the ground.

wow. that is one incredible pilot.

[defendandprotect]

22. We also know two other things . . . the plane couldn't have gone that fast at

ground level without shaking itself apart -- further these planes aren't made

for acrobatics --

AND, there's been a FOIA document release which reports information from the flight's

black box -- the flight was flying at an altitude TOO HIGH TO HAVE HIT THE LIGHT POLES!!!!




:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[rollingrock]

65. The data recorder is the smoking gun

why is the data from Flight 77 never mentioned in the report on the Pentagon attack!??
because the black box data completely contradicts the government's story.

that's why they will never release any video footage that shows what the plane actually did.
they probably destroyed it by now, or more likely turned off the cameras that day.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Let me make sure I get this straight....

the "perps" could engineer this intricate plot, but they couldn't fake the FDR data to match the plot??

[rollingrock]

75. Apparently not

doesn't mean that they didn't try.

[ki83760]

19. Moore is right as usual

[foreigncorrespondent]

43. I recently watched...

...Zero An Investigation into 9/11. I think it may have been produced by Italians. In that, they mentioned that there were 86 cameras viewing the Pentagon on that day and the only footage they managed to capture was the infamous car park one. Yet shortly after the Pentagon was struck the FBI came in and confiscated all the camera footages from all those 86 cameras.

If you haven't yet seen Zero, I highly recommend it.

[Neily]

48. They did release two from off-site

If I recall correctly they released one from the hotel and one from the gas station.

[foreigncorrespondent]

53. Nope...

...as far as I remember the only footage ever to be released has been the five frames from the Pentagon car park.

[Neily]

55. As I said...

They did release videos from 2 different locations under a FOIA request. I am just not sure if there were more than 2.


Citgo Gas Station - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk

Hotel - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIw9jrOhT8w

[Theobald]

205. Your memory might prevent you from knowing the truth

but it doesn't change the fact that footage was released from two Pentagon videos, the Citgo gas station, and the Doubletree hotel. http://www.flight77.info

So now you know that there is footage from four different cameras of the event; of course you only know it as long as you remember it, and as soon as you forget it, it won't be real again.

[lovepg]

61. both had obstructed views... nt

[Neily]

68. Exactly

you have 2 videos with obstructed views and and one time lapse video which shows nothing discernible.

[Theobald]

207. Where do you think you would find videos without

obstructed views? Have you ever driven in the area? I've been living in the DC area on and off since 1989 and have driven around the area near the Pentagon thousands of times and there is very little around there that would have direct unobstructed views of the Pentagon. The area directly across from that side of the Pentagon is Arlington National Cementary; do you think they have gravestone cameras pointed at the Pentagon? The nearest buildings are the Citgo station, the Double tree hotel, some small buildings, I think they are maitanence buildings located on Patton Drive in the cemetary, and the Navy Annex building.

Please look at the aeriel view of the Pentagon on Google maps and explain to me which of these buildings would have a security camera pointed at the plane impact site.

[Neily]

215. Supposedly there are 80+ videos relevant...

to the pentagon crash, according to the FOIA request made. The person who released the videos apparently said there were around 80 videos relevant to the request made, but they were only releasing 4 - I think... I can try to find the information link if you need it.

[Theobald]

216. What I need for you to do is address my questions

1) Where do you think there would be video cameras that would have an unobstructed view of the Pentagon?

2) Which of the buildings that are near the Pentagon would have a security video pointed at that side of the Pentagon?

[Neily]

220. I never attempted to answer your question

But, if you would like I can give you one potential place where cameras were. The helipad tower right near the point of impact may have had cameras pointing in various directions. We know it was close enough to the impact point, because the guard ducked thinking it was about to hit the helipad tower.

Hmm lookie here... the helipad tower was close enough to the impact point to show fire right behind it. In addition, notice the things on top of the helipad tower. They look like cameras to me... And if logic would apply here. I see one on the left, one in front, and logically there would be one on the right which would be pointing right at the crash site.

[go west young man]

279. Link to Judicial watch website and litigation in regards to the cameras.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/Flight77

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5724.shtml

[defendandprotect]

231. Agree -- good --

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pharaoh]

89. Dolts?

why hang out here if you think we are dolts?

[Don Caballero]

96. I like Michael Moore

Saw this thread and decided to watch the clip. In no way is Michael Moore implying that Bush carried out the attacks with help from Cheney and Rumsfeld like you guys think. To believe that the last inept, bumbling President was able to carry out the most sophisticated attacks in world history is crazy talk. He fumbled the wars in the Middle East and Katrina, there is no way he would have been able to carry out 9/11 and keep the thousands of people in on it quiet.

[Pharaoh]

105. I never said that

I just want to see all the video.

[dbonds]

133. You are making wild assumptions.

People don't really blame Bush personally. But the Official mythology of the day just doesn't hold up to science. So 'truthers' want a real investigation of what really happened. There is possibility someone in high up places was involved, but I personally wouldn't think Bush or even Cheney would be a major player - they just had went along with it.

[SDuderstadt]

135. "But the Official mythology of the day just doesn't hold up to science"

Actually, it does, which is why so many of us liberal Democratic "debunkers" spend time to try to correct some of the nonsense put forth by the "truth movement", despite the fact that "truthers" are constantly assaulting our Democratic or liberal credentials and even calling us "authoritarians" or "Bush supporters".

I'd love for you to point out specifically where the "official story" doesn't hold up to science.

[dbonds]

137. It would't do any good, you change reality to fit your views.

Why bother, really. I don't care what you think, or how much you try to insult people you can't make think like you. That is just a distraction. My post was just to correct the misstatement that 'truthers' think Bush pulled this off.

[SDuderstadt]

138. Show me where I insulted anyone....

ever heard the expression, "if you can't take the heat..."?

Why is it so hard to provide conclusive evidence of where the "official story" doesn't adhere to science? Hint: because it actually does, whereas, the goofy theories of the "truth movement" don't

[dbonds]

141. You insult people all the time.

Of course you dance around the forum rules where its and insult but not direct name calling - yet still an insult.

You don't cause heat, your a distraction. That's all. Insignificant to the bigger picture of getting a new investigation. Prove to me you are significant.

[SDuderstadt]

143. Post one of the typical untruths of the "truth movement" and I...

will. Back to your claim that I "insult" people. Can you point to a specific insult? I'm intrigued by your observation that I "dance around the forum rules where its and(sic)insult but not direct name calling - yet still an insult".

To me, it sounds like you realize that I don't actually insult people, but you're trying to make it sound like I do. Can you point specifically to one of these insults? Since I "insult people all the time", shouldn't that be easy? Do you honestly think that pointedly criticizing people is the same as insulting them? What should we do with people who have little regard for the truth, yet refer to themselves as "truthers"?

[dbonds]

154. The very first post I saw in this thread from you...

"13. I say you already have enough evidence to know...

Edited on Fri Oct-02-09 06:40 PM by SDuderstadt
there was a 747 that struck the Pentagon and that it's stupid to expect a security camera taking one frame per second to capture a clear image of a plane going in excess of 500 MPH. Do the math, dude."


That is an insult without calling names - you imply the previous poster is being stupid and can't do math. Many more examples like this. Now in this particular case you possibly could have a point with the frames per sec, but it is lost in your rhetoric. If you had been having a reasonable discussion you could have easily said "I think the camera's were set to 1 frame per sec, so that means the plane flies 733 every frame". Then the discussion could have been based on would that be enough to get pictures of the approaching plane. As a side issue knowing the frames per second and having more video from other cameras released could help determine the actual ground speed and could once and for all eliminate anything but an airplane approaching the pentagon.

[SDuderstadt]

156. Wrong, again...

saying that something is stupid is NOT the same thing as calling the speaker stupid. Very smart people do and say stupid things. Beyond that, challenging someone to do the math of a particular situation is hardly the same thing as saying they can't do math. If anything, it assumes their math ability.

As far as your last point, there are over 100 witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. What more do you need????

P.S. There are exactly ZERO witnesses who saw anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon. With all the people there that day, can you explain that? I can.

[dbonds]

158. Sorry, but you are wrong, although I bet you don't realize it.

Those type of statements others find insulting. You obviously have never hung out with smart people or you would know you never use words like stupid or idiot, you talk about ideas in the least emotional terms you can find. Smart people do not like emotion driven words that are only have the use of distraction. If I tell you what you are saying is stupid, or that only an idiot would think the things you are saying, that is an insult - it just dances around the forum rules by not direct name calling. The mistake you make is in thinking only name calling is an insult. There are lots of ways to insult, you can even do it without directly referring to a person, yet insult them: Lets say "There are some really dumb people in this forum and there are some smart ones, here are the ones I think are smart, A, B, C, D,..." See I haven't called you out but by omitting your name in the smart list I have insulted you.

And what is your last statement about
"As far as your last point, there are over 100 witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. What more do you need????"
Did I question what the object that hit the pentagon was? I gave a way it could be proven to be a plane.

[SDuderstadt]

162. "You obviously have never hung out with smart people "

Really? You would know that how??

If I tell you what you are saying is stupid, or that only an idiot would think the things you are saying, that is an insult

I don't think you see the difference between the two things there. Saying that SOMETHING is stupid is not the same thing as saying SOMEONE is stupid, for reasons I have pointed out before. In your second example, however, you ARE saying the person is an idiot...do you see that? In one, the subject is the idea itself and in the other, it's the person. BTW, can you find a SINGLE example of me saying the second? I'll save you some trouble. I never ever have.

Lets say "There are some really dumb people in this forum and there are some smart ones, here are the ones I think are smart, A, B, C, D,..." See I haven't called you out but by omitting your name in the smart list I have insulted you.

Wrong again. Your claim is an example of a "false dilemma", because there are other possibilities beyond what you specify other than a person can only be in one of the two groups. It's also possible that you merely forgot them or that you think they are neither smart nor dumb. Irrespective of that, you won't find an example like that from me either. If you have one, please post it.

[dbonds]

166. The fact that you don't see those as the same is the problem.

You are making artificial barriers between what you want to get away with doing and direct name calling. You desire to be able to use emotion laden words because it helps distract or maybe you think it actually amplifies your point. All you do by that is invalidate your point because you create an emotional response from the other people in the conversation and it results in heated flame wars. They see it as insults. You can claim all you want that it is not but that doesn't change the fact that it is.

And for you to knit pick on an off the cuff example I gave to demonstrate a concept shows you aren't really trying to understand. Any reasonable person could understand the example and the insult, to imply there were other alternatives is just wishful thinking. And the point a reasonable person would get from that is you don't have to name call to insult someone, there are many ways.

Did I imply you used the word idiot by the way? I think you are misreading things again. I understand why you get confused at others posts if you miss major points like that or fail to understand conceptual themes of a post. If you are doing speed reading maybe slow down and linger longer on the words.

[SDuderstadt]

173. Can you show me where "emotion-laden" words are...

prohibited by the rules?

"to imply there were other alternatives is just wishful thinking"

WTF? Are you really saying that all people in the forum or on DU could be classified into only one of two camps? Smart or dumb? Really?

Have you considered the fact that you just might be in over your head here?

As far as your question about whether you implied that I have used the word "idiot", it hardly makes any difference. That example IS an example of an insult precisely because it refers to a poster/member as an idiot. I'm merely challenging you to provide a specific example of me doing so. So far, you haven't been able to. You should work on understanding the distinct difference between calling something stupid and calling a person stupid. One is an insult, the other isn't. Can you guess which is which?

For example, if I say, "Albert Einstein was truly a genius but, nonetheless, did some stupid things in his lifetime, do you really maintain that I am calling Einstein stupid?

[dbonds]

176. I have never seen you so kerfuffled.

Do you forget context of threads when you go back to reply to follow up posts? I can't believe even you could be that off the mark in that reply. Did you forget the context of 'dancing around the rules'? That is where this started, but I guess you are seemed to now be admitting that you are dancing around the rules - cool. Well not cool that you do it but at least you realize it now.

And boy, lol, thinking I actually said there were only two classes of people in this forum, lol, that is priceless. I'm at a loss for words you could could take an abstract sample example of an insult without calling names and turn it into that. That is special.

I go back to my statement originally. You are just a distraction. You have no relevance in us getting a new investigation. I don't know why you are in this forum, but if you only want to hurl insults (thinly veiled or direct) at people that do you are not part of the conversation.

[SDuderstadt]

180. Again, show me where I have hurled insults...

then take it up with the moderators.

While you're at it, can you show me where I "admitted dancing around the rules"? Please be specific.

[dbonds]

183. Easy

Part 1, Done in previous post by me in this sub thread plus many other examples in this thread and others. I leave it to the reader to find those.

Part 2, If you follow the context of this sub thread, then you justify your insults by saying they are not specifically prevented in the rules - or in layman terms - dancing around the rules to insult.

[SDuderstadt]

184. Show where I said insults were not specifically prohibited...

by the rules. I clearly said it's not againt the rules to criticize another member. Please quit misrepresenting what I've actually said. Thanks.

BTW, how's it going on getting that "new investigation"? Are you making progress? Oh, another thing. Have you actually READ the reports that emanated from the investigations we've had? I'm willing to bet you haven't.

[dbonds]

185. Must you make it so easy...

Dude tries d20 saving roll, fail.

The insults we are talking about is using the emotionally laden words. You clearly then justify them with this statement:
"Can you show me where "emotion-laden" words are...

prohibited by the rules?"

You are justifying your dancing around the rules to insult. No misrepresentation, unless you want to look at some of your claims about what I said up thread - there is some wild misrepresentations.

[SDuderstadt]

187. I think you need a logic lesson, here....

Are you seriously claiming all emotion-laden words are insults? This is getting siller and sillier. And I notice that you CAN'T show where I said insults weren't prohibited, so you play word games.

Your argument is something like this.

Insults contain emotion-laden words.
Sduderstadt is using emotion-laden words.
Therefore, Sduderstadt is making insults.

I'm not sure that you would understand why that's fallacious, so here's another, highly simplified example of the argument you just made

Cats have tails.
Dogs have tails.
Therefore, dogs are cats.

In other words, even though cats have tails, everything that has a tail is not a cat. In the example you gave, while insults contain emotion-laden words, not all emotion-laden words or phrases are insults, unless you would consider "I love you" to be an insult.

[dbonds]

189. Strange extrapolation.

But I should expect no less seeing how you haven't followed context very well. No need to even try to explain this one away as no reasonable thinking person could extrapolate like that. Context, context, context.

[SDuderstadt]

190. So, Logic doesn't apply?

Seriously?

WTF are you yammering about now? As I stated previously, I believe you're in over your head on this one.

[dbonds]

191. Dude, dude, dude

That post is dancing around the rules trying to insult again. No value, distraction.

[SDuderstadt]

192. That is not an insult...

and you know it. I'd love for you to point to whatever "extrapolation" you were yammering about.

[dbonds]

193. The word yammering is an insult.

And you know this. There is no way you could not possibly know this.

[SDuderstadt]

194. Oh, for Pete's sake...

you need to look up the definitions of "yammer". And, it would help if you would answer questions directly. What "extrapolation" were you referring to?

Simple question: have you actually read any of the reports from investigations of 9/11?

[dbonds]

195. What a wild jump.

The 9/11 report has no place in this sub thread, it was not even hinted at. What has been talked about is the method and techniques of dancing around the rules to insult people, which have continued with your pejorative use of the word yammering. I refuse to believe you don't have enough social experience to know that word is an insult.

[SDuderstadt]

196. Remember saying this?

But the Official mythology of the day just doesn't hold up to science. So 'truthers' want a real investigation of what really happened

Simple question: have you actually read the 9/11 Commission Report?

BTW, one of the definitions of "yammer" is "To complain peevishly". That's precisely what you were doing and pointing that out isn't an insult.

[dbonds]

197. No complaints, just observations.

And the statement you quoted was not about the 9/11 report. Do you see the 9/11 report mentioned anywhere in it? I think not. Look for the gestalt. It is time for a new investigation.

And I think the context of this sub thread was thoroughly exemplified. If we follow standard operating procedure the next step will be to pick random bits of info, turn them on their side and present challenges. As much fun as that sounds, I think reading a book will be better.

[SDuderstadt]

198. Your demand for new investigation fails to state...

what was wrong with the ones we had. You can pretend that you're not critquing the 9/11 CR, but you're not fooling anyone.

Simple question. Have you actually read the 911 CR? It's a simple yes/no question.

[defendandprotect]

233. The cameras take almost 30 frames per second . . .

[SDuderstadt]

234. Oh, bullshit....

you can look at the videos and immediately know that's not even remotely true.


Again I ask...is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it? I beg you to quit embarrassing liberalism and DU with your nonsense.

[rollingrock]

144. You speak as if Bush

was actually in charge of anything.

Ever heard of someone called Dick Cheney?

[defendandprotect]

232. Agree . . . but you're not suggesting, are you, that Bush would have

actually done anything but let others do the dirty work?

He put Cheney in charge of 9/11 -- in charge of everything --

Presumably, Blackwater -- maybe KBR -- and other privatized military

did the work.

[Pharaoh]

125. watch

Zero An Investigation into 9/11

about 30 minutes in about the pentagon. then tell me how it happened.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739#

[Don Caballero]

130. We may never know every single detail

of what happened on that day when Islamic extremists hijacked four planes and flew them into three buildings. But to suggest Bush somehow pulled it off is high comedy. Bush and his team were the most incompetent group of leaders our nation has ever seen.

[Pharaoh]

132. Yes Bush was/is an idiot!

That is not under debate. Nobody thinks W masterminded this.

[Don Caballero]

134. Then who did?

Who would have the ability to pull this off? The President is the most powerful person in the world. Don't you think he would have to be in on it?

[Pharaoh]

136. A President is a mere figure head and puppet

I don't know who all is involved, I just know they don't want us asking anymore questions.

[SDuderstadt]

139. "A President is a mere figure head and puppet"

Yet, even though you "just know they don't want (you) asking anymore questions", here you are doing exactly just that.

Does pretending your lives are somehow in danger add to the thrill of being a conspiracy theorist?

[Don Caballero]

140. They don't want to answer questions because

all questions have been answered. The 9/11 Commission Report was a bipartisan effort detailing the terrorist acts of that day. There may be slight inconsistencies or minor errors but nothing to implicate a grand conspiracy.

[Pharaoh]

142. Oy.......

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Go back to sleep, nothing to see here,.move along...........

[William Seger]

157. So, you don't think you need to answer to that?

It's not an "hypothesis" nor a "theory" that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes and managed to hit three of their targets. In the real world, those are considered to be "facts," a.k.a. "reliable observations of real-world events." If you think you can demonstrate why rational people should not accept those as facts, then have at it. Just claiming they aren't facts because you don't accept them doesn't nearly do the trick. If instead you can make a case for accepting those facts but have a better explanation for them, then let's hear that. But if what we've gotten from the "truth movement" so far is the best you can do, then you are correct that there's not much to see here. It's good to see that you haven't lost your sense of humor, but you look a little silly arguing that there's something to see here while rolling around on the floor.

[Pharaoh]

160. Oh we want the facts alright!

That is the problem.

Do you watch the movies we present to you upthread?

A lot of questions there, and you guys seem to believe all those questions were answered at the 911 commision.

Sorry, but I am rolling on the floor because you are laughable.:freak:

[William Seger]

177. I've wasted many hours watching YouTruth videos

... but I did waste another five minutes watching that Pentagon part of your "Zero" video. When they started telling me there was "zero evidence" of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, that was quite enough for me. In fact, that's exactly the kind of unadulterated horseshit I was talking about. Why does your "truth movement" depend so much on bald-faced lies? Do slick video editing and cool background music turn horseshit into "truth?" Does it turn into "truth" if X gullible people fall for it? It's nothing but blatant propaganda -- "just asking questions" and completely ignoring answers. You only want "facts" that support your paranoid delusions, whether or not they're credible facts, and any facts that don't support your delusions get the heave-ho. All the evidence we have was faked, and all the "real" evidence was covered up, because the Powers That Be are omnipotent. It's exactly the same horseshit we've heard for years, and it doesn't smell any better from the composting. You haven't even managed to convince each other what happened, and one reason the "truth movement" is such a joke today is all the gang fights about whose delusions would be promoted to be "truth." That's the same thing that happens with most religions.

And no, I don't believe that all the 9/11 questions have been answered. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that that's exactly why a lot of people detest 9/11 bullshitters. What really happened really does matter; your paranoid delusions and incredulity and willful ignorance about what happened are just plain noise.

[SDuderstadt]

182. Excellent post, WS....

you've nailed a lot of the problem with the so-called "truth movement".

In my opinion, claiming that no plane crashed into the Pentagon would be only slightly dumber than claiming JFK was not shot in Dealey Plaza.

[Pharaoh]

208. Wow 5 whole minutes!

[William Seger]

210. Yup, I have a strong stomach

In less than 5 minutes, I was "informed" (for about the 100th time) that there wasn't any identifiable plane debris at the Pentagon and that a 757 couldn't fit into a "16-foot hole." It's not 2002 anymore; bullshit like that cannot be dismissed as simple ignorance. It's a deliberate attempt to deceive, a.k.a. a pack of lies. How many times do you think one needs to hear a pack of lies before it turns into "truth?" If you fell for that kind of bullshit without lifting a finger or firing a few neurons to verify it, and are now stuck with it because you find that easier on your ego than admitting you were suckered into a "truth movement" by bullshit, then shame on you. And shame on you for inviting other people to get suckered in.

[Pharaoh]

211. Like I said

Move along nothing to see here.................:eyes:

[lovepg]

218. Real world observations?????

What do we have that is observable on the hijackers?
Some very questionable found passports and a very questionable airport video.
So what have you seen besides what you were told what has happened?
We even have reports of hijackers seen in other parts of the world after 911.

[lovepg]

217. All questions have been answered?? Really?

Tell that to the 911 wives how forced the 911 commision into occuring and complain most of the questions THEY had were never asked let alone answered.

[SDuderstadt]

219. Why don't you tell them that...

you don't think planes were involved in the attacks and you don't believe there were actually hijackers? Somehow, I think they'd have more trouble with your goofy theories than the 9/11 Commission or the Report, dude.

[lovepg]

221. WRONG ! what a surprise. I just want a new investigation. Your the one with the

idea Bush is clean.

[SDuderstadt]

222. Please show me where I have ever said Bush is ""clean", dude...

this is just another attempt on your part to link anyone who disagrees with you on the facts, with Bush. From now on, every time you attempt to demonize me like that, I'll just respond by saying that you believe bin Laden is clean. Deal?

BTW, are you seriously denying that you're a "no-planer"?

[lovepg]

225. Yes I am show me anywhere i said i was a no planer?? You will not find it.

Not that that will make a difference to you.
My you really are just a little bit too sensitive about the bush thing huh?
SD and Bush sitting in a tree Ki S S I N G.
First comes PNAC then comes Cheany
Then SD accuses me of being a no plany.
Oh well doesn't quite rhymn but it was close.

[SDuderstadt]

226. Then you should have no problem denying you're a...

"no-planer", dude. Why not go on record?

[lovepg]

235. Because i am not a no planer. Why don't you admit your a Busher??? nt

[SDuderstadt]

236. Because I'm not a "Busher", despite your constant attempts to tie me to...

him.

Dude, I am going to ask you politely one last time to knock this offensive "you're a Bush supporter" (paraphrasation) nonsense off. I don't know how many times I have to ask you.

By the way, thanks for going on record that you're not a "no-planer". We're going to held you to that and remind you of it if and when you backtrack.

[lovepg]

237. OHHHH and when you backtrack and defend Bush we will hold you to that as well..Nt

[SDuderstadt]

240. Correcting you when you're wrong on the facts isn't...

"defending Bush", dude. Why do you keep trying to poison the well?

Better question. Why do you keep defending bin Laden? See how that feels?

Knock it off, dude.

[lovepg]

238. SIMPLE QUESTION who is WE! nt

[SDuderstadt]

241. Anyone with a brain....

dude.

[lovepg]

242. Speaking on another subject you know nothing about hey SD?

[Name removed]

243. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

239. Try to understand that US/CIA created the Islamic "extremists" . . . they worked for us . . .

We were giving them hundreds of millions of dollars right up to 9/11 --

and who knows what more after that!

Bush didn't personally "pull off" anything -- anymore than he paid the government bills

once a month, or studied the environment. More than likely, it was good part military --

probably Blackwater or KBG got the assignment.

You're probably familiar with Zbigniew Brzezinski tale of how we used the Taliban to "bait"

the Russians into Afghanistan . . . "in hopes of giving them a Vietnam type experience,"

but just in case, it's the first part of the following --



FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE TEXTBOOKS --



The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i... ...


---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...

[Neily]

244. Has anyone looked at this photo?

See post #216 where I posted the photo of the helipad control tower with cameras positioned in a possible direction to catch the impact .

[Theobald]

253. I wasn't aware that the objects in the pictures were

positively identified as cameras. If they are cameras it looks like they are pointed down towards the base of the building or tarmac (maybe they are lights), I just can't tell from the quality of the picutures if they are really cameras and where they are pointed if they are.

[Neily]

254. There's a better photo

showing the right side of the building which faces the impact point. I will try to find it after work. Or, you can search pentagon helipad photos.

[Neily]

270. Here are some of the impact side of the Helipad

Se the camera on the Corner hanging down like the other ones?

zoomed out a bit

http://209.85.62.24/18/3/0/p185628/untitled.bmp

zoomed out a bit more to show its location in relation to the impact point.

[Theobald]

284. That looks like a camera

It looks like a camera that would be pointed at those coming in and out of the door similar to the security cameras we have at the doors to our building. It is certainly possible that the camera caught a peripheral shot of the plane and it would be good if the government released the video, but I don't think it would really show that much. If it was of the same quality of the parking lot cameras it wouldn't have caught much detail even if it was pointing at directly where the plane hit the most it would have would be a frame or two of relavant film.