Originally posted by: aphexII
Anyone who makes a webpage that goes sideways should be publically hung and shot
<----Nods agreement.
<----Nods agreement.
Look at the pictures..... They look far more like Oklahoma City than with a 100 ton plane flying into a sturdy cement wall. (that was the part of the Pentagon that was recently renovated) I suppose it was a test to see how the new construction would hold up under a 'real' attack. Giving the contractors data for when the rest of the Pentagon is rebuilt in the coming years.
I mean LOOK closelyat the images, like you're looking for clues. Save the pictures and open them up in photoshop and hunt for anything that looks like a plane. THen go to the DOD's home page and llok through their archive of images. In reality those are even better.
My links never seem to work.
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Other/Pentagon/
Indeed, before one accepts the official version of the events of September 11, several relevant questions should be answered.
For starters, in the Pentagon crash site photos, there's little or no evidence of the plane that struck the Pentagon. (I live about one-half mile from the Pentagon. The first question that I asked other onlookers as we viewed the crash site was, "Where's the plane?")
Shouldn't its engines have survived in some recognizable form? An engine from one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center was shown lying on the sidewalk on network television. So was an engine from American Airlines Flight 587 which crashed shortly after takeoff in New York on November 12, 2001.
Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher, at a press conference held by Assistant Defense Secretary, Victoria Clarke, on September 12, 2001, at the Pentagon, when asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" is reported to have said: "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."
Furthermore, the damage to the Pentagon seems inconsistent with what a Boeing 757 would have caused. The hole in the Pentagon wall appears too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757, and the satellite photos show that the plane has not penetrated as far into the Pentagon as reported. Indeed, early reports claimed that a truck bomb had exploded, and the damage was similar to that inflicted on the USS Cole in Yemen. The gash in the hull of the USS Cole was reported to be about 30 feet by 40 feet.
And there are many more troubling questions. For example:
What are the odds that all the "black box" flight recorders were damaged beyond use?
Why did the south tower of the World Trade Center collapse first, when it was not as extensively damaged as the North Tower which burned for almost an hour and a half before collapsing?
Why did the destruction of the towers appear like a controlled implosion?
Why did many witnesses claim to hear other explosions within the buildings?
Why were the alleged hijackers' names not on the passenger lists?
Why are several alleged hijackers reported to be still alive?
Why did one of the alleged hijackers take luggage on a suicide flight, then leave the luggage and an incriminating note in his car at the airport?
Why did the seat numbers of the hijackers, given in a cell phone call from Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston Air Traffic Control, not match the seats occupied by the men the FBI claims were responsible?
Why were none of the attacking planes intercepted?
How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and Air Force One codes and signals--the stated reason for not returning President Bush promptly to Washington on September 11?
Finally, and very significantly, why does the U.S. not hold hearings on these questions, when it would serve the U.S. objective of keeping Americans focused on the "war on terrorism?" Besides the alleged hijackers, others may have had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attacks of September 11. Indeed, reports indicate that the Israel, and possibly, the U.S. armed forces could have played a role.
On the day of the attack on America, the Washington Times quoted a paper by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies which said that the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, "Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." Dozens of Israelis were reported to have been arrested, but the role played by this "huge Israeli spy ring that may have trailed suspected al Qaeda members in the United States without informing federal authorities" remains unclear, and "it is no longer tenable to dismiss the possibility of an Israeli angle in this story."
Field reports by the Drug Enforcement Administration agents, and other U.S. law enforcement officials, on the alleged Israeli spy ring have been compiled in a 60-page document.
John F. Sugg of the Weekly Planet (Tampa, Florida, April 22, 2002) reported that "DEA agents say that the 60-page document was a draft intended as the base for a 250-page report. The larger report has not been produced because of the volatile nature of suggesting that Israel spies on America's deepest secrets.
James Bamford, formerly Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, and who has written investigative cover stories for the New York Times Magazine, the Washington Post Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times Magazine, describes an operation which suggests that even the U.S. armed forces may be suspect.
Mr. Bamford's book, "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency from the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century", reveals that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) drew up and approved plans for "launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba."
Mr. Bamford writes: "Codenamed Operation Northwoods, the plan . . . called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer [Chairman JCS] and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."
September 11 was a godsend for the U.S. military-industrial complex. A $48 billion increase in the "defense" budget sailed through both houses of Congress, bringing U.S. military spending to $379 billion.
This, according to the Washington Post (January 27, 2002), represents "the biggest one-year rise since the Reagan buildup two decades ago and a suspension of 'the peace dividend.'" . . . It matches the combined military spending of the 15 countries with the next biggest defense budgets. (The proposed increase alone is about the same as the entire defense budget of the next biggest spender--Japan.) . . . It would roughly match, in inflation adjusted terms, the U.S. defense budget in 1967, at the height of the Vietnam War.
U.S. energy companies may also be about to receive a dividend.
The events of September 11, led to the U.S. war on Afghanistan--a war apparently planned prior to September 11, and possibly after U.S. negotiations with the Taliban for a pipeline broke down. According to the BBC (September 18, 2001), Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
The events of September 11 also led to an open-ended "war on terrorism," which helped justify enormous increases in "defense" and "security" spending, and the passage of "anti-terrorism" legislation long desired by some in the Justice Department.
According to The Irish Times (February 11, 2002), "The Pakistani President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and the Afghan interim leader, Mr. Hamid Karzai, agreed yesterday that their two countries should develop 'mutual brotherly relations and cooperate in all spheres of activity' -- including a proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan."
It's curious that these two leaders, who only later vowed to "bury the recent history of poisonous relations" between their nations (Washington Post, April 3), could agree so quickly to the pipeline. Zalmay Khalilzad, the Bush-appointed special envoy to Afghanistan, may have facilitated the agreement.
Khalilzad's previous place of employment was Unocal. He drew up Unocal's risk analysis on its proposed trans-Afghan gas pipeline according to the Irish Times. The Taliban, after initially negotiating with Unocal, had begun showing a preference for Bridas Corporation of Argentina--could this possibly be the reason why the Bush administration has let Argentina's financial crisis spiral out of control?
While relevant questions regarding the September 11 attack went unanswered, without the benefit of UN resolutions, and despite the fact that the Taliban stated their willingness to give up Osama bin Laden for trial to an international court, the U.S. launched it's war on Afghanistan--one of the world's poorest countries, already devastated by 23 years of war and civil strife following the Russian invasion of 1979.
Irwin Arieff of Reuters reported (October 8, 2001) that U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said, in a letter to the 15-nation Security Council, that the investigation into September 11 attacks on his country "has obtained clear and compelling information that the al-Qaeda organization, which is supported by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, had a central role in the attacks." The letter added, "there is still much we do not know. Our inquiry is in its early stages."
Negroponte added, however, that "U.S. military raids on Afghanistan, joined by Britain, were launched Sunday under the authority of Article 51 of the UN charter, which allows nations under attack to defend themselves." This despite U.S. statements that 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia.
The questions will only end with HONESTY!
I mean LOOK closelyat the images, like you're looking for clues. Save the pictures and open them up in photoshop and hunt for anything that looks like a plane. THen go to the DOD's home page and llok through their archive of images. In reality those are even better.
My links never seem to work.
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Other/Pentagon/
Indeed, before one accepts the official version of the events of September 11, several relevant questions should be answered.
For starters, in the Pentagon crash site photos, there's little or no evidence of the plane that struck the Pentagon. (I live about one-half mile from the Pentagon. The first question that I asked other onlookers as we viewed the crash site was, "Where's the plane?")
Shouldn't its engines have survived in some recognizable form? An engine from one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center was shown lying on the sidewalk on network television. So was an engine from American Airlines Flight 587 which crashed shortly after takeoff in New York on November 12, 2001.
Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher, at a press conference held by Assistant Defense Secretary, Victoria Clarke, on September 12, 2001, at the Pentagon, when asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" is reported to have said: "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."
Furthermore, the damage to the Pentagon seems inconsistent with what a Boeing 757 would have caused. The hole in the Pentagon wall appears too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757, and the satellite photos show that the plane has not penetrated as far into the Pentagon as reported. Indeed, early reports claimed that a truck bomb had exploded, and the damage was similar to that inflicted on the USS Cole in Yemen. The gash in the hull of the USS Cole was reported to be about 30 feet by 40 feet.
And there are many more troubling questions. For example:
What are the odds that all the "black box" flight recorders were damaged beyond use?
Why did the south tower of the World Trade Center collapse first, when it was not as extensively damaged as the North Tower which burned for almost an hour and a half before collapsing?
Why did the destruction of the towers appear like a controlled implosion?
Why did many witnesses claim to hear other explosions within the buildings?
Why were the alleged hijackers' names not on the passenger lists?
Why are several alleged hijackers reported to be still alive?
Why did one of the alleged hijackers take luggage on a suicide flight, then leave the luggage and an incriminating note in his car at the airport?
Why did the seat numbers of the hijackers, given in a cell phone call from Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston Air Traffic Control, not match the seats occupied by the men the FBI claims were responsible?
Why were none of the attacking planes intercepted?
How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and Air Force One codes and signals--the stated reason for not returning President Bush promptly to Washington on September 11?
Finally, and very significantly, why does the U.S. not hold hearings on these questions, when it would serve the U.S. objective of keeping Americans focused on the "war on terrorism?" Besides the alleged hijackers, others may have had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attacks of September 11. Indeed, reports indicate that the Israel, and possibly, the U.S. armed forces could have played a role.
On the day of the attack on America, the Washington Times quoted a paper by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies which said that the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, "Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." Dozens of Israelis were reported to have been arrested, but the role played by this "huge Israeli spy ring that may have trailed suspected al Qaeda members in the United States without informing federal authorities" remains unclear, and "it is no longer tenable to dismiss the possibility of an Israeli angle in this story."
Field reports by the Drug Enforcement Administration agents, and other U.S. law enforcement officials, on the alleged Israeli spy ring have been compiled in a 60-page document.
John F. Sugg of the Weekly Planet (Tampa, Florida, April 22, 2002) reported that "DEA agents say that the 60-page document was a draft intended as the base for a 250-page report. The larger report has not been produced because of the volatile nature of suggesting that Israel spies on America's deepest secrets.
James Bamford, formerly Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, and who has written investigative cover stories for the New York Times Magazine, the Washington Post Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times Magazine, describes an operation which suggests that even the U.S. armed forces may be suspect.
Mr. Bamford's book, "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency from the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century", reveals that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) drew up and approved plans for "launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba."
Mr. Bamford writes: "Codenamed Operation Northwoods, the plan . . . called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer [Chairman JCS] and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."
September 11 was a godsend for the U.S. military-industrial complex. A $48 billion increase in the "defense" budget sailed through both houses of Congress, bringing U.S. military spending to $379 billion.
This, according to the Washington Post (January 27, 2002), represents "the biggest one-year rise since the Reagan buildup two decades ago and a suspension of 'the peace dividend.'" . . . It matches the combined military spending of the 15 countries with the next biggest defense budgets. (The proposed increase alone is about the same as the entire defense budget of the next biggest spender--Japan.) . . . It would roughly match, in inflation adjusted terms, the U.S. defense budget in 1967, at the height of the Vietnam War.
U.S. energy companies may also be about to receive a dividend.
The events of September 11, led to the U.S. war on Afghanistan--a war apparently planned prior to September 11, and possibly after U.S. negotiations with the Taliban for a pipeline broke down. According to the BBC (September 18, 2001), Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
The events of September 11 also led to an open-ended "war on terrorism," which helped justify enormous increases in "defense" and "security" spending, and the passage of "anti-terrorism" legislation long desired by some in the Justice Department.
According to The Irish Times (February 11, 2002), "The Pakistani President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and the Afghan interim leader, Mr. Hamid Karzai, agreed yesterday that their two countries should develop 'mutual brotherly relations and cooperate in all spheres of activity' -- including a proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan."
It's curious that these two leaders, who only later vowed to "bury the recent history of poisonous relations" between their nations (Washington Post, April 3), could agree so quickly to the pipeline. Zalmay Khalilzad, the Bush-appointed special envoy to Afghanistan, may have facilitated the agreement.
Khalilzad's previous place of employment was Unocal. He drew up Unocal's risk analysis on its proposed trans-Afghan gas pipeline according to the Irish Times. The Taliban, after initially negotiating with Unocal, had begun showing a preference for Bridas Corporation of Argentina--could this possibly be the reason why the Bush administration has let Argentina's financial crisis spiral out of control?
While relevant questions regarding the September 11 attack went unanswered, without the benefit of UN resolutions, and despite the fact that the Taliban stated their willingness to give up Osama bin Laden for trial to an international court, the U.S. launched it's war on Afghanistan--one of the world's poorest countries, already devastated by 23 years of war and civil strife following the Russian invasion of 1979.
Irwin Arieff of Reuters reported (October 8, 2001) that U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said, in a letter to the 15-nation Security Council, that the investigation into September 11 attacks on his country "has obtained clear and compelling information that the al-Qaeda organization, which is supported by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, had a central role in the attacks." The letter added, "there is still much we do not know. Our inquiry is in its early stages."
Negroponte added, however, that "U.S. military raids on Afghanistan, joined by Britain, were launched Sunday under the authority of Article 51 of the UN charter, which allows nations under attack to defend themselves." This despite U.S. statements that 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia.
The questions will only end with HONESTY!
CONNECTING THE DOTS: 9/11 AND THE BIGGER PICTURE
So.... according to White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, the 'Administration' knew of the warnings in May; according to Ari's fevered late night Lexis-Nexis search, he says Diane Feinstein knew in early July. Senator Feinstein says yes, she was among a group of senators briefed about a 'spectacular' attack in the offing. Ari and Condi Rice flatly stated this week that the warnings concerned overseas targets; the administration now admits the warnings specifically concerned domestic targets.
Now notice the chronology laid out by the Bush administration itself - Bush himself was not briefed until early August, a FULL MONTH after prominent senators were already briefed, and something like three months after the 'Administration' knew of the warnings. What happened in the intervening weeks and months before Bush was briefed while on vacation in rural Texas? Well, that's a question that answers itself - he was sent to rural Texas for the entire month of the highest danger, away from the presumed terrorist targets in Washington. Just as Dick Cheney had absented himself for the month to the wilds of Wyoming. So the White House has, however inadvertently, finally answered the question of who the real president is - George W. Bush is, literally, the last to know, merely going where he is told when he is told to go for whatever photo-op or fundraiser. Dick Cheney knew in May, and sent himself and junior on August vacations before giving the OK to brief the Dauphin.
If Diane Feinstein and other senators were briefed in early July, who else was 'in the loop?' Well, John Ashcroft, for one. Ashcroft took the unprecedented step of refusing to fly on commercial airliners at the end of July due to a "threat assessment", using expensive charter jets on the taxpayer tab for even personal fishing trips. It's interesting that of all the cabinet members, Ashcroft should be the one chosen to survive the attacks at all costs. Ari Fleischer says the 'dots couldn't be connected' until after passage of the USA-Patriot Act; this is complete nonsense, of course, the FBI agents in the field were prevented from connecting the dots before 9/11 because Ashcroft and the Administration had shut down the granting of FISA warrants (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Whereas, the record of the Clinton administration and Janet Reno was that no FISA requests were refused, under Ashcroft and the Bush administration FBI field agents were unable, after repeated requests, to obtain a FISA warrant against Zacarias Moussaoui even after French Intelligence had named him as having Al Qaeda connections. Among other useful things, Moussaoui's computer held the phone number of Mohamed Atta's roommate.
It might be remembered that the USA-Patriot Act was the product of Ashcroft and the White House without any input at all from the Justice Department that Ashcroft allegedly represented. Whereas, the Bush administration had previously refused to issue a FISA warrant against Moussaoui, a known terrorist engaging in exactly the sort of behavior that had its chief executives cowering in the hinterlands, under USA-Patriot the government now has the authority to conduct FISA type spying on ordinary American citizens merely on the OK of any judge anywhere in the country. So, yeah, it's interesting that the Administration would seek to protect Ashcroft, the indispensable man in the Administration's apparent effort to abrogate the Bill of Rights.
So, Dick Cheney setting us up to accept a police state? Well, they did steal the presidency, and their favorite justice, Antonin Scalia, offered at the time his opinion that 'the constitution does not contain any guarantee of the right to vote for president.' Which is to say they do tend to think this way. And we know what the totality of the agenda is. ABC's Nightline a couple of weeks ago did a two-night special on 'our' oil interests in Central Asia, that region of great untapped wealth that surrounds forlorn Afghanistan. With as careful wording as possible, we were informed that the U.S. is building military bases throughout the region, always adjacent to oil pipelines, with the ostensible purpose of 'protecting against terrorism.' It was reported that there had never been terrorists in these areas, but there were these oil pipelines. At the series' conclusion, Ted Koppel gave perhaps the most precisely nuanced reading I think I've ever heard - the U.S. is already "deeply invested" in Central Asian oil, Koppel said, and we wouldn't be leaving anytime soon. What he could have added is that Central Asian oil isn't for American SUV's, it will fuel the economic expansion of China and India, and whoever controls it will control the future of the world's largest economies. As has now been admitted, the war against the Taliban was already in place prior to 9/11, a war to give us the Afghan oil pipelines.
Cheney is now promising more devastating attacks than those of Sept. 11th, and I for one don't doubt him. I don't doubt him because we now know that this Administration's true commitment is to its agenda for world power, rather than protecting the citizens of the United States. And of course I can't stop thinking about the historical fact of Operation Northwoods, where the American military planned acts of American domestic terrorism to be blamed on Cuba, to justify war on Castro. Kennedy squashed that plan, but with Cheney, who knows? Who knows? --Kent Southard
Why does your profile say you live in Idaho and your e-mail from an ISP that does not serve DC or VA?
LOL, that's what I was going to say. For someone who likes to preach independent thought wxman seems to do very little of it.
Dood, the plane hit a launching pad near the Pentagon.....It didn't hit the Pentagon directly. Now that you have been edumacated, send an e-mail to the person who made this site and tell them they are an idiot for launching people like you onto us.......
So you still didn't answer the other peoples questions. Where is the plane that you say didn't crash into the pentagon? The Pentagon is one of the best built buildings in the world, with some of the highest security.
Have you ever heard of an explosion? Usually when something explodes, it breaks apart into lots of pieces. Last time I checked a plane that blows up, does not blow up into huge distinguishable pieces. Where is the jet fuel? Are you frucking kidding me? Again, jet fuel is highly flammable. Hence, it burns you idiot. Do you not see pictures of fire in the pentagon, or in the trade centers?
God the stupidity and ignorance of people is amazing.
Have you ever heard of an explosion? Usually when something explodes, it breaks apart into lots of pieces. Last time I checked a plane that blows up, does not blow up into huge distinguishable pieces. Where is the jet fuel? Are you frucking kidding me? Again, jet fuel is highly flammable. Hence, it burns you idiot. Do you not see pictures of fire in the pentagon, or in the trade centers?
God the stupidity and ignorance of people is amazing.
as to the lack of damage, although airplanes are quite heavy, they are made of aluminum, which is not stronger then the large amounts of concrete in the pentagon. therefore, it would be more than likely that the plane would be almost completely destroyed. the reason the planes in new york caused the wtc towers to crash is more because of the jet fuel than the planes themselves. also, the plane did not directly hit the pentagon, it struck the ground first, so that is where the lack of damage from the wings came from.
Why does your profile say you live in Idaho and your e-mail from an ISP that does not serve DC or VA?
Before anyone can take anything you say even somewhat seriously, I think the above question needs to be answered. What street do you live on in Washington D.C. Since you were right there, where are the photos you took?
Before anyone can take anything you say even somewhat seriously, I think the above question needs to be answered. What street do you live on in Washington D.C. Since you were right there, where are the photos you took?
this idiot still hasnt asnswered the question of whether the dozens and dozens of people on the plane were all "in on it" too.
Not that I am buying into this or anything, I am just checking things out. Personally i think it would be too diffficult to keep everyone invloved in the, so called coverup, quiet. But just for my referance does anyone have a link or anything to actual prrof saying that the plane that hit the pentagon actually ever exsisted, or do you know personally any of the family members of the people that died on that plane? Like i said it would be too hard to cover it up. But I just know a lot of you are saying well what about the family members of those that lost thier lives on the plane. Have they actually interviewed family members from the pentagon.
It appears that wxman has left the building with his tail between his legs. He was caught posing a theory with no proof and his theory has been debunked by the good ATOTers. It also appears that he may have been prevaricating in regards to his place of residence.
He'll be back. No doubt he is merely seeking more sites from which to copy & paste.
Has anyone emailed Scott Stevens from the website in wxman's profile? I wouldn't be surprised if we have another imposter on our hands.
> All I did was show evidence. Obvious evidence. If you choose to live in the "matrix" fine by me. Wake up!
Hey, dumbass. First, the original point of your post. How do you explain the security camera video which shows the plane crashing right outside the pentagon?
I won't bother going thru all of your (incorrect) points, one should be enough to show how stupid you are:
> How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and Air Force One codes and signals--the stated reason for not returning President Bush promptly to Washington on September 11?
They didn't. The confusion was based on a prank call into the whitehouse operator. When the news of the 'threat' was relayed, the person relaying it used the codename for AF1. The security people incorrect presumed that the person who made the threat used the code name (and therefor may have had information for an attack on the craft).
Btw, I'm sending a letter of complaint to NBC. I urge others to do the same.
Bill
Hey, dumbass. First, the original point of your post. How do you explain the security camera video which shows the plane crashing right outside the pentagon?
I won't bother going thru all of your (incorrect) points, one should be enough to show how stupid you are:
> How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and Air Force One codes and signals--the stated reason for not returning President Bush promptly to Washington on September 11?
They didn't. The confusion was based on a prank call into the whitehouse operator. When the news of the 'threat' was relayed, the person relaying it used the codename for AF1. The security people incorrect presumed that the person who made the threat used the code name (and therefor may have had information for an attack on the craft).
Btw, I'm sending a letter of complaint to NBC. I urge others to do the same.
Bill
I don't know where it is. If it did crash into the Pentagon its a non issue. Otherwise, time will provide an answer.
I'm not here to convince anyone of what to believe. Beliefs are always a personal journey? and in this is supposedly a county of free thinkers; I would sure like to see more of us out there.
The Islamic world doesn?t hate Americans, just our government I?d like to know why.
Another thought:
SOME PREDICTIONS OF WHAT IS
TO COME IN THE ILLUMINATI AGENDA
MORE "TERRORIST ATTACKS" TO ESCALATE THE PROBLEM-REACTION-SOLUTION TO THE GLOBAL FASCIST MILITARY STATE
AN ATTACK ON THE ISLAMIC SHRINE AT TEMPLE MOUNT, JERUSALEM.
ASSASSINATION OF MAJOR U.S. POLITICIAN OR POLITICIANS, EVEN GEORGE W. BUSH. HIS SKULL AND BONES SOCIETY CODE NAME WAS "TEMPORARY".
ASSASSINATION OF SOMEONE CLOSE TO TONY BLAIR.
AN INTERNATIONAL "WORLD ARMY" WAR ON TARGETS IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD, LEADING EVENTUALLY TO A CONFLICT WITH CHINA.
THE BIG BROTHER STATE ADVANCED RAPIDLY ALL OVER THE WORLD
MASSIVE GLOBAL FINANCIAL COLLAPSE LEADING TO A NEW CENTRALISED ECONOMIC ORDER
CALLS FOR A WORLD GOVERNMENT, CENTRAL BANK, ELECTRONIC CURRENCY, ARMY AND A MICRO-CHIPPED POPULATION.
AND NONE OF THIS WILL BE AN "ACCIDENT" OR A REACTION TO EVENTS. IT WILL BE BY COLDLY CALCULATED DESIGN AND WAS PLANNED A LONG, LONG, TIME AGO THROUGH THE TECHNIQUE I HAVE DUBBED PROBLEM-REACTION-SOLUTION.
NONE OF THIS HAS TO HAPPEN, BUT IT WILL IF WE SIT HERE AND CONTINUE TO ALLOW THE INMATES TO CONTROL THE ASYLUM THE PEOPLE HAVE HELPED THEM TO CREATE.
DAVID ICKE
(Posted September 20th, 2001)
Oh now I understand what you are trying to do... You are trying to bring attention to yourself and the only way you can do that is post regurgitated garbage that no one actually wants to read in the first place...
amazing how those light posts fell down on the highway too....i guess the motorists were in on it too and when they saw the truck the all got out and started pushing the light posts over
You are hardly a free thinker, more of a brainwashed child. Since you have made no attempt to answer any question posed to you I must come to the conclusion that you, sir, are an asshat. It is a conclusion that I am sure will be shared by many.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter