[EDIT]If you don't read ANYthing else, read this. It is the single-most comprehensive, realistic, analytical report I've been able to find so far.[/EDIT]
The Federal Government is hiding something from you, and it's far more sinister than most people realize. It's possible that Bush's own adminsitration doesn't even realize it's happening. These are the principle's of a Shadow Government which is exactly what it would take to pull this off and achieve plausible deniability. I've been saying it all along. Here's another thread I was involved in a LONG time ago that is on this same topic, but lookie what sowhatsthetruth just forwarded to me:
Although it moves quickly, it's a pretty good compilation of photos, research, video and data concerning the supposed 757 that impacted the Pentagon.
This is not a joke. It is not clever photoshop work. It is real information that actually appeared on T.V. news station across the country and in print. I think it's fairly conclusive, coupled with the information that I'll link in herre momentarily, that a 757 never struck the Pentagon. It did not happen. Something blew up there, to be sure, but what you are seeing are not the effects of a 100+ passenger jetliner travelling over 500MPH at 2ft off the ground - that's the official story that the Feds are giving.
They are lying through their teeth. That much is apparent. What is not immediately apparent is WHY would they lie about that, and what else might they lie about?
I have always had a suspicion that 9/11 was perpetrated by dirty, rotten crooks within our own government. If this 757 never existed then it is apparent that no stakes were too high for this operation. I can honestly see some dirty bastard soliciting the assistance of Muslim fundamentalists and enabling them to take the planes and run them into the twin towers. That much they could trust to amateurs. All they wanted to do was kill a bunch of people in Manhattan - that goal was easily met by slamming planes into the tallest targets in sight. If one of them overshot and hit something else, well no matter - the goal would still have been achieved.
But the Pentagon? That target was too important to entrust to amateurs. No, they used a professional for that. And they didn't use a 757. Most eye witnesses report an aircraft capable of carrying perhaps 8 to 10 passengers. Load a plane like that up with some high explosives and paint it up to look like an American Airlines passenger jet and you have a clever disguise for something that'll make a big hole in the side of the building - and fairly well disintegrate on detonation.
Why else do you think there are NO aircraft parts to be found? There's no other 757 or similar aircraft crash in history that failed to locate parts for the plane. Why has the FBI confiscated all known video/photographic sources and not released them? Maybe they're spending toomuch time in the editing room trying to make it look like a real 757 actually did this..? How, in the first reports of the impact did they come to explain that there were huge pools of jet fuel resting out on the pentagon's lawn? What!? That big of an explosion and volatile liquid fuel gently flows out and make a nice, serene duck pond nearby? Who makes this crap up!?
Please accept the possibility that there is something much bigger and lethal going on here than what the Feds are admitting to. This event has been part of their plans for decades to "galzanize the nation" with a "catalyst event" that will put the people in support of hte neocon agenda to push for a New World Order in which the U.S. will be a dominant player. It has started with Afghanistan and then Iraq. Don't believe everything you are told, see and hear! Use your brain! Don't just stubbornly refuse to believe this because it's all so fantastic and incredible tht it couldn't possibly be true! There is some serious hard data here that draws questions which, if they can't be absolutely 100% certain responded to with verifiable, scientific facts.. they must cast some doubt on what you are seeing!
If I wake up dead tomorrow, y'all know what happened.
Interesting video, raises a few good questions. A lot of unnecessary music and "shaky" text used to frighten, but the rest of it is quite compelling. I'm always willing to keep my mind open to anything, it doesn't cost me a thing to do so.
I don't think people who say "it sounded like a missile" are really reliable witnesses however, but from part of the video (though unclear) the "plane" is flying at a very unusual speed for such an incredibly low altitude. Defies logic, really.
"I'm for it so we can put Nuclear power plants up there, and then beam the power back to earth on a laser beam." ~ Whidden
It's absolutely impossible to judge the speed of the plane based on that video. The frame rate is so low that the plane is mearly a shadow figure for ONE single chopped up frame before the fire comes out of the building. As for the witness accounts, it's not hard to find a variety of different perceptions of what happened. I know I could find dozens of credible quotes from witness who contradict the quotes from that video. Just google "pentegon 9/11 witnesses".
The video it's self looks like an ameteur's first crack at premier and after effects. The clips used were very calculated, too. If you didn't notice, the video only showed the immediate aftermath from a couple of narrow angles, and then used numerous pictures of the place DAYS or WEEKS later to show the lack of wreckage.
For the record, I have not been to the pentegon in my life. I wasn't there when the plane hit and I doubt anyone in this forum was there either.
I wouldn't rule out a conspiracy, but I won't consider it unless something consistant and conclusive pops up.
That's just me.
Please pardon my pseudo-intellectuaphilisophicalismysiticality.
BTW - photos of the Pentagon crash site have never revealed wreckage. Even within hours of the incident. I can pull out some newspaper front-page photos, scan and put them online for you to see with your own eyes..
First an image of an American Airlines 757 aircraft:
Note the relative heights and scale of things.
There is a recount from a fella by the name of Frank Probst who says he saw first hand the right engine take out a chain link fence. As you can see from the photo above, when the aircraft is at rest with the landing gear bearing the weight of the vehicle, the fuelage is (estimating) approximately 9ft off the ground. The wings appear to start around 11 ft up (from the bottom side at the fueselage) and extend out to perhaps 15ft off the ground. The engines appear to be perhaps 5ft off the ground.
Now, I don't know if you know anything about portable 750KW generators, but I happen to know that they don't stand 15 ft off the ground. Unless the plane was engaged in a tight turning maneuver or was at the time lower than an aircraft sitting on the ground at rest then this account is impossible. The generators stand 12 ft tall at the highest, usually only 10ft. The aircraft was reported on all accounts to be flying quite level and straight so it was not in a turning maneuver. Thus in order for this recount to be true, the wings must have been at least 3 ft lower than where they sit at rest. Oh and by the way, when a plane this size is in flight, the entire weight of the craft is ON the wings which forces them to extend UP more than 12" at the tips. That puts us a full foot lower to the ground in order for that wingtip to come in contact with the generator. Given that the landing gear was retracted according to reports, this is still plausible so far. It puts the bottom, leading edge of the jet's engines between 12 and 24 inches off the ground at this point in the flight. There were accounts that reported the plane being "no more than 2ft off the ground", so this is consistent with that story. Ultimately for the plane to crash into a building on the ground, it had to be close to the ground at SOME point, so this all stands to reason.
Now, let's look at one more thing from Probst's recount before I move on and find other things to debunk. He says he saw the right engine take out the fence around the portable generator. Referencing once again the photo above, with the dimensions already discussed, it's apparent that the engine is no less than 25ft away from the tip of the wing. So you're telling me that the fending compound surrounding a relatively small portable generator extended a good 25ft past the generator such that as the wing's tip took out the generator, the engine was in line with the fence? That's the biggest darn portable generator compound I've ever heard of - I'd like to see photos of it.
I'll continue reading now..
[EDIT] Some of my approximations are incorrect as I read further, but the scale remains the same and thus the same result occurs. Here are some measurements of the 757 pulled from later in the document:
Check out these five points laid out by the French author "Meyssan", which are a source for the rebuttle in the next section I'm getting into:
quote:
• Witness testimony indicates that a missile was responsible for the damage. "In all cases," the book concludes, "these testimonies concerning the sound and the trajectory also correspond perfectly with the manner in which a missile flies in the final phase of flight, just before it strikes its target."
• There is no debris from the plane, and the wings, which should have sheared off, are nowhere to be seen.
• The damage at the Pentagon could have been caused by a missile but not by a plane. "The building was not smashed into as if it had suffered from a classic plane crash," Meyssan writes in Pentagate, "but was perforated as if struck by a missile."
• Civilian sources did not know where Flight 77 was after 9:09 a.m. on 9/11. Consequently, civilian flight control, the FAA, "could not have known that the plane turned back [toward Washington, D.C.] since it had become, by the agency’s own admission, invisible to its eyes...."
• The U.S. military did not destroy the plane, despite having the capability to do so.
We have witnesses who say they saw a plane, and others who say they heard a plane. And then we have witnesses who say they saw a missle, and others who say they heard a missile. I'm sorry, but I'm not just going to take some story from a father/priest just because he says so, as if writing that adds any credibility. People can't be trusted. I don't trust witnesses from either side. I'm looking for empirical evidence, something irrefutable. I don't buy the story that it was a missile. Too many people would be able to see and recognize a missile to be able to hide that. I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely. I find it more likely that explosives were set in the building to emphasize the severity of the impact and that a much smaller craft was used.
In the section before they say that victims' remains were indeed found at the site, documented by the ASCE (why THEY were involved in this is WAY beyond me..). But this disregards the fact that those remains could have belonged to any of the 100+ people who were in the building and died, and could furthermore have been bodies loaded onto a smaller aircraft as the delivery package. Finding body parts is not evidence. Show me aircraft parts and reconstruct a Boeing 757.
To take it to the next step and prove that such an event actually occurred, it would be necessary to cite evidence supporting the assertion. It has already been noted that witnesses unambiguously reported seeing a plane hit the Pentagon and not a missile. Likewise, there is no physical evidence that would both support the missile theory and undermine the official explanation that Flight 77 was responsible for the damage.
You know, the FBI could clear this up real quick by actually releasing the surveillanve footage that was captured of this event which shows the aircraft - what's so top secret about that, exactly? If it's no secret that an aircraft hit the building, why not release the evidence and lay to rest all the false accusations? Their failure to release this evidence is highly suspicious.
Here's something else I find distastefully humorous:
quote:
Overall, however, the Meyssan theory fails its most important test. A 14th century philosopher, William of Occam, formulated the principle ("Occam’s razor") that the best explanation of observed phenomena is the simplest. Of the two competing explanations for the events at the Pentagon and on Flight 77, one posits that the plane struck the building at a high rate of speed causing both the disintegration of the plane and the destruction on the ground. The other, Meyssan’s theory, argues that the plane did not hit the Pentagon but disappeared. Not only does the extant evidence run counter to this theory, but it does not account for some of the observed phenomena, does not explain what happened to the plane and its passengers, and is manifestly more complex.
Occam's Razor, indeed. You tell me which is manifestly more complex:
A) An underground, international terrorism organization has plotted and trained for years in order to make a single, powerful strike against the United States because they "hate our freedom" and "they hate democracy". They hijack four commercial airliners and pilot the with unprecedented skill and accuracy despite having no experience handling such large aircraft and all but one strike their targets, two of which slam into skyscrapers, one of which slams into the Pentagon and vaporizes, leaving no trace of major structural components that would allow reconstruction of the aircraft in order to demonstrate the sequence of events.
B) A "shadow government" determined to bring about the New World Order, the latest incarnation of "Manifest Destiny" is minipulating political figureheads and the people of America into advancing their plans for perpetual world domination. They fabricate a terrorist event, though they underestimate the investigative capacity and intelligence of the people to expose their handywork, involving several aircraft and the sacrifice of hundreds or thousands of civilian and government workers as a "catalyst event" in an effort to "galvanize the nation" into support of taking reformative action in the Middle East and around the world, justifying global efforts of reform and establishment of control where none existed before, ultimately laying the foundation architecture for their global strategy.
So which sounds more plausible to you? Both explanations sound equally plausible to me, not being one to dismiss an idea for sheer ridiculousness. Desperate times call for desperate measures. As I see natural resources drying up in the next 50 years, I see people desperately clinging to old-hat business and politics to secure their future. They may even think that what they're doing is right, that ultimately it will lead to world peace.
In fact I too think that a New World Order of sorts would be tremendously advantageous and really get us on the right track to unifying the world in a more harmonious balance - but I happen to think that this cannot be accomplished through the use of force.
I'm going to start including images in this thread hosted here on the site so that there is not a risk of them becoming deleted or out-dated on remote sources. So my apologies to those sources for ripping your images, but I'm not claiming ownership - they are too important to risk losing:
That contradicts the security video that was taken showing the plane hitting the building. That video was all over the news the next day and for weeks following the crash.
I'll believe that not conspiracy THEORY.
"Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless." ~Ayatollah Khomeini
10-22-2004 06:51 AM
