You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #22: Just isn't possible? US history says that is possible. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-24-04 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. Just isn't possible? US history says that is possible.
Sorry to have to "out" myself here as a possible idiot, but why is the "missile into the pentagon" theory not plausible? Do you have photos/written analysis that specifically support the current belief that it was a 757? Or are you reacting from a belief that this 'just isn't 'possible'?

Just isn't possible? Did you read the New York Times article published just a few months ago that revealed that the John & Bobby Kennedy were the only people who stood between US citizens and US agencies (CIA) who had planned to kill civilians on US soil so that they could blame it on Cuban terrorists? It was in the New York Times. The plans were complete, their agents in place, and US troops were ready to invade Cuba -- it was called off by John & Bobby. I am not saying that I believe the film is right, just that I am open to considering that it *was* a missile fired by *someone*.

Just isn't possible? Do you remember the Korean passenger airliner that was destroyed by terrorists? Do you remember the congressional hearings that revealed that the US government had planted a remote-control bomb on the passenger airliner and blown it up so that they could blame it on the terrorists?

I am troubled that the film seems to show a small (very blurry) plane that crashes into the building after the initial explosion -- does this mean that a small plane crashed into the building after the missile? If so, shouldn't there have been some plane wreckage somewhere? Or are the people who put the film together implying that the plane shown is very fuzzy because it was somehow cut & pasted into the film -- if so, why would the CIA (or whoever) have cut and pasted it into the film after the initial explosions were apparent on film?

In my current post-'election' frame of mind I am angry that *all* of the evidence isn't available for everyone to look at -- all of the films, all of pieces of plane, all of the photos, all of the testimony. Whenever there is a passenger airplane crash all of the parts of the plane are laid out in a warehouse so that the FAA can do extensive forensic analyses so that the cause of the crash can be determined. I know I have seen TV and magazine shots of this sort of scene - why not for the plane (?) that crashed into the Pentagon?

At this point I am willing to believe that just about anything is possible. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC