Oh My God! A freeper I use to work with sent me this. There may be hope!

If anyone here knew this guy this is the LAST thing you'd expect him to send. He sent a message to me that says, 'Everything with Bush needs to be questioned these days'. He has finally come around & I am proud of him.

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

...may be acting out of greed and power-lust, not ideology.

War makes for strange bedfellows. Just look at the US and the Soviets in WWII.

i have always been skeptical of the "missile" conspiracies... but this one is sure asks a lot of questions there seem to be no easy answers to..

how they explain it. Be sincere & ask for a civil debate. Just ask for answers & keep it simple!

Leave it to a freeper to believe in the "missile into the pentagon" and "TNT in the WTC" theories.

BushCo is more rife with corruption and conspiracies than we can imagine, I'm sure, but these are phony stories that just help obscure the real filth that Bushco is involved with.

Where is the missing 757? Where are the missing passengers?

Hidden away in Area 51, I suppose? There has never been a satisfactory answer to this from the promoters of this silliness.

BushCo may well have been involved at some level with the attacks on 9-11. But these specific theories are not plausible.

well . . . here's one theory . . .

Flight of the Bumble Planes
http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html

as for the WTC . . . try this one . . .

The Collapse of the WTC
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

... it's the questions.

So, where is any part of that jumbo jet -- say the engine?

The engine of one of the planes that hit the Towers landed right on the corner of Fulton & Broadway and airplane seats were everywhere amidst the carnage.

So, where is any part of this plane?

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:

Documented and verified, 1931 through 1997 on this site.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/experimentation.html

1931 - Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.

1932 - The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.

1935 - The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occured within poverty-striken black populations.

1940 - Four hundred prisoners in Chicago are infected with Malaria in order to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to combat the disease. Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg cite this American study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust.

WHY fake an attack with a jet when you can just attack with a jet? Why use remote controls when there are radical Islamists who will gladly do the job for you?

Why use explosive charges when a plane topped off with jet fuel for a coast-to-coast trip will do just as well?

Do you think the thugs that planned this, whether Bushite CIA thugs or al qaeda would hesitate to kill a planeload of passengers in the execution of their plan.

And there was some plane wreckage at the site.

Snopes on the subject:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Bushite or other elements of the US Gov't were involved in Sept. 11. But even if they were, they would do it in the simplest way possible, and in a way most easily blamed on Islamic extremists.

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:

Having viewed the film and looked at the pics on this site it is clear that the filmmaker carefully selected the bits of information -- photos, testimonials -- that fit the perspective that they wanted to prove. The most obvious problem with the missile/small plane story is that the passengers known to have been on the 727 flight died in that crash. No doubt. The issues that the filmmakers raised about expecting plane debris and damage to the ground are reasonable issues -- I wasn't paying careful attention to press conferences about this -- perhaps someone addressed these issues, or perhaps they did not and they should have.

What do you think about their quotes regarding the hijackers -- do you believe there is reason to doubt that the man who was believed to have flown the plane was capable of flying it? What questions do you have about the events that you would like to have answered?

they want to prove.

like with Iraq's WMDs and "weapons-of-mass-destruction-program-related-activities"

-

Read and learn...
http://libertyboy.free.fr/misc/attack/2001_09_11_pentagon_plane/index.php

-

KICK THAT...
:kick:

it sure gets the fundies confused. This is just the type of anti government conspiracy stuff they just used to eat up. My how times change....

lol. I was sold.:eyes:

-

come on...
he and/or his co-whorets set all this shit up on 911. How else could they own the candy store of intimidation, fear, limitless stuffing cash into their corporation friends pockets...

and we ain't seen nothing yet.

if the site didn't link to a whole bunch of wierd, well I'd call it crazy-ass, stuff about the occult and alien abductions/mind control or whatever the hell it is.

Not to say that it's believeable anyway, but that other stuff sure doesn't help it's cause.

with Colonel Donn De Grand-Pre, former military guy, that offers a different take. He does say that passenger jets were not flown into the WTC, he does say flight 93 was shot down over PA by NORAD out of ND, and he also says the other jets were flown over the Atlantic and that's all she wrote.

I have a hard time understanding why some guy who was military for YEARS, met with comm'l airline pilots for a non-stop 72 hour symposium to dicuss this, issued 500 reports throughout govt (to include GWB), and has written three books on this, would be making this all up. Incidentally, this same colonel had a stroke as a result of what he discovered following 911.

To all those who dismiss this as craziness, please take 5 minutes to look over this transcript of the interview.

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/Donn_de_Grand-Pre_interview.htm

i heard the same thing from an attorney friend on 9/12; he is an attorney and was contacted by the Somerset county DA to assist in investigating. He said straight out that the plane was downed by AAM

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410B.html
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html

And Jerry Bruckheimer was used to film all that rah-rah "hostage-saving" footage in Iraq.

Our media are so sophisticated at this point that this kind of coverup is a frickin' cakewalk for them.

All that's going to happen to you is you're going to be treated like a paranoid fruitcake and dismissed.

Or worse, you'll be treated like you know something and then you get squished in a bizarre car accident, like what happened to Marvin Bush's nanny:

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/discussion.cgi.16.html

And, in case you didn't know,

The chairman of the board of Stratesec is Wirt D. Walker III, a cousin of Marvin and George W. Bush. Securacom had contracts to provide security for Dulles International Airport (the airport from which American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, originated) and the World Trade Center in New York. Securacom's backers include a number of Kuwaitis through a company called KuwAm Corp (Kuwaiti-American Corp.).

Stratesec also has Saudi investors. Walker also serves as a managing director of KuwAm, which maintains offices within the Watergate complex along with Riggs Bank, on whose board Bush's uncle, Jonathan Bush, sits.

Saudi Princess Haifa al Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar, used a Riggs account to funnel money to Omar al Bayoumi and Osama Basnan, two Saudi students in California associated with two of the 911 hijackers.

Until November 2002, Bush served on the board of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. (formerly Houston Casualty Company), a re-insurer for the World Trade Center.

http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/marvinbush.html


And so the world turns.... Where's my meds?

Angry Girl

----- never again will I trust this government not to throw my vote away, never again will I trust these elected puppets to protect my vote, never again will I not march on lost rights, such as my vote.

I am going to march all over downtown Wash, D.C. this weekend and go on and on about the stolen election, even if I am alone it will make me feel so much better about everything .... I can't wait to see the looks on people's faces when I walk by with my sign. I am strong, I am an American, I have rights no matter what they say, I will be free, even if it is just me, I will march.

send and his/her motivations.

Is this something that was discussed shortly after 9/11?

Who provided the film? Is it another CBS Dan Rather smear? That kind of thing, I mean, to make us look like conspiracy theorists?

Just wondering.

admit they voted for this moron. Nor will they defend him in a discussion where he is being torn apart (happens all the time). Why did they vote for this ass-hole in the first place then?

Confucius was right--a picture is worth a thousand words. Two thoughts that came immediately to my mind:

Our leader, who is constantly in the public eye, should know by NOW to check his zipper every time he takes a piss.

His faithful staff, who are responsible for shepherding him about, should also give him the once over to ensure nothing is hanging out.

Yet here's our leader, with his fly open. That's America....long may it wave??? God help us all.....

I've only seen this picture in here today... Everyone's caption has been too funny.

LOL......"That's America....long may it wave??? God help us all....."

Whadda cUntreeee....

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:

You mean in the footage from the Pentagon security camera? As far as i can tell the plane - or whatever it is - is visible only in the first 1 or 2 frames (of 5 frames total), the explosion is still clearly visible in the last frame.

The argument about that footage is that the plane it shows seems to be much to small to be a large passenger plane. If a large passenger plane would be parked next to the Pentagon, the tip of the tail fin would be almost level with the roof of the Pentagon.

The photos from frogfromthenorth's suggested website tell a different story than the video: http://libertyboy.free.fr/misc/attack/2001_09_11_pentag...

I don't know how to evaluate your statement that "If a large passenger plane would be parked next to the Pentagon, the tip of the tail fin would be almost level with the roof of the Pentagon" because the website above says that a Boeing is 14.9 yards high and the pictures show that the plane did major damage to the first 2 stories of the building's first and second rings. So is a Boeing really 14.9 yards high? Is 14.9 yards about the same height as 2 stories of the Pentagon? Heck if I know.

I am still willing to believe that a missile hit before the plane - but need more evidence. The testimonials of the people from the video suggest missile, but if there are an equal or greater number of people who witnessed a plane hitting lampposts on the highway and crashing into the building then I will have to conclude that the people quoted in the video may be mistaken.

Again - I think it borders on absurd that any/all evidence has not been released for public inspection & discussion at this point. Even the "911 Families" don't believe that they have had their questions satisfactorily answered and they deserve answers.

a series of holes in the walls of the three outer rings. looks much more like the result of a bunker-buster missile then that of a plane crash.

the site you refer to claims that "the plane stopped" at the exit hole in the third ring. hower, the size of the holes is much smaller then a large passenger plane.
what part of a passenger plane could punch such a series of holes in the steel-reinforced bunker-like concrete walls of the pentagon? and how does it fit the explanation for the near complete disappearance of the plane as being the result of it disintegrating on impact?

that the damage done to the Pentagon does not fit the story being told -- a lone passenger plane crashed into the building. The photos make it look like "too little" damage from the outside of the building: How could a 727 damage only the first two floors of the building and why isn't the hole in the side of the building wider? Why weren't the wings shorn off when it punched through the wall? Is it possible that the entire plane did punch through the first wall into the building and the fire melted the plane debris? The photos from the inside of the second and third rings make it look like maybe "too much damage" for a 727: How could a 727 punch through 6 steel-reinforced concrete walls? The photo on the libertyboy site shows what the plane would look like next to the building and the nose is quite long compared to the rest of the plane. I'm not an expert on steel-reinforced building construction or on 727 plane crashes. The video definitely leaves questions in my mind. I wish we could get William Blum to comment on this - he is ex-CIA and his book "Killing Hope: The 250 Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" changed my world. My last thought on this is: So, what happened to the 727 if it did not crash into the Pentagon? If a missile and/or small plane did the damage, where did the 727 go? I guess that is the point of mentioning in the video that the plane disappeared from its flight path a long time before the pentagon was damaged. :shrug:

I posted it on another board, in a thread about Dan Rather. I was already talking over there about how the memos were never proven to be fake, but it became our collective memory that they were fake, because first the idea was planted, then they repeated it again and again.

So I posted this link, and asked what is the difference? Did the news anchors take the time to authenticate that there was a 757? Or did they take it on faith? The anchors didn't ask these sorts of questions and verify the story, are they as guilty (or more) as Rather in this regard?

just to see if i would say :i wouldn't doubt it

the dudes parents would not let him look at democratic websites
I mean I'm allowed to see repug websites just to see how crazy they are..wtf? Lol

I too wondered where the wreckage was in Penn. and pentagon crash... Just saw holes via TV coverage...no airplane rubble.

I was awake watching TV early in the morning here on west coast. I saw the planes fly into WTC. Then they switched to Pentagon but all I saw was a fire and smoke...no rubble. Same thing when they switched to PA...just a hole, no rubble. I watched that day and kept the TV on for more than a week... Litter, but no wreckage??. :shrug:

If not, I really don't know how to feel.