Can Anyone Explain the Pentagon security camera video???

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/im-origin.html

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/video.html

Is it a giant hoax? A huge fake? Does it show something real at all?

Also, I hadn't noticed before the thing sticking out from the explosion that might be a plane's tail-- see frame #4.

Interestingly, if you assume that thing sticking out of the fifth frame is a plane's tail, then there is a theory for what happened. There was an explosion before the plane hit and the plane flew into the explosion!

As strange as this may seems, this idea fits the security camera sequnce (which must have been edited extensively-- several frames removed) and it also explains how a Boeing 757 could have flown into the side of the Pentagon and only make such a small hole. A pre-damaged Pentagon wall could explain the very odd pattern of how the plane hit.

A pre-plane explosion could explain WHY they were so secretive about this.

However if you go look at the frames of the explosion played together here, the you can see that the tail-like thingy is more like some large piece of debris that gets blown up into thte vortex of the explosion. Also, in the last frame, the angle is not right for a plane's tail that would have gone INTO the Pentagon.

So probably scratch the plane tail idea.

But damned if I can figure out what is happening with the #$%!@# Pentagon security camera video!!!!

Anyone have any ideas out there?

direct hit. I think it like slid into the Pentagon after it struck the ground first.

after the crash. And how does this explain the video?

as I haven't studied it. But I can't imagine the ground "completely unmaked" in front of the Pentagon after something like that.

You can see the ground is completely untouched in front of the damaged wall.

Everyone accepts this fact.

I'm asking why is the security video so strange.

I haven't studied Stephen King but some folks say he's the greatest American writer of our time, and others say he's crap. Now, in my opinion he's crap, but I really haven't read him. Not trying to be rude, but you get the point?

I don't care enough about the topic, and I think this MIHOP aspect of the Pentagon doesn't merit much thought as there's nothing there.

You are free to leave. HEY, look over there. It's a TEEvee! And, it's got celebrities on, and everything.

here on DU. Don't you remember???

One less distraction would be welcomed by many, I'm sure.
Buh bye. PLEASE!

it's not much different than the "missles" flying from one of the liners that went into the WTC.

Your tendency to cry that anyone who does not agree with you is a rightist or a refuge from "Entertainment Tonight" is a little shrill for continual amusement. You can hardly expect everyone to share your particular interests, let alone your peculiar conclusions. The idea that anyone is "distracting" from important things here is breathtaking: the idea that the little keyboard clique here is doing anything of importance in their breathless chatter over this matter is risible. The real problem you have is this: you require someone to share your beliefs, and reflect them back to you, so you do not feel so isolated in them, and come to question them yourself. It is a great deal of work to maintain the sort of auto-hypnosis required to hew to beliefs you know very few people share. You must armor yourself against this: you must convince yourself those who disagree are paid dis-information agents, or are inferior to you in intellect, or in their awareness of the world. You cannot possibly admit they just might have a better grasp of events than you do, though it is probable they do. What you are looking for is the sort of thing budding writers seek in a class-room circle, or young men seek in their social groupings: a setting where what they write, or claim about their exploits, is mirrored back by persons who have an interest in supporting one another. If you do not criticize someone else's work, then they will not criticize yours; if you do not scoff at another's boasts, he will not scoff at yours.

Just for fun of it.

If only somebody were kind enough to pay me to post as one of the nonbelievers - that might go a long ways toward resolving my current Ramen noodles-based diet.

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

La!,La!,La!,La!,La!,La!,La!,La!,La!,La!,La!,La!,La!,La!,La!,La!,:crazy:

How about a substantive critique of 911 alternative theory from YOU! Let's talk.

Where is that pesky 757? Why isn't the public permitted to see the 757 as it hits the building?? No good camera footage from the most secured building in the world? I find this so very difficult to believe. You don't?

One would think that the Pentagon would have shown the public the footage right away. "Here, people, is the plane. Look what it did! Let's go get 'em."

Perhaps you could contrive to place your theory of events in narrative form, in a few short paragraphs, without hysterics. That would simplify the problem of critiquing it greatly, and serve as an occassion for you to demonstrate some mastery of your subject. For no one who cannot prepare a short primer account of a matter can claim to know it inside and out; it is the infallible mark of clear understanding....

"Anyone who cannot explain their work to an inquisitive nine year old is a charlatan."

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

You are not willing, or are not able, to provide a concise narrative of events you are convinced have taken place. You might be able to post a list of connections to what other people have done, or you might be able to concoct some vast and sprawling and turgid documentation of the confusion that afflicts your mind in this matter, but you are incapable of distilling either thing down to a crisp and clear narrative.

"I apologize for the length of this letter, but I had not time to write a shorter one."

But not here.

When you say that the lawn was unmarked.

(I hope new comers to this very long thread will be humored)

The planes completely disappeared into the World Trade Centers, also .. so why shouldnt the same thing go for the plane that hit the pentagon?

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

This seems reasonable to me.

utahgirl

But there are many stories. Now read on...

lawn show damage?

it left skid marks


bye bye

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

I am a strong believer in LIHOP and a somewhat strong believer now in MIHOP. But when it comes to those frames you can see the 757 extending out fully. Click on the second link on the OP, you will see about an inch to the left of that pillar (where the plane is) where the plane ends. It is hard to make out, and the first link has it blurred too much to see, but it is there.

I think there was a bomb or other explosives used as well though, or some other crazy stuff that would readily prove the conspiracy, which is why there is no real video of the incident even though there were probably 10 or more pentagon cameras watching the area.

If you see a 757 in the Pentagon parkeing lot video, then you have better vision than the bush 9/11 Conspiracy Theory supporters, but I'd be interested in your LIHOP theory. How is it that laws, policies, and
other National Secuirty, Defense, NORAD, FAA etc. rules "let it happen".
As you probably know, those things aren't something where a decision must be made in order to put them into effect. They're designed to kick in automatically. If people ordered them to be ignored, then that isn't LIHOP, is it?

On a beautiful clear sky morning in the nation's capital, how is it nobody thought to take a photo or video of an airplane making a low 270 degree turn over Washington? (This is from the FAA's description of the flight.) Especially since it would have flown right next to Arlington Cemetery on its final dive into the Pentagon. I have a hard time believing there wasn't even one tourist who thought to point their digital camera or camcorder to record the unusual event? Why is the only visual documentation this lousy security tape?

Hell, there was both still photos and amateur video footage of the Concorde crash in Paris, and that happened at an airport and not a major tourist destination.

I don't know why no civilian didn't snap a shot or video of the plane that hit the Pentagon.

Good question.

there are always planes flying over that area. it'd be like taking a picture of the fricking bus! besides, there are not a lot of tourists at Arlington after tourist season on a weekday morning!

sheesh

I'm talking about the weirdness of the security camera video.

Please look at the links I gave!

The video is either faked or severely edited!

WHY?!?! What are they hiding?

But if at all real, it certainly does not show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. It certainly does show what apppears to be some kind of an explosion. C'est tout.

One thing is clear- there are many pieces out there. Start putting them all together and you'll get closer to the truth about the Pentagon crash and... what really went down on 9/11.

Google Killtown for a start.

but I don't think anyone here really knows what happened at the Pentagon-- do they? I sure don't.

What do you think happened?

(1) 77 hit the Pentagon exactly as the government says. They just are disinclined to share the irrefutable evidence. And Hanjour is one hell of a lucky pilot.

(2) 77 hit the Pentagon, but it was remote controlled.

(3) Something else hit the Pentagon.


I'm leaning towards (2)....mainly because I think it would be too great an exposure risk to cover up a small jet crash and you still need to account for the bodies. Maybe they want people to bite hard on (3)......then they can show their pic evidence and paint everyone who thinks LIHOP as just a bunch of kooky conspiracists, effectively covering up (2). Because I still think the smoking gun is that the Pentagon got hit 52 minutes after the 2nd plane hit the WTC.

us the money shot?

Here's a respectful critique of your position on the Pentagon "hit":

You said:

1.) "I think it would be too great an exposure risk to cover up a small jet crash "

How so? That's why they had to collapse part of the building. To cover up the crime. And, even though all of the alleged jet parts found at the site are suspect, the most credible ones are all from a small jet. The engine parts, the ONE pilot seat, etc. Besides, if it were a
B757, where is the wreckage? Luggage, etc.?

2.) "you still need to account for the bodies."

Right. So, where WERE those bodies? Why WEREN'T any found outside the building? Why wasn't any MUSH found? Blood? There is no chain of evidence proof of how the alleged passengers/crew DNA GOT to the Pentagon, and besides, if the plane was consumed by the fire there, human DNA would heve also been destroyed.

3.) "Maybe they want people to bite hard on (3)......then they can show their pic evidence and paint everyone who thinks LIHOP as just a bunch of kooky conspiracists"

That may have been plausible one, two, or three years ago, but I can't imagine the Gov't allowing seeds of doubt to multiply, as they have been in large and growing numbers each day that goes by. Surely,
any photographic proof (or any other credible proof) would have been all over the media by now.

Three and one-half years after 9/11, no credible evidence has been provided by the Gov't to substantiate its claim that a B757 crashed at
the Pentagon.

I am certain no Boeing no Flight 77. 100% certain. 99% certain it WAS a missile or bomb of some type, not even a small jet.

There's an interesting DoD website about the events of the day. It appears to show only an exercise. Perhaps to ostensibly test a bunker buster missile on the the newly renovated facade- but actually to provide a cover story for what really happened to Flight 77.

The video would be consistent with a time-lapse vcr. This is a compression sequence used on older model security vcr's that allow recording times to be extended from 8 - 24 hour intervals. The Camera lens used was most likely a 6 mm. lens with an auto-iris. The time stamp was obviously added on upon for evidenciary purposes. Notice the time stamp between the first and second frame is identical. This was not imprinted on the film at the time of recording. It was most likely added as they converted the tape to some sort of digital video recording device for further analysis.





The "white" explosion at the time of the impact could be a result of the the auto-iris in the camera making an automatic adjustment. When light hits an auto-iris, the iris contracts lowering the amount of light allowed through the apeture. There is a momentary distortion as this takes place and this is why there is a disparity in color. It is normal. Notice how the color of everything in the photo seems over-exposed. The Iris then re-adjusts itself and the color is restored by the 3rd frame. This could also be caused by the shock-wave hitting the camera as the auto-iris is susceptible to distortions upon a sharp impact. This shockwave would have jarred the lens and then adjusted itself. Either scenario would account for the 2nd frame's color difference.





Also notice how the initial impact of the plane in the WTC2 Strike is much brighter then, as the oxygen and fuel is depleted, the intensity of the explosion is diminished.




This is clearly consistent with how the camera would react at the time of the strike. {At least to me anyway}

Several questions do arise about the first video frame. If you notice, there is a trail of smoke behind the object as it moves toward the Pentagon. Now this could be smoke from damage caused by the plane stiking the lamp posts or it has also been thoerized as the smoke trail of a missile. You also note that it is very difficult to make out a plane in the first photo. This is normal as the distance from the lens of the camera would cause some loss on video quality the farther you get from the object.

Basically, this video is useless for any type of evidence. It clearly shows something striking the Pentagon and creating a massive fire ball. Now maybe the volume of the explosion or the distance of the debris field may give some clues as to what the object was but this is not sufficient evidence to prove anything. The video is useless and probably a fake.


911 Research has done some good work on this and they believe the video is a fake. I tend to agree with thier assessment. I have been installing security cameras for years and know what images these cameras produce. I have copied thier page below. The only part that I disagree with is thier assessment that the impact image was touched up, for the reasons I stated above.

"Notice that, the "impact" picture has clearly been touched up. Notice that, the green tinge on the left has been partly (and amateurishly) erased and that the top left corner has probably been erased. These areas have been outlined in blue. It is possible that the effect in the top left corner is due to over exposure, caused by the sun, but then, why is this effect not visible in the photos taken just before and just after this one."

Otherwise, everything else seems correct. It appears to be a fake and is useless.


http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html
Pentagon Video
What do the Five Video Frames Show?
The five frames from the Pentagon security camera have played a critical role in the theories of skeptics of the official story. They are reproduced on nearly all the in-depth websites of such skeptics, and in most cases are used to support variants of the missile and drone theory.

A common interpretation of why the frames were released and what they show about the attack is exemplified in the video Painful Deceptions. It suggests that the frames were released in order to quell a growing chorus among skeptics that no plane hit the Pentagon. The images became public not long after French researcher Thierry Meyssan published his book, L'effroyable Imposture (The frightening Fraud), explaining his theory that the damage to the Pentagon resulted from a truck bomb rather than a plane crash. These skeptics were quick to point out that, rather than supporting the official story, the frames show three important facts:

The apparent plane mostly obscured by the foreground structure in the first frame is much too small to be a Boeing 757.
The apparent vapor trail behind the apparent plane could not have been produced by the turbofan engines of a jetliner. It is consistent with the exhaust plume of a missile.
The white color of the explosion in the second frame cannot be explained as the combustion of jet fuel. It indicates the use of explosives.
Skeptics seized on the video as evidence that the Pentagon was struck, not by a jetliner, but by a small plane, such as a remotely controlled drone, and that a missile was also involved in the attack. The failure of officials to release additional frames, ones that might show the plane clearly and reveal the first moments of the explosion, seemed to validate the five frames. Although peculiarities in the timecodes on the bottom of the cropped versions of the frames were widely noted, few bothered to ask whether the imagery in the frames had been edited.

Painful Deceptions suggests that the Pentagon officials responsible for releasing the frames were simply too stupid to anticipate that skeptics would use them to attack the official story that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. But were the people covering up such a meticulously planned crime really so careless? We will revisit this question after examining the images for tampering.

Evidence the Images Were Edited
There are many peculiar features of the video images. Some have possible explanations, such as the red glow in front of the helicopter control tower being the result of ionized air from the explosion. We note three features that appear to have no explanation other than that the images were fabricated. In the following we refer to the individual frames using the captions in the cropped set: plane, impact, #2 impact, #3 impact, and #4 impact.

impact has an elevated brightness throughout the image, not just in areas that would be illuminated by the explosion.
impact has peculiar patches of color on the pavement.
#2 explosion shows a roughly conical explosion whose vertical axis lies deep within the building.
#3-#5 explosion show sunlight-illuminated lawn that should be darkened by shadows from the explosion.
Several of these these points were originally raised in the analysis of Guardian, mirrored here. Guardian's analysis, at times brilliant, suffers from some errors, such as the contention that enhanced edges in shadows are evidence of fabrication. In fact such features are common artifacts of digital cameras.

Uniformly Elevated Brightness

The image in impact is much brighter than any of the other 4 images. The brightness is higher throughout the image, not just in regions that would be illuminated by the bright explosion. There is no evidence of shadows from the explosion that is supposedly the source of the heightened brightness. Note the setback in the facade in the middle of the images to the right. The setback is considerably closer than the explosion, yet it casts no shadow on the portion of the facade just in front of it. There is also an absence of any evidence of even faint shadows from other objects, such as the structures in the vicinity of the camera. The sky is also brighter and a different hue, as if an explosion could brighten a clear sky.

Peculiar Patches of Color

The Guardian article has the following about the the impact image:

Notice that, the "impact" picture has clearly been touched up. Notice that, the green tinge on the left has been partly (and amateurishly) erased and that the top left corner has probably been erased. These areas have been outlined in blue. It is possible that the effect in the top left corner is due to over exposure, caused by the sun, but then, why is this effect not visible in the photos taken just before and just after this one.


Shape of Explosion Relative to Building

The last three frames show an explosion with a shape that is roughly axially symmetric around a vertical axis. The center of the impact zone lies approximately behind the center of the helicopter control tower. That places the central axis of the explosion well inside of the building -- easily 100 feet behind the facade. But the part of the building above the impact hole did not collapse until well after the impact and explosion. How could an explosion evolve in such a symmetrical manner around the obstacle of the building without reflecting the shape of the building? The only plausible explanation is that the explosion imagery was superimposed on the building through image manipulation.

Missing Shadow From Explosion


By the last of the five frames, the explosion, which appears to extend to at least four times the building's height, has become dark with soot. Yet the huge explosion casts no shadow from the sun on the lawn below it. Shadows of other objects show that the sun is low in the southeast, as one would expect at 9:40 AM in September. The Pentagon's wall, which faces almost due west, casts long shadows extending to the left and toward the camera. But there is sunlight-illuminated lawn directly left of the huge explosion. The uppermost swath of white in the enlargement to the right is part of the heliport, which was directly under portions of the explosion. Yet it is illuminated by direct sunlight.

Motive for Fabrication
The clear evidence that the video frames were manipulated further discredits the idea that the release of these images was just a miscalculation on the part of people involved in the cover-up. The source of these images must have known that they show a vapor trail, an obscured aircraft that is clearly not a 757, and an explosion that could not have resulted from jet fuel combustion alone. It is unreasonable to think that this set of five frames is anything other than a planned part of the cover-up. They fueled theories that the Pentagon crash involved a small plane and a missile, rather than a jetliner such as Flight 77. The perpetrators have have correctly predicted that controversy between people rejecting and insisting that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon would divide skeptics.

I am going to assume that the Pentagon does have footage of a plane hitting the West Wing.Why the deception? I absoluety believe this to be suppresion of evidence. They are strongly insinuating their guilt by not releasing these photos.

They have video from a gas station and a hotel that clearly show the crash. It was picked up by reported FBI agents minutes after the attack.

"Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html


"A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation.

It may be the only available video of the attack. The Pentagon has told broadcast news reporters that its security cameras did not capture the crash.The attack occurred close to the Pentagon's heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance, including video monitoring"
http://web.archive.org/web/20011114115925/http://www.gertzfile.com/ring092101.html

The question is why don't they release the video? They could have simply doctored the video and released it by now but they are just remaining silent. It makes no sense. I believe someone is intentionally fueling these "conspiracy theories". Obviously, something other than the official story happened on 9/11. The question remains, why are they continuing to allow the conspriacies to grow? I believe this is also an integral part part of the ongoing campaign against the American People.

It's perfectly accurate to say that the FBI confiscated all security videos in the area of the Pentagon.

It's accurate to state that one of these videos was from a gas station a couple of hundred of yards away on the "right" side of the Pentagon.

Since nobody knows what's on the tape but the FBI, however, it's not accurate to claim to know that it would "clearly show the crash". In fact, since it's a security video for the gas station (most likely pointed at the gas pumps or some other gas station fixture) I don't see any compelling reason to expect it would show anything that went on at the Pentagon. It might, but that's far from a foregone conclusion.

The Gov't only released the Pentagon parking lot video images in 2002.
They didn't however; release the most important images - the one(s) that would show what crashed into the building.
Only a child, or a fool, or a rabib partisan would say they don't have a clue why, if the Gov't is telling the truth about 9/11, it would intentionally withold evidence that would support the OCT.

In the case of the gas station video, the man said that the cameras would have captured images of what happened at the Pentagon. Only a child, or a fool, or a rabib partisan (or disinfo agent) would say they don't have a clue about what might be on the video that was taken from them and NEVER RETURNED.

It's obvious that what we're talking about here is more evidence that proves the OCT is a lie. Why anyone would still claim otherwise is not hard to understand, but it isn't something that can be talked about in public.

except the ONE that shows that blur that's been the subject of so much conjecture. Why would you assume that this video is any different?

Personally, I have no idea why they released the video they did, but to state that that the gas station video from the gas station MUST have shown the crash in a definitive manner without knowing anything other than it was pointed in the direction of the Pentagon (a LONG way away) seems illogical to me.

You are aware illogic stops no one here; without it, this debate would grind to a halt, as there could be no opposition from across the aisle.

Why anyone expects the fruits of survellaince of a sensitive installation, which would certainly provide useful details of the means by which it is survelled that ill-disposed persons might find of use, would be released by any government is beyond me. The idea that there is some great real clamor by hordes of "investigators" that must be quieted by such an action is nonesense.

There are security cameras on the roof along the entire perimeter of the Pentagon. Why cause such a fuss about a camera hundreds of yards away that may or may not have shown anything when it's a pretty safe bet that the Pentagon cameras recorded everything?

Again, it's just illogical.

These would be hi-res digital cameras fed into a digital recorder. We should be able to see multiple angles of the attack and be able to clear away any doubt as to what happened. I was simply responding to the question about the released video and I think it's pretty much worthless for any type of analysis or conclusions. I can assure you, however, that we will most likely never see these videos, national security, don't ya know.

captured images of what happened.

You know exactly why the Pentagon DID what it did, and why it refuses to let the world see what happened there. You knew that even before you heard that Rumsfeld himself admitted that a missile struck the building.
Furthermore, you know why he said that. You know better than most people here that he said that because the day will come whenever the rest of the world learns that a missile really did hit the building. and Mr. Rumsfeld was only inoculating himself, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the perps. "Oh, Secretary Rumsfeld has NEVER denied THAT. In fact, he is the first person who SAID that a missile hit the building, and he ought to know. He was there."

C'mon, this isn't Gulf War 1. Lots more people understand how propaganda works these days.

What camera exists on your planet that is capable of showing detail at, say, 30 feet and a couple of hundred yards simultaneously?

As far as your statement that Rumsfeld's statement was meant to "innoculate" him, that's just silly. How would this one statement innoculate him when he's made repeated statements about AAL77 hitting the Pentagon? How would it innoculate him from representing it as a terrorist attack if it were really domestic in nature? If you think it through, your claim is just absurd.

An outside camera at a gas station would be one of 2 types. One would be a point camera that is trained on a specific area, a pump, a soda machine, the entrance/exit points. The other would be an observation type camera. This type of camera usually has a 3-4 mm lens and easily show a plane flying in the distance. An observation camera gives you a birds eye view of your place and lets you see where everything is at in relation to your spot Cameras.



A 3.6 mm lens is a standard lens and outside cameras usually have infra-red lights that illuminate an area up to 60' in complete darkeness. The Cameras are usually mounted about 12' to 15' up to give you the best view of the area.

A standard outside camera with a 3.6 MM lens would give you a vertical view of 60' if it was trained on an object 60' away which is usually how you eyeball an observation camera during installation. An object viewed at 1500' would give you a vertical height of 1500' an a horizontal view of 2000'. The detail would be low but you would be able to make out a plane. If you look at the picture above and there is in fact an observation camera mounted on the building viewing the pump areas, then you would be able to see a plane flying into the pentagon. If this was a Hi-resolution camera, you'd be able to digitally enhance the video and glean more detail though you would still experience loss depending on the recording medium (Digital video recorder{better} or Security VCR{worse}) The fact that they took the video and how quickly they arrived speaks volumes. There is something on that tape that we'll probably never see.

crash. That was what I was referring to. Notice the quote "Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation." Why would they sit in shock and horror if it was filming the parking lot?

This video was confiscated before anyone thought to call a news station? People had been submitting videos all day long. People had been selling these pictures to CNN and Fox all day long. Why wouldn't the owner of the hotel think to do the same? Also, if this was an observation camera, chances are we would see a very good picture, low on detail, but enough to debunk any outlandish theory. Why not release it? It makes no sense.

Very, very good. You are exactly right. It makes no sense that they would sit "in shock and horror" if all that was on the videotape was images of cars in the parking lot.

As far as I'm concerned, you have more than established your credentials as a first-rate analyst and THINKER.

More, more. The noose is being tightened, and the chickens are coming home to roost. Sooner, rather than later.

Any more info on what they actually SAW? That seems to be the real question here. Even if there's no evidence (the FBI has the tape) the viewers' accounts would be interesting to read.

Has anyone else confirmed this story? It sounds a little ambiguous and it's coming from a moonie times reporter.

http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/ring092101.html
...
The electronic news media have broadcast repeatedly the attack on the World Trade Center. They are perhaps the most dramatic news images since the explosion of the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima.

Now word has reached us that federal investigators may have video footage of the deadly terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation.
...

but seems to be a fav target of leaks from FBI and Intell community so he gets a lot of accurate dirt. But he SPINS anything he can to make Dems look bad (ie, a typical Moonie Times employee).


IE on a scale of 1-10 with Rense at 1 (loonie bin) to BBC at 9 (gets it mostly right) he's a 7 with an *. Good facts, toss his intrepretaion into the trash.

For sheer unwholesomeness, judicial discretion suggests a down-grade to no more than a low four for this wretch. He has written some things, particularly in his works on China, in which facts are distorted badly by selection, omission, and order of presentation, which are every bit as eggregious as simply making them up, or refusing to understand what their actual import is.

"A man who tells untruths may never have known the truth, but a man who tells half-truths has forgotten where he put it."

I had forgotten about his China coverage. a "4" then.

wrong direction or didn't show anything, they wouldn't have bothered. The most important aspect however is the speed at which the FBI responded. "Within minutes"? What FBI agent is going to watch the Pentagon get drilled by a 757 and then think, "Gee, we better go to the gas station and the hotel and get some video of this." Also keep in mind, the air force still hadn't responded to the threat. Flight 93 hadn't crashed. There could have been other terrorist plots developing that didn't include planes. I would think they would be more concerned with other issues and rely on the public to provide the videos as they did in New York. Nope, not the D.C. FBI. They were Johnie on the spot, within minutes they were collecting tapes from a gas station. The hotel people said they only watched it a few times before the FBI showed up and collected thier tape. This too had to have been relatively soon. You know if you had a video tape of the one of the planes crashing, you'd break your neck getting to the video. Imagine how much that'd be worth. I think this is more telling than any aspect of this investigation. While our entire national defense system is on the fritz, the FBI is collecting evidence even before the attack is over? And now that evidence is missing or doesn't show anything? This is simply ridiculous.

Very perceptive insight. Those particular F.B.I. agents (and we don't really know if they were actual F.B.I. agents or CIA/NSA/DIA agents with fake identification - another common tactic used for inside jobs. it happened in Dallas, during the assassination of President Kennedy) had to have either direct knowledge of the plot or maybe they had just been told to stand by in case they were needed for something important.

You said that the hotel people "watched it a few times". Is there any record, to your knowledge, of what they said they saw happen on the tape?

Your insight is one more reason why it's absurd to maintain that 9/11 was somehow "just allowed to happen". Those folks at the Hotel and the gas station probably wish that keeping their videotape would be "just allowed to happen".

You have a good mind, "mikelewis".

If you allow it to happen, then you are complicit and just as guilty as the actual perpetrators. If I know my neighbors going to get murdered and I don't do anything about it because I want to buy his house after he's dead, I think I may be in just as much trouble if I had pulled the trigger myself. It's a waste of time even labeling it. If a prosecutor could show how I knew and then failed to report it, I would be in charged as a conspirator. I might not get the electric chair but I'd damn sure serve a lot of time and be subjected to public scorn.

Clearly, the attack was broadcasted prior to the actual strike. Clearly, there were obstacles that prevented an adequate response to the attacks. Clearly, there is a concerted cover-up of facts. Clearly, there has been gain by certain members of our goverment and private sectors. Clearly, none of these events have been in the best interest of our country and are not supported by our Constitution. And also, just as clear, there is a need to expose this crime and root out the perpetrators.


The "Fake" FBI agents have also been used in Guantanamo. This information has just come to light by a FOIA action sponsored by the ACLU regarding the prisoner abuse.
http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/010505.html
"“Of concern, DOD interrogators impersonating Supervisory Special Agents of the FBI told a detainee that . These same interrogation teams then . The detainee was also told by this interrogation team . These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and CITF believes that techniques have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee. If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done by the “FBI” interrogators. The FBI will be left holding the bag before the public.”

There has been no further information regarding the people who viewed the tape. I have searched for more information on this but have yet to find anything further. I think it would be a smart thing for someone to call there and ask what they saw. They may have been instructed not to discuss the issue as a national security directive but it would still be interesting to find out what thier story is. I'd do it but I'm sure this line would be monitored if there were a cover-up. Call me paranoid but I don't want the "evildoers" doing evil to me. Remember the guy who killed himself at the Trade Center after Bush's re-election? I think he wasn't paranoid enough. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/suic-n09.shtml
Man commits suicide at World Trade Center site to protest Iraq war and Bush reelection

I think this guy got pissed after the election and went looking for evidence. We'll never know if I'm right but I don't believe it was a suicide. They expect me to believe that he drove right past the White House and blew his head off in some hole in the WTC complex. Sure, I believe this. Why didn't he simply drive to the Pentagon and do it there? Why hide? If it were a suicide, why no note? If it was a statement, why so obscure? The story makes no sense. I think Mr. Veal started digging and found his own grave.

If you have good reason to believe your neighbors are going to be murdered but do nothing about it, you DO bear some responsibility (near-total responsibility if your job is making sure your neighbors remain safe).

That's still different than killing them yourself, however.

That person regularly pooh-poohs what he calls 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.
Yet, he has talked about one of the wildest, zaniest CT you'll ever hear about.

He has said:

* AA FL 77 (a B757) crashed at the Pentagon, and that only Conspiracy Theorists claim that FL 77 didn't crash there. He has "loudly" criticized and ridiculed people like Dick Eastman and Dave Von Keist - both of whom have done extensive research into the Official version of what happened at the Pentagon.

He has also said:

* He thinks it's possible that FL 77 was remotely controlled.

He has also said:

* He believes that OBL planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

* 9/11 was "allowed to happen".

Think about all that. Osama was able to control an American airlines B757 & have it remotely controlled/flown to the Pentagon, where it crashed into the building...and it was all "allowed to happen".

Sounds even more bizarre than the Bush 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. The one he also supports.

I'm not sure which is the more accurate description of that kind of "thinking": Conspiracy Schizophrenia, or just your regular, plain old Cognitive Dissonance? Something else?

I read the exchanges between you two and I must say, I get a lot from both sides. I tend to agree with your analysis more often than not but I'm glad Mercutio is pushing you to dig deeper. The fustration he creates seems to drive you to prove him wrong and in a lot of cases, this has added depth to an arguement. So thanks Mercutio and thanks Abe, I hope you fight all the way to Bush's convinction.

I was writing about what HE HAS SAID HE BELIEVES.

HE has written here at DU that:

* HE believes 9/11 "was allowed to happen".

* HE believes FL 77 may have been flown remotely to the Pentagon.

Do YOU agree with those notions? If so, then maybe YOU would like to reconcile them & explain why they aren't crazier than a Joree. How in the world is it even THEORETICALLY possible for Osama bin Laden to outfit an AMERICAN AIRLINES B757 with remote control capability, and BE ALLOWED to fly it remotely to the Pentagon and ALLOWED to crash it into the building. I'm surprised that you don't see the absurdity in those positions, but if you don't, I'd be interested in hearing how YOU think they are realistic (or plausible).

I believe it was both LIHOP and MIHOP, just not by the same people.

The fall of the Soviet Union was a unique scenario in history. This is not to say that never before has a smaller country not gained victory over a larger country by utilizing terrorist methods. The fall of the Roman Empire was such a case. The Germanic tribes kept invading Roman territory and it eventually cost the Romans so much for security that they eventually fell apart. This was the scenario in Russia. What was unique was that two equally strong countries were engaged in a war that revolutionized modern warfare. The U.S. applied a new form of combat to defeat an enemy that had they engaged head on, would have resulted in mutually assured destruction.

This new strategy actually began with Carter, when Brezinski brought the idea of a Russian Vietnam to him. The plan was carried on and intensified during the Reagan Administration. It was at this time the UBL came into the picture. He was chosen to lead the assault because of his strong religious faith and his powerful family ties. He was a strong charismatic leader with a lot of cash. He began by helping to recruit the Mujahadeen Freedom Fighters and slowly began to take more operational control. He began to lead the troops and was instrumental in the training and support of the resistance. When his army was given Stingers and was able to neutralize the effect of the Russian Air Force, he achieved his victory. The Soviets couldn’t support the war, they went bankrupt and the empire collapsed.

The Russian Afghan war marked the beginning of a new generation in modern warfare. A smaller enemy was able to neutralize the effectiveness of a much larger and more powerful adversary. They simply engaged in a guerrilla war that was supported by our government with weapons and money. The same scenario is taking place in Iraq today. We invaded Iraq, there was no doubt we’d win so the enemy didn’t fight, they melted into the landscape and are using completely different tactics than we expected. They too are being aided by outside countries with weapons and money. They too are luring the “invaders” into a trap that has almost completely neutralized our military. It’s the same war we fought in Vietnam, just a different setting and a different cast of characters. But what is different is the plot. {See post script for my thoughts about the real pupose in Iraq}

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the European Union began to form. The groundwork for the EU was laid in the late 80’s in direct response to the U.S. hegemony in military and economic power. Remember, they were still recovering from WWII and now that the Soviets were no longer a balance to our power, they began to see a need to check our superpower status. Who could blame them after what happened? They fear the U.S. may one day shed it’s reservations about expansion and seek to rule them. What could stop us? They decided they needed to. If you don’t believe me, read it from their lips. They have updated their declaration of war which I have not read yet so I will post the original document in a reply to this post. Here’s the EU thinking. http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/warusa.html

As the reality of the EU began to come into focus, it became essential to counter this new superpower by destabilizing the Union. This is where Yugoslavia came in. In Yugoslavia, we deposed a democratically elected government and instituted an Islamic Fundamentalist regime in its place. These Islamic Fundamentalists actually came from Afghanistan. These were the Mujahadeen Freedom Fighters we trained and then we put them in power. The ironic thing is we got the Europeans to help us do it. Now, I don’t think Bill Clinton knew that he was actually destabilizing the EU, I think he believed that there was an actual genocide of Muslims taking place. The problem is, there wasn’t. What actually happened was we instituted a fundamentalist regime and it began pumping tons of heroin from Afghanistan into Europe. This served to destabilize the population of Europe and give the Usurpers access to billions in illegal money. For a complete analysis of Yugoslavia and the destabilization of Europe see http://emperors-clothes.com/yugo.htm . If you would like to debate Jared Israel please, post this exchange, I would love to read it.

These same Freedom Fighters comprise what we know as Al Qeada today. These same Freedom Fighters have attacked the American people both abroad and at home, prior to 9/11. It is these same Freedom Fighters who are complicit in the Oklahoma City Bombing. It is these same Freedom Fighters that were led by UBL and controlled by George Bush Sr. George Bush Sr. and his buddies have run our intelligence agency since before Reagan. George Bush Sr. goes back to the time of Nixon. You only need to watch Fahrenheit 911 to get a glimpse of how much control this group has over our government and the decisions we make. Not only do they control our oil, they control what information gets passed on to our Government and this information affects policy. Look at Iraq; we are there because of bogus intelligence. This intelligence had to have come from somewhere and it had to have been trusted. We know its bogus now but it seemed real enough to get our Senators to vote to go to war over it. Obviously there is a disconnect between our Government and Our Government.

It has been argued that UBL broke off relations with the U.S. over the first Gulf War. This is the commonly accepted story. Read this and see if you are still married to this idea. http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm I believe UBL remains an asset of the Usurpers and they are using this specter of fear to manipulate, not only our people but our government as well. That’s were you two come in.

You said:
• HE believes 9/11 "was allowed to happen".

* HE believes FL 77 may have been flown remotely to the Pentagon.


I’m not going to comment on the remote flight capabilities that UBL or our government have because I don’t know. I don’t really care, it’s irrelevant. It’s like arguing over the caliber of the bullet that shot you while ignoring the person holding the gun. To me, it’s irrelevant. But the first comment, I agree with. I believe “they” let it happen. I also believe as you do, “they” made it happen. I just think there are two separate “they’s”.

On December 7th, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in a sneak attack. Come to find out, it may not have been as sneaky as I was first taught. It appears that that this was a LIHOP incidence. There is sufficient credible evidence to suggest that Roosevelt allowed the attack to take place in order to drum up support for entering the war. At this time, the average American had no desire to fight in Europe. That changed in the blink of an eye. After the “surprise” attack, the full heart and soul of America demanded revenge. We went to war against the Axis powers and the rest is history.

The threat of international terrorism was growing and had been ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. This threat has manifested itself in attacks against our troops in Rwanda, a sneak attack against the U.S.S. Cole, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and attacks against our allies and interests. Throughout the 90’s, our response to these attacks were non-existent. We bombed an aspirin factory in Afghanistan for crissakes. That was our response. Clearly, our intelligence was severely lacking in regards to the terrorist threats. Even in Iraq, a country we had flown thousands of missions over for 10 years was a complete mystery to our intelligence services. Again, you can see the disconnect between our government and Our government. Clearly, we needed to do something to put a halt to the rapidly escalating threat of terrorism that was slowly zeroing in on our homeland. Our intelligence was woefully inadequate, the possibility for WMD to fall into the hands of these terrorists loomed larger and larger.

Who knows what our government was being told before 9/11. Who knows how credible they thought the threat of a terrorist army posed to the safety of our country. Could our government have been sold on the idea that we needed to engage this new threat and we were going to need the rock solid will of the American people behind it just like we had in world war 2? Could a Senator be sold on the notion that allowing this attack to happen would facilitate our entrance into a war to crush this looming threat. Clearly Mecrutio does. If they let it happen on purpose, this had to have included more than just the President and a few top advisors. This had to have the support of both sides to work. There had to have been a clear reason why there wasn’t an outcry from our Senate to investigate what happened. You’ve all seen Boxer go after Rice like a Pitt bull after a poodle. Something has kept them silent about 9/11. I believe they let it happen on purpose.

But I also believe they were duped by false intelligence, half-truths and phony evidence. I believe the people who control our intelligence sold them on the notion that they had no choice but to allow this to happen. I think some of them just may be waking up to this idea and they realize there isn’t much they can do about it. If they come out and say they let it happen, they’re screwed. They’re in it with the MIHOP people now. That’s why they’re keeping their distance and not pushing for the truth. I think a lot of them don’t want to know the truth. They have to have gotten letters about what really happened. They have to know, there have been TV ads and millions of words written about this. They know, they let it happen.

The same thing goes for the pilots who flew in those war games on 9/11 that were detailed by Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon. Why haven’t the pilots come out and said what happened? Why are they protecting Bush or the LIHOPers? They’re not, they’re protecting national security. The story that was probably told to them was that Bin Laden found out about these games and used it as a cover for the attacks. In his last video he confirmed this by mocking Bush for failing to act so he could have another 20 minutes to pull of his attack while the idiot sat reading about a girl and her goat. Someone must have tipped him off; and we can’t let the American people know how bad we failed; can we?

They’re covering up of the games makes sense, you wouldn’t even have to order them to do it if they believed our intelligence made a critical error and there was a spy on the inside. They’d shut up and feel like they were doing their patriotic duty but I’m sure they were ordered to shut up, just in case. The same goes for the FBI, the CIA; any of our agencies. You let someone in on a little conspiracy and tell them they’re helping the nation in a time of war, who wouldn’t shut up about a failure. But this has created a situation where our pilots are protecting the LIHOPers and the MIHOPers. The LIHOPers are shielding the MIHOPers and we’re left to argue about robotic planes.

I hope this explains my position on what happened and why I think it’s important to hear both sides of your debates with Mercutio. I think you’re both right and I’m glad you are helping me get a better picture of how this whole thing fits together. I realize this is a long winded explanation but I felt it necessary to explain where I’m coming from. I don’t expect anyone to agree with what I have written. I’m not going to get into debates about whose right and whose wrong. I’m just looking for the kernels of truth that drop out from your fights. I’m glad you’re debating.

Sincerely,
Michael Lewis

P.S. I also think the reason we have an insurgency in Iraq is because they intentionally created one to create a real terrorist army. There’s nothing like an enemy that doesn’t exist to screw up a perfectly good war. Iraq is the new training ground for terrorists, yep, and the Usurpers planned it to happen this way. They want terrorists, they need terrorists, real ones and in a bad way.

As promised from the above post concerning the European response to our continued aggression. I came across this during a discussion with a soldier about Kerry failing to vote for the $87 billion supplemental. It's some pretty sobering shit. They seemed to have tamed thier rhetoric a bit, maybe because I email it to Sen Biden and told him WTF!!!
This is the discussion about the $87 billion.
http://www.thequestingcat.com/blog/archives/00000044.html#comments

This is the site that posted the declaration of war.
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/warusa.html

The moral justification for the war can not be separated from the geopolitical reality. The United States is the only remaining superpower, and it has sufficient military force at its disposal to eliminate resistance to its hegemony, by any existing nation state. Only a European continental state can inflict a military defeat on the United States. No other non-European coalition can do this. The United States is expansionist in nature. It has - again as a result of its specific origins - developed into a crusading state. The internal isolationist tradition in the United States is in long-term decline. Neoconservative advocates of pre-emptive wars and wars of regime change are now at the heart of policy-making. It is in any case certain, that the United States will promote a world order which it finds minimally acceptable: a world order of liberal market-democratic nation states.
In other words - unless Europe stops the United States - no other economy than a free-market economy will exist on this planet, no form of state other than a nation state will exist on this planet, and no form of social life other than a liberal society. No political ideal or innovation, which can not secure majority support in a democracy, will ever again be realised. All humans will live in a liberal market democracy, no human will ever experience any other way of life, and no artefact or social form will exist, except those which are compatible with a a liberal market democracy. That does not necessarily mean, that there will be a McDonalds in every village. But the prospect of indefinite planetary stagnation is far worse anyway, and the possible preservation of cultural diversity can not excuse it. The permanent loss human life might also be great: the free market, far from being an engine of global prosperity, intensifies inequality and results in millions of avoidable deaths.

This is the primary moral justification for a war against the United States: to prevent it from fulfilling what probably is its historical destiny. Once a state such as the United States comes into existence - an expansionist ideological state with unipolar hegemony - it is inevitable in the long term, that it will remodel the world according to its ideology. Unless it is stopped, that is. There is no guarantee that its 'success' in this respect will ever be reversed.

A war for values is unlikely to be a small war, or a short war. Any war with the United States would result in millions of deaths, even if nuclear weapons are not used. The Soviet Union entered the Second World War as a divided society, following 20 years of civil war and famine. Yet despite losing one-fifth of its population, it did not surrender. The United States, with an ideologically homogeneous population fighting for their core values, would certainly not surrender quickly. It might not surrender until the majority of its population has been killed. There might be no surrender at all: a surrender implies a government with the authority to order a cease-fire. If the population regards all surrender as a betrayal of their central values, then no ceasefire can ever be enforced. In this respect, a war with the United States might be like a war of religion. For each individual soldier, surrender would be equivalent to abandoning their religion: orders to surrender could not be implemented. The war would only end when the last 'believer' was killed, captured, or incapacitated.

What happens after the war? In the event of a US defeat, there are two relevant strategies. One is to preserve the United States, with its values, but ensure it can not impose them on others - a strategy of containment and demilitarisation. The second option is to break up the United States, in such a way that it can not easily be replicated, even if its territorial integrity is later restored. There is a third option, but it would be futile - to re-make the United States as a 'European' entity. History has made the United States distinct from, and hostile to, Europe. It is no longer possible to go back to the beginning, and start again with a non-hostile version. 'Europe' and the United States are, and will remain, opposites.

Both strategies require an occupation of the United States. It seems impossible to implement the goals of the declaration, in any other way. Obviously, no US-American government can be trusted to abandon the national core values, or reverse the expansionist trend, or break up the country. The military goals follow from the necessity of occupation, they are comparable to those of many other wars - to defeat the armed forces of the state, to occupy its territory, to defeat any non-state resistance in the occupied territory (militias and warlords), and to impose an administration, which will implement the political and geopolitical strategy.

Any such occupation administration would be for the contiguous territory of the United States, the 'lower 48' states. Alaska and Hawaii should be detached from the United States: there is no geographical or economic reason to administer them together with the other 48 states. The remaining colonial territories, such as Puerto Rico, such also be detached. The present administrative structure - the 48 states themselves - should be abolished. Partly because the administrative boundaries are not rational, but also because this traditional structure is part of the national identity. The rest of the symbolic culture of the expansionist United States would also be replaced, starting with the flag.

A simple list. However... the example of the flag illustrates the massive scale of the social and cultural transformation, even for a containment strategy. Simply to confiscate all existing examples of the Stars and Stripes would require a full military occupation, and intensive enforcement, over a period of perhaps 5 to 10 years. That's just to change the flag, and it would never be 100% effective anyway. Again this makes clear, that such a war is a value conflict: an occupation of the United States goes far beyond a 'regime change'. Yet if American values are not opposed, they will inevitably triumph, because of their universalist and expansionist nature.

To paraphrase a stock expression: you may not be interested in occupying the United States, but the United States is interested in occupying you. The more your values deviate from American values, the more true that is. The rest of the world does not have the option of being left in peace by the United States, that is simply not in its nature. Europe especially does not have this option. The American-European 'war of values' exists. It will end with either implicit European surrender, or American defeat in open war.

which you stated. I like to read what they both have to say because I'm forever picking up new bits of information which help me in this present quest :-)

I said that I believe that 9/11 was allowed to happen through incompetence, not intent.

I said that, while I do not believe in the theory myself, I've seen no evidence that specifically rules out a remote control scenario.

To combine these two statements as you have is misleading.

if 9/11 was "allowed to happen through incompetence" why have there been no reprimands? In a congressional hearing that took place over a year after the events of 9/11 the heads of the CIA, FBI and NSA all stated that no individuals within their agencies had been fired or even punished for their countless missteps. As a matter of fact, some were even PROMOTED! Now 3+ years after 9/11 the same still applies just in greater numbers.

See how that works?

of that day leads me to believe that there was in fact no "failure" and that they were rewarded for looking the other way or for not following SOP because SOP was put in stand down mode that day so they were promoted/rewarded for doing what they were "supposed" to do as directed by the higher up mucky-mucks. IMHO

The President and his National Security Advisor would be the most culpable. You expect them to be reprimanded?

I'm not talking about incompetence at lower levels, I'm talking about ignoring reports that such attacks were possible and, in fact, probable.

higher ups. From the heads of all the security agencies and their immediate underlings right through the military leadership right up to the WH. Absent any of that I would say then that there are no reprimands because those people were doing as ordered, hence "doing" their jobs.

My opinion is that the incompetence existed at the higher levels (Prez and Nat. Sec. Advisor). Although I can't speak for NORAD, I'm not claiming that other entities were incompetent on 9/11.

just posted above is what I understood your position to be all along and it's where we begin to differ in our opinions about 9/11.

I was just attempting to clarify my position. I'm glad we understand each other.

I've always said that I've seen no evidence that specifically rules out remote control, but I don't believe in the theory.

Do YOU have any evidence that rules out a remote control theory?

Is that no one at all has a scintilla of evidence that compells assent to the idea any of the jetliners was operated by remote control....

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

Has he "seen" any evidence that rules out the possibility that the perps knew exactly what they were doing in the Bush 9/11 Conspiracy?

I sure haven't seen any such evidence.

So, what we are left with is a Conspiracy Theory, in which:

* The Pentagon jet attack may have been remotely controlled.

* The 9/11 attacks may have happened because of incompetence.

Or, maybe it's more accurate to say:

* You may or may not believe the above depending on whether or not you've seen any evidence that would rule it out.

Got it? That wild and zany Conspiracy Theory could only have been cooked-up by someone smarter than Dick Eastman or DVK.

Yes, I have seen evidence that, to me, rules out other MIHOP scenarios. I've yet to see evidence that conclusively rules out remote control. That doesn't mean that I believe in a remote control scenario.

I was stating the difference between them as I see it (and also the difference between "LIH" and "LIHOP").

No law anywhere obliges anyone not employed by the state for the purpose to prevent a crime. Certain professionals may be required to report credible threats by persons under their care to the authorities, but the penalties generally are civil, not criminal. You cannot aid materially in the planning of a crime, or in concealing it afterwards, of course. But if someone says in my presence he is goinmg to sap you down on the sidewalk, my silence about the intent is no crime, no more than would my walking past the doing of the deed without interfereing or summoning the police.

The Pima County prosecutor's office has had a great deal of press lately, including an article in the New Yorker magazine that mentioned this case (near the end) so you might have heard of this already. If not, here is a summary:

LaWall: Prosecutor had info, didn't act
Says he knew of possible suspect in Stidham killing
By Scott Simonson
ARIZONA DAILY STAR

Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall fired a prosecutor last week because she said he had heard about a potential suspect and motive on the day after the homicide of Dr. David Brian Stidham and didn't contact police quickly or directly.

LaWall gave that explanation to Deputy County Attorney Paul Skitzki in a letter explaining why she fired him.

But Skitzki's attorney said the deputy prosecutor didn't violate any county or office policies. Leo "Chip" Plowman said Skitzki learned details of the homicide from a friend and urged her to contact law enforcement, which she did.

LaWall also wrote that she didn't believe Skitzki's statement that he never knew Stidham's life might be in danger. Instead, the county attorney chose to believe Lourdes Lopez, the murder suspect's ex-girlfriend and a former prosecutor who told authorities she asked Skitzki to anonymously warn Stidham months ago.
</snip>


It is an ongoing situation, with LaWall recusing herself and the Pima County Prosecutor's Office from the murder case because of conflict of interest, and with accusations flying from one side to the other. In addition to the prosecutor fired, there were three others suspended. At least one is appealing her decision.

Though there are exceptions, as a general case they are among the lowest forms of life, in morals and manners; no misdeed by one much surprises me....

Not having known any I was unaware of their unsavory nature - although foreknowledge of such hasn't prevented me from having "interesting" drinking companions in the past (ah, the undergraduate years). After all, one always appears appealing to potential dates when juxtaposed with the like, regardless of the quantity of alcohol consumed.

I yie yie! What a strange world we live in.

was just to make the distinction between a moral obligation versus a legal obligation. Of course they are not the same and I wasn't trying to state earlier that they were. In our "western" societies we will always attempt to legislate morality but those attempts will always be futile IMO.

Every year, more than 700,000 people in the United States are arrested for possessing a flower. Thousands more are arrested/jailed for other victimless crimes.

If you mean it's futile to legislate against corruption in the criminal justice system (cops, prosecutors, judges et al.), then you are correct.

a crime is about to be committed and you know about it because you overheard a conversation between the conspirator's. If you notify the authorities you could save X number of lives. Morally you should notify authorities but legally you are not obligated to and cannot be held responsible for. It's reminiscent of the murder that happened years back in New York. A woman was stabbed to death outside her apartment building by her ex. She screamed and pleaded for help, made it back into the apartment building entrance and he followed her in there and began stabbing her yet again, all the while she was pleading and screaming for help. She was found dead on the stairs going up to the first floor. Many people heard her screams, rushed to their windows and witnessed the entire thing but did nothing to come to her aid, they didn't even call the police until it was all over and the ex had run off. Morally these bystanders were as guilty as the ex but legally they were guilty of nothing.

The by-standers in that well-known case were not anything like as guilty as the man who did the killing, and that must be clear on a moment's reflection. Subtract the man who wielded the knife from the scene, and there would have been no killing. The responsibility for what he did is solely his, and nothing can attach it to any other. The onlookers, confronted with the thing of his making, acted in fear and in indifference and in many instances quite probably in the faith that someone else was doing something so they did not have to, and none of these things have anywhere near the moral culpability attaching to the man who plunges a knife again and again into another's flesh. None of these people would have lifted a finger to cause this any more than they did to halt it.

Our little difference here indicates some of the real difficulties with attempting to equate law and morality. Moral standards will differ from person to person, necessarily, and the judgements individuals make concerning moral questions must differ even further, even where they are using the same basic standard. It is, however, quite possible to say whether or not a thing is legal: the standard used does not really vary much within specific jurisdictions, and there is an authority in existance able to declare with finality what the standard is, and enforce that declaration. Thus, while people will have great difficulty agreeing on moral questions, all can readily agree on legal ones, and be very speedily brought to agreement, contented or otherwise, where they do disagree.

If a car approaches a railroad crossing that has an automated gate, whenever a train coming down the track reaches a certain point, the gates come down automatically, so cars can't proceed. It's obviously designed as a saftey precaution.

If a car approaches that same crossing, a car can't simply be "allowed to cross the tracks" without ACTIVE assistance from someone doing something to keep the gates from blocking traffic.

People who claim that 9/11 was "allowed to happen" are talking about an impossibility. There are too many automatic security/defense responses that would have been activated on 9/11 unless someone(s) took action to defeat them and prevent them from being activated.

You are correct. There is no such thing as LIHOP. It's an impossibility
that 9/11 could have been "allowed to happen".

9/11 was an Inside Job.

Specifically.

I don't know which specific ones you have in mind whenever you claim that 9/11 was "allowed to happen". I've been meaning to ask you that very question. Must have been a whole bunch of 'em, though.
The "allowed it to happen" claim is YOURS, not mine. I think it's absurd beyond the pale, but I guess it's the only story you can TRY to hang your hat on if you support the Bush 911 Conspiracy Theory.

I was just asking which ones you were speaking of.

"..an aircraft emergency exists ....when...There is an unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communication with any...aircraft...If...you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency" Flight 11 at 8:14 failed to respond to an order from ground control to climb. It was then that the controller realized that radio contact had been lost and then it's transponder went off. At 8:20 the plane went radically off course (off the registered flight path). At 8:21 the flight attendants using the phone in the plane notified the ground that they had difinitely been hijacked. At 8:28 the plane changed course yet again, this time heading towards New York. The 8:14 loss of radio contact should have prompted the controller to begin emergency procedures. The transponder situation should have added that much more wieght to the decision. Once the controller realized he couldn't establish contact with the plane he should have contacted NMCC (in the Pentagon) and NORAD which should have immediately scrambled planes and these planes would have travelled to area X at 1850 nmph or pretty close to that (not at the 300 to 700nmph they did). Even if a plane still had radio contact with the tower and their transponder was on but if they veered off course that in itself is considered a "real" emergency. So even if the controller didn't consider it an emergency until 8:20 when the plane went off course, the interceptor's should have been in the area and making visual contact by 8:30 or 8:35 at the latest.

We see planes off course, some who've lost communications, on a regular basis. Until 9/11 every one of them was due to equipment failures and represented no security threat. Post-9/11, procedures have changed, but the controllers' actions were not unusual at the time.

I don't know why NORAD made the decisions it did. I have no idea what processes they go through prior to an interception.

I DO have some experience in this area...

A common tactic of people who want to sell you something is to tell you that they aren't trying to sell you something.

You can see the use of that tactic right here on DU all the time, from certain quarters. "Hey - the OCT really is the real deal, despite all the incompetence, negligence and so forth; but that's just MY viewpoint. I'm not trying to get you to agree. I don't even care if you believe me. I'm not trying to convince you to sneer at those CTers who with their crazy theories about holographic "attacks" or missiles (Sec. Rumsfeld was under a lot of stress when he made that clumsy statement where he said a missile struck the Pentagon) and so forth. I'm just here to help by giving out FACTS, that's all."

And, if you believe that's "all" they're trying to do, come over here and take a look at these beautiful ROLFLEX watches. They're not the best, but they're just as good.

time pieces?

edited for typo :-)

Sorry, I'm not very good at humor.

:dunce:

warnings from foriegn heads of states and security agencies, our Air Force, the people on the plane, the pilots hijacker code, our intelligence agency... many.

Lets use the railroad scenario.

The signs were clearly posted on approach to the crossing. The CIA had prepared maps of a crossing up ahead (The PDB), others were screaming out thier windows at us as we raced towards the crossing seemingly oblivious (Foriegn heads of state and security agencies, including Isreali).


I mean, come on. The hijacker codes were never entered. The FAA/DOD regulations regarding proper intercept and communication procedures which did not occur. The pilots, stewardesses, and passengers could have helped but they didn't. Our radar tracking system could have tracked a 65 ton airplane quite easily but failed to do so in the case of FL77. Jesus, we had procedures in place and they weren't followed. This was either the worst case scenario for Murphy's law or someone stopped the gate from coming down before this train wreck.

You can't be serious about this question. IF you're an ATC then you'd know about the protocol and procedures that should have been followed. I'm not an ATC but I can read, there are clear guidelines that were ignored or interfered with on this day. There was clear warning that were ignored. There was no chain of command in place that had the authority to respond to this type of attack. The whole thing was ridiculous. This was failure by ommission and stonewalling. They are culpable for this alone regardless if they took part in planning.

If you're a guard at a prison and a prison escapes because of the things you failed to do, you're in big trouble. If your a guard in a prison and a prisoner escapes when you knew he was going to do it, your culpable. If you're a guard in a prison and you open the door for him, you're a criminal. The best case scenario is that they left the door open. The most likely scenario is that they planned and executed the escape. I can understand nay-saying and healthy debate but to ask this question seems ridiculous. What gates? OUR ENTIRE DEFENSE NETWORK WAS OUT TO LUNCH! The perp was a known CIA asset and a friend of the President. WTF? Are you simply arguing for arguements sake?

I have no idea why NORAD did what it did. I was asking abe what specific procedures he was talking about because it's an area I'm not familiar with. I figured that if he made the claim, he'd know the specific peocedures he was speaking of.

I have read the official booklet on the proper procedures but I also realize that many things are not exactly covered even though they should have been. I would like to get a clear picture of how the FAA operated prior to and on 9/11. What training did your recieve prior to 9/11? Were there established protocols that they instructed you to follow in the event of a hijacking/terrorist event? Are you aware of any changes that have been made to the policies that affect your response prior to 9/11? Would any of these policies legitimately have obstructed the response to 9/11? Do you know who was in charge of air security procedures at the FAA on 9/11 and is this person still in this position? Obviously, there was a disconnect between NORAD and the FAA, what are the procedures for contacting NORAD in the event of a terrorist event? Was the FAA air trafic control tied to the National Air Defense Network? Would the FAA have been made aware of any military exercises taking place prior to or on 9/11? Are there any military personell attached to the FAA and vice versa? How much emphasis or training did ATC's recieve regarding terrorists events? Does the FAA run mock scenarios or training missions with real planes? Is the radar systems that the FAA use the same system that the National Defense uses? Are military planes represented in your view of the flow of air trafic? Do you see the success of the attack as more of a failure on NORAD's part or the part of the FAA {This is not laying blame, just your opinion on how the FAA handled the the situation}

I'll try to hit the highlights :)

Hijack issues are part of our standard training. Although I can't go into some of the specifics (security issues) our only communication responsibility is to notify our supervisor. The supervisor observes the situation and decides whether to notify the Area Manager in Charge (AMIC). The AMIC then observes the situation and decides whether to notify the Command Center. The Command Center observes the situation and decides whether to notify NORAD. You can see that there is some delay built into the chain of command. The procedures are basically the same now, but since awareness has been heightened, the information would move much more rapidly than it did on 9/11.

Our hijack training was not reinforced on a regular basis and wasn't emphasized.

I have no idea who was in charge of security procedures at the FAA.

The FAA should have been made aware of any military exercises going on, but sometimes this information does not filter down to the controllers themselves.

We do not use live planes in any type of training exercises. We have a DYSIM (DYnamic SIMulator) lab for training. It is modeled after the equipment we use on a daily basis and enables us to run simulated traffic.

The military has their own radar installations, but I believe they have access to ours as well. We don't use theirs.

We do see and work military aircraft. Occasionally, military planes will work in low-altitude routes or high-altitude blocks that we don't control, though.

I see the failure as being due to the systems that were in place combined with unfamiliarity. The chain of communication had delays built in that slowed the flow of information. Additionally, we had all seen planes lose communication and go off course before. Our first reaction was to try to get in contact with the pilots, not assume a hijack.

might be hijackings during the summer/fall 2001?

Whether the perps created or just let the video out it fits the M.O. of the evildoers, since 2000 or before.

Baffle w/bs, confusion and even semi-true narratives, and eventually the less credulous will eventually give up and keep drinking the MSM CW koolaid. Result- cognitive dissonance, denial, impotence.

Still, I think most DU 9/11 skeptics agree that the video is not, in itself, evidence of much, but certainly is not proof of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

They compensated and it would shut up all of us Whackos!

If there isn't a cover up, why wouldn't they simply do this?


Sometimes the simplest questions are the most revealing.

a something strange they don't want us to see.

Perhaps both!

a few months ago, i filed a 'freedom of information act' request through an attorney which requests the FBI confiscated videos from both the citgo gas station and the sheraton hotel.

the first response came back negative - saying they didn't have the videos. so we filed a standard appeal about two months ago. the appeal goes to the DOJ, and the hope of getting the videos through that process is not high... but now after waiting, we have the right to file a suit, and that's what will be happening over the next few weeks/months.

i just thought i'd toss this info out to y'all.

further, after far too much research into flight 77 - it's my best guess that it was a 757 that hit the pentagon. it's what i expect to see on the videos, if they reveal anything at all.

i think the alternative flight 77 theories were invented, or at least fueled, to make us all seem like crack-heads beyond the crack-heads that we are - and to divide the 911truth community on the issue.

i am spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to get these videos - and my primary intent is to bridge the community so that we can focus on the more important issues - like how the hell did building 7 go down?

i am of the school that flight 77 was flown remotely. when and if i get the videos, i will post them online first and only.

cheers!
bronco

i am spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to get these videos - and my primary intent is to bridge the community so that we can focus on the more important issues - like how the hell did building 7 go down?

Are you referring to Silverstein giving orders to pull it, or how they heck did they set it up for demolition in such a short amount of time?

i'm referring to how it was so obviously brought down that we should be able to prove it. it'll take something like going to silverstein's house and knocking on his door, or talking with people who implode buidlings for a living and just asking questions until you find a thread, and then pulling.

this isn't so hard. it's like rolling a snowball, it fun once you get started... or something like that;)

b.

order?

I would also love to know how Giuliani knew how the south tower was going to come down in 10-15 minutes........