"9/11 joke" project

Frivolous as it sounds... I've recently become interested in the topic of "9/11 jokes", and I'm trying to do a comprehensive study.

Here's the background: I'm an American living in Berlin, and after September 11, along with a huge wave of sympathy, I started hearing various jokes from German friends. That made me pretty mad at first (I'm from NY originally), but on the other hand I remembered telling jokes about Chernobyl in high school. I've done some Internet research, and there seem to have been a lot of jokes about the World Trade Center, Afghanistan, bin Laden, etc. circulating after September 11. This raises a lot of questions in my mind. Is it just human to joke about catastrophes - your own or other people's? What does it say about people who tell these jokes?

So I'm collecting "9/11 jokes" and reactions, and I plan to exhibit the results in Berlin in mid-September. You can help me by answering the following questions in this forum or sending your responses to schadenfreude@andere- seite.de

For the record, I'm not doing this for "shock value", but as a way of exploring reactions to September 11. If you have any questions about the project, feel free to contact me.

Thanks!

1) Please tell one or more "9/11 jokes" (i.e. on the terrorist attack and its aftermath) or describe your experiences with humor relating to 9/11.

2) Even if you can't tell a joke or don't want to, please tell me what you think about the idea of "9/11 humor".

If you want, please let me know a little bit about yourself (age, background, place of residence).

If you'd like to support the project, please feel free to forward this far and wide! I'm very interested in getting jokes and other responses in other languages and from other countries.

"Holy Fucking Shit"

http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/american_life_turns_into.html

The Onion's "first" humor after the attacks. I, personally, almost puked laughing. I called everyone I knew and told them to read it and I assigned it to 40 college juniors and seniors the next day. Everyone else puked laughing, too.

LITERALLY, a work of genius.

students tonight.

How about "No Boeing hit the Pentagon"?

:-)

Or better still, or the one about broken lamp poles being planted and then replaced in broad daylight?

:-)

I could go on but it's far too easy.

You get the gist.

Kid's stuff.

:toast:

Who claim some old fool living in a cave is responsible for 9/11.

or

Jokesters who claim that same old fool in a cave was not set up to take the blame for 9/11.

or

Jokesters who claim that some old long-forgotten fool in a cave, had the resources and brains to take down the WTC and the amazing Pentagon, then cause FL 93 to crash or explode.

or

Jokesters who claim Commander Bunnypants couldn't have known in advance what was going to happen or else he would never had stayed in a vulnerable one-story building, trying to read a children's book...and even if he is stupid enough to have stayed there, the SService wouldn't have allowed it.

The whole official version of what happened on 9/11 and why is absurd and impossible, some of the most blatantly misleading propaganda ever created.

But then again, blatantly misleading propangda, hypocrisy and bad faith have always been the Bush Administrations hallmark. Even the Nixon Administration didn't take it so far.

The deepest 9/11 humor would be part of the larger body of satire about the Bush Administrations constant deceptiveness, hypocrisy and misleading spectacles.

I'll try to find some for you.

...about the guy who thought it "not so unlikely" that the Pentagon attack was not a planned attack at all but rather a joyride gone bad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=47#98

...Bush himself told the first 9/11 joke unwittingly and dimwittedly as usual. There's his famous (though not famous enough)"There's one terrible pilot" quote.

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/town.htm#a

Scroll down to near the bottom of the transcript and scan for the name JORDAN. That is the name of the person he is addressing.

Come on then, joker. I want to know.

:hi:

Where ever was there a shred of evidence to support the notion that the Pentagon was a pre determined target?

I have never yet seen any of any sort anywhere.

How come then that those so keen to doubt every other "official version" as if by religious devotion are so keen to swallow that part as if without a second thought?

:freak:

It makes no sense.

Even though the Government(s) (Bush and Tony Poodle) refuses to release information, discover evidence, or conduct an investigation into the truth, we know a section of the Pentagon was selected because it had been recently "set up" for just such an operation. Wisely, and thankfully, they did the right thing, didn't they, by planning it in such a way as to minimize the possibly of deaths and injuries occurring when the missile and/or small jet came for its planned visit.

Even though the Government(s) (Bush and Tony Poodle) refuses to release information, discover evidence, or conduct an investigation into the truth, we know a section of the Pentagon was selected because it had been recently "set up" for just such an operation. Wisely, and thankfully, they did the right thing, didn't they, by planning it in such a way as to minimize the possibly of deaths and injuries occurring when the missile and/or small jet came for its planned visit.

Here the thinking abilities of the "no Boeing" crowd are on full display. Please note the lack of evidence. Please note the ironclad conclusion based on wishful thinking. Please note the mindreading abilities.

Please remember, that although Flight 77 did manage to hit the one wedge that had just been reinforced against attacks like the Murrah Office Building suffered, its trajectory immediately took it outside the renovated wedge into unrenovated areas, maximizing the damage done inside, while minimizing the visible effects of that damage outside.

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01. All on board perished.

Bologoffin:
Here the thinking abilities of the "no Boeing" crowd are on full display. Please note the lack of evidence. Please note the ironclad conclusion based on wishful thinking. Please note the mindreading abilities.

Eastman:
Conclusion comes by direct inspection of photgraphic and security camer picture evidence and exhaustive pinpointing of witnesses and what they saw.

For example, the security camera shows a tail fin of a given image size and shape, however given the size of the image of the tail fin there should be a fuselage under that tail fin that is about seven times as long as the base of the fin along the aircrafts back (i.e., the 757 would accomodate just about seven of its own tail fins in a line (Stegosaurus style) along its back -- however the picture shows that there is not fuselage extending beyond about five fins in the length. It is easier to see a picture of the Beoing and compare it with the security camera's capture of the killer jet's attack.

Even more shattering to the official lie, is the fact that thick white missile smoke is seen trailing the killer jet in that same picture from the security camera. And in the second frame of that sequence we see the massive white hot explosion that can only be the warhead of the fired air-to-ground missile. There is just no getting around this. The official story is exploded by the missile it can't account for.

And we have the fact that the picture of the Pentagon wall after the attack and before the (deliberate) collapsing of the building over the hole to cover the telltale evidence shows that NO STARBOARD WING ENGINE HIT THE BUILDING -- there is interior wall clearly standing between pillars 16 and 17 where an engine would have had to have penetrated had it been a Boeing 757 that nosed into pillar #14. There is also standing interior wall between exterior pillars 17 and 18, as well, disallowing any creative fudging on the part of official-story apologists.

One more thing of interest. Pillar #15, is said to have been shredded by the entering fuselage. However if the plane was a Boeing, and a Boeing wearing its engines that day, the fuselage would have had to have gone through on the second floor, not the first floor, since the engines hand much lower than the fuselage -- YET THE SO-CALLED "SHREDDED" EXTERIOR PILLAR, IS ONLY DAMAGED ON THE FIRST FLOOR and the damage reaches all the way to the ground, whereas on the second floor where the fuselage really would have rubbed against the edges of the hole it was making, we see the exterior column is not even scratched. So the pillar was not shredded at all. Rather it was blasted away by the missile that struck at first floor level. In fact we can see the metal reinforcement rods that were inside pillar 15 are still there, not cut down by an entering wing, where the wing of a 757 would be thickest (near the root in the fuselagem between engine and fuselage) This too, by itself, gives the cover story the lie.

Boloboffin:Please remember, that although Flight 77 did manage to hit the one wedge that had just been reinforced against attacks like the Murrah Office Building suffered, its trajectory immediately took it outside the renovated wedge into unrenovated areas, maximizing the damage done inside, while minimizing the visible effects of that damage outside.

Eastman:
Funny isn't it, that it was the "rennovated" portion of the building that collapsed twenty minutes after the crash -- I could only conclude from that the the building was intentionally brought down by demolition after the crash to close the tell-tale too-small hole in the outer wall (although it was too late, we have the pictures that tell the true story unequivocally)

Boloboffin:
Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01. All on board perished.


Eastman:
Flight 77 overflew the Pentagon, banked to the right -- being seen over the 14th street bridge so that radio stations in the D.C. area first reported that the bridge and not the Pentagon had been hit -- then it either landed directly at Reagan National Airport only one mile distant from the crash or it joined other planes in a holding pattern for landings as all planes were then being ordered down to the nearest airports and chaos reigned which was exploited to land the plane, taxi it to a waiting hanger, debark the passenters (if any) and take the plane apart while the airport is closed for seven months, like international auto theives take apart a stolen BMW.

The passengers may have been CIA operatives who were already scheduled to be reassigned with new identities, but other possibilities must not be ruled out if we assume that the murderers were also profit maximizers -- selling body organs is one of the darker possibilities. Also there were people in the field of avionics and health science related to microbiology and immunology -- two fields not unrelated to terrorism -- BUT THE FACT IS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PASSENGERS, NOR SHOULD WE. ONE CAN SOLVE A BANK ROBBERY WITHOUT NECESSARILY DISCOVERING WHERE THE CAPTURED CROOK HID THE CASH.


THE EVIDENCE FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE RIGHT HERE:

Organized Crime in the Administration did 9-11

All the evidence:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/messages

Also:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index.html
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://www.911dossier.co.uk/

http://earth-citizens.net
http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm
http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html
http://www.the-movement.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/messages

Quick-find essential photo evidence sites

1 Evidence Photos Series 1: Interior wall still standing to right of ... 6 KB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/1

2 Evidence E2: Released Security Cam Pictures -- the first two revea... 7 KB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/2

3 Evidence Photos Series 3: How we know that the most famous piece ... 32 KB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/3

4 missile smoke was not condensation from turbulence 3 KB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/4

5 More reasons why Flight 77 could not have been Pentagon killer jet 49 KB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/5

6 Pentagon Attack Paths -- Killer Jet and Boeing 757 21 KB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/6

7 AT LAST THE TRUTH FOR THE SEPTEMBER 11 DEAD -- the real killers ... 34 KB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/6

Do you still stand by this statement?

Let me warn the Israelis and ADL zionists who have been waging a war of ridicule against this evidence of the guilt of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and other zionist Jews (and of gentiles too, make no mistake) and of  Mossad working with the CIA and MI6  --  that by helping to obstruct justice, by helping to suppress public disclosure of this crime by zionists --  you make the crime done by neo-con zionists and Likud zionists and Mossad zionists into a crime by ADL, and Israelis, and, by an unfair but inevitable overgeneralization that people learning the truth about 9-11 are bound to make, a coverup crime by "Jews" as a group  -- choosing to protect mass-murderers of 3000 people and provacateurs who engineered two wars in phony "retaliation" and "terrorist hunting" against people known to be wholly innocent.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/12

Or this one?

I have long been convinced that Hillary Clinton was behind the Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman murders that created the distraction the night before the very day Hillary became the first First Lady to testify in a criminal investigation. I also know that she was involved in serious economic crime when she received criminal payment for corrupt services in the form of a million-to-one (i.e. impossible to come by honestly) illegally manipulated first-timer bonanza killing in the commodities futures speculation. Also, that she had one of the Secret Service men she detested, a man who might have heard too much, transferred to Okalahoma city -- to perish in the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building there, even as the drug-trade-dealing BATF chose to be away from the office that day. And there is the Vince Foster murder. If Mrs. Olsen is in the hands of Hillary Clinton and her associates now, I am sure she would much rather be in the Atlantic trench.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/not_crashed.htm

How about this one?

It is clear that the contrails are being made on a massive scale; that the project and the agencies are secret; that the media is not interested in even considering the question (although I understand the internet has been reporting curious 'crisscrossing' contrail activity for years--I have observed this phenomenon for more than two years.

*snip*

Is weather modification a public function, analogous to military protection, postal service, or highway construction? Or is it a private, non-governmental function? If the latter, is it a private function vested with a public interest, as had been determined to be the case, for example, in rail or air transportation? ... Or is weather modification an ordinary,lawful business, subject only to reasonable regulation, as in the manufacture and sale of clothing? This view raises questions about property rights, i.e., who owns the clouds?

http://www.rense.com/general/masschem.htm

So far my little Google search for statements from you has turned up some fun stuff, hasn't it? Zionists, Hillary, OJ, and chemtrails. But this one really has thrown me for a loop. I'm sure you wrote all the above quotes, and anybody can go and read them in the original context. But this one is just surreal. It does go on about Zionists, and definitely has the mark of someone stunned by the events of 9/11. But did you really write this open letter to President Bush?

As an internet propagandist for populism and against globalization I have said many unkind things about you and about people close to you, occasionally knowingly without sufficient evidence for such accusations to be responsible. But I confess those sins now. I beg that you hear the merits of the Taliban case from soneone other than Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz. The hawks have your ear and so does Mr. Powell, the middle of the roader, who seeks a war diplomatically conditioned so that nothing valuable is upset. Mr. President, it is my hope and prayer that when you have this dove in one of your cages, that you will hear him too.

I am joining the Taliban, believing it to be an organization working for justice and good in the Afganistanand I do so not believing that this organization is responsible for the terror that has horrified the world.

May our Lord and Savior Jesus Chirst continue to guide you in your service to the Republic.

And please, for the sake of my family, be apprised that I am not armed, that I do not believe in violence, and that I will go with arresting officers peacefully without anger or hatred for any man.

http://brasil.indymedia.org/eo/blue/2002/01/14826.shtml

Let's look at this again: As an internet propagandist for populism and against globalization I have said many unkind things about you and about people close to you, occasionally knowingly without sufficient evidence for such accusations to be responsible. If you wrote this, then by your own admission, you are a propagandist (PR guy) spreading rumors and disinformation around the world, knowing that you were being irresponsible in doing so. Since Bush so obviously did not heed this letter, I suspect you have returned to your old tricks with a vengence.

Stop wasting our time, Mr. Eastman. There's an election going on, in case you haven't noticed.

I presented the photos, the security camera pictures, the witness statements so that DU discussants can draw their own conclusions apart from who I am, what I've said or think. Did boloboffin comment on this evidence? Let's see exactly what he did say and let me answer all of his questions, as he answered not one of mine.
How interesting that he had, from my 10,000 posts these particular stories from such diverse locations and on such diverse topics -- none related to the Pentagon attack and the evidence I wanted you to examine and respond to.


================

boloboffin:

Do you still stand by this statement?

"Let me warn the Israelis and ADL zionists who have been waging a war of ridicule against this evidence of the guilt of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and other zionist Jews (and of gentiles too, make no mistake) and of Mossad working with the CIA and MI6 -- that by helping to obstruct justice, by helping to suppress public disclosure of this crime by zionists -- you make the crime done by neo-con zionists and Likud zionists and Mossad zionists into a crime by ADL, and Israelis, and, by an unfair but inevitable overgeneralization that people learning the truth about 9-11 are bound to make, a coverup crime by "Jews" as a group -- choosing to protect mass-murderers of 3000 people and provacateurs who engineered two wars in phony "retaliation" and "terrorist hunting" against people known to be wholly innocent."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/12

============

Eastman:

Yes. I stand by that statement, and I invite DU to look for examples of what I am talking about on the forums of this stie.

It is a common principle that once a person becomes aware of the guilt of a murderer through evidence that is presented to him, then, if he persists in throwing a barrage of ridicule and heckling to block investigators from getting the information of guilt out -- then they become accomplices. I have seen people doing everything to turn people from simple presentations of photographic evidence and discussion of the obvious by-direct-inspection implications of that evidence which points to fact that the Pentagon was hit by a smaller aircraft that fired a missile while the Beoing flew over, hidden by the explosion in its rear and almost immediately afterwarded becoming blended into the Reagan National Airport background just one mile from the crash flyover point. The evidence is overwhelming. And when presented these people turn of the barer of the news and attack him -- even thought my standing, my intelligence, my prejudice, my vices, my unfairness etc. has nothing to do with what the evidence (pictures taken by witnesses and security camera pictures released by the Pentagon) shows -- unequivocally shows as soon as it is pointed out.

Yes, the ADL is functioning as an accomplice to the coverup -- and most of the day-after-day hecklers who specialize,not in counter argument or counter evidence,but in tomato-throwing -- are all to obviously running interference for those they know to be mass-murderers and traitors to this country and to humanity -- in fact fascist racist brand Zionists.

You bring up, what I say -- but you nowhere comment on the photo evidence, the witness testimony, the video recording pictures that show that a killer jet much smaller than the Boeing and an air-to-ground missile killed the Naval Intelligence Personel who were not going along with Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle treason at the Pentagon.

NOW, AS MY FIRST IMPRESSION OF YOU IN OUR FIRST EXCHANGE -- I NOTE THAT YOU COME BACK WITH AN ANSWER SO FAST THAT YOU COULD NOT HAVE EVEN LOOKED AT THE PHOTOS OF THE WALL, THE VIDEO SEQUENCE SHOWING THE ATTACK AND THE WITNESS TESTIMONY AND THE WAY THAT THESE TAKEN TOGETHER CONSISTENTLY TELL THE STORY THAT IS SO AT ODDS WITH THE OFFICIAL FRAME-UP/COVER-UP VERSION. AND THAT YOU HAVE LOOKED FOR STATEMENTS OF MINE THAT ARE CONTROVERSIAL - HOPING TO APPEAL TO THE TIMIDITY OF THE AVERAGE FRIGHTENED DISCUSSANT IN THESE TIMES SAYING: "THIS MAN HAS MADE STRONG STATEMENTS! BETTER COVER YOUR EYES AND NOT LOOK AT THE PHOTOS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS HE WANTS TO SHOW YOU"

THAT SAID, LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE YOU'VE GOT.

===================

boloboffin:

Or this one?

I have long been convinced that Hillary Clinton was behind the Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman murders that created the distraction the night before the very day Hillary became the first First Lady to testify in a criminal investigation. I also know that she was involved in serious economic crime when she received criminal payment for corrupt services in the form of a million-to-one (i.e. impossible to come by honestly) illegally manipulated first-timer bonanza killing in the commodities futures speculation. Also, that she had one of the Secret Service men she detested, a man who might have heard too much, transferred to Okalahoma city -- to perish in the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building there, even as the drug-trade-dealing BATF chose to be away from the office that day. And there is the Vince Foster murder. If Mrs. Olsen is in the hands of Hillary Clinton and her associates now, I am sure she would much rather be in the Atlantic trench.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/not_crashed.htm

==========

Eastman:

Yes. Lee the New York forensics man said that two people had to have committed the crime. People ignore the footprint outside the window. The first jury got it right. But Hillary Clinton was to be the first First Lady ever to be questioned by a special prosecutor in a crinminal inquiry that would discuss potentially her commodities deal (million to one odds kill on her first try -- obvious payoff by the people who also, later on, made her Senator of New York), the death of Foster, Whitewater etc. -- and so one the night before the hearing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman are murdered and OJ is blamed and the entire major news media becomes unglued drowning out the Whitewater investigation questioning of the First Lady. And of course the Murrah building could not have sustained that dammage by a feritlizer bom-- independent experts agree that internal charges had to be set. And yes, one of the White House secret service agents that Hillary despised (she despised them all -- Agent Aldrich quotes her telling secret service agents who get to close and might overhear her conversations to "Fucking back off!" etc.)was reassigned to the Murrah Building where he died in the bombing -- even as the BATF chose not to show up for work that day. And of course this event, according to Clinton, saved his presidency, casting the patriot and militia movements in the light of proto-terrorists and extremists, rather than the constitutionalists alarmed by Waco, which they really were and are. And Barbara Olsen could not have made the cell phone calls -- her husband is lying. Olsen is either dead, or she was a CIA agent under deep cover who is now reassigned with a new identity (or else in retirement). That sounds absurd only if you have not taken the trouble to look at the photo evidence and the witness testimony and been thouroughly convinced that the Boeing did not and could not have crashed into the first floor and tunneled through to the C-ring as the actual killer jet in fact did. Once that is established then the issues discussed above are put in proper proportion and the high-probability scenarios seem like the only logical possibility. (Once you know that a man is murderer with a long police record, you begin to suspect that maybe he could have done things you would not suspected his chummy and likable self of doing before you found out.

So what else?

===============

boloboffin:


How about this one?

It is clear that the contrails are being made on a massive scale; that the project and the agencies are secret; that the media is not interested in even considering the question (although I understand the internet has been reporting curious 'crisscrossing' contrail activity for years--I have observed this phenomenon for more than two years.

*snip*

============

Eastman:

I am the man who debunks the notion that so-called "chemtrails" deliberate poisoning. I am the man who presents the actual air force documents and NASA documents that describe technology of creating cloud cover that will reflect back sunlight, causing the ground and sea surfaces in patches below to be cooler than otherwise, heating the close-to-ground less, which means less convection, which means higher-than-otherwise pressure, which means the ability to block and re-direct the otherwise movement of parcels of wet, dry, cold or warm air. Physicists, meteorologists acknowledge the correctness of the atmospheric physics and the development of the computing and real-time world-around inputting of data that the system would require --

In short, what I say I say for good reason.

Read my presentation on clandestine weather modification:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weather_ops/message/1

Btw, and Israeli meterologist contacted me after reading one of my articles and told me that 22 percent of Israeli rainfall is generated by weather modification. Don't you believe weather modification is possible, boloboffin?

And evaluating your question -- you, bolo my good woman, have avoided any discussion of the photo evidence -- the presence of the smoke trail (is that not worth mentioning? is that not worth even a word of response??? and so instead you look through my 10,000 googlegroups postings and come up with the above specimens in an effort to convince people that I am to controversial on other topics for discussants here to even look at the photgraphs of the evidence and the statements of the witnesses that I want to show you -- so that you on your own --not on my word, not one my authority, -- but DU discussants on their own can look at the data and draw their own conclusions!!!!

Is weather modification a public function, analogous to military protection, postal service, or highway construction? Or is it a private, non-governmental function? If the latter, is it a private function vested with a public interest, as had been determined to be the case, for example, in rail or air transportation? ... Or is weather modification an ordinary,lawful business, subject only to reasonable regulation, as in the manufacture and sale of clothing? This view raises questions about property rights, i.e., who owns the clouds?



So far my little Google search for statements from you has turned up some fun stuff, hasn't it? Zionists, Hillary, OJ, and chemtrails. But this one really has thrown me for a loop. I'm sure you wrote all the above quotes, and anybody can go and read them in the original context. But this one is just surreal. It does go on about Zionists, and definitely has the mark of someone stunned by the events of 9/11. But did you really write this open letter to President Bush?

Yes. My letter to Bush made it clear that there was no grounds for attacking Afganistan -- the Taliban are innocent of 9-11 everyone at DU should know -- and if you want to kill Taliban, I told Bush, then you might as well come after me because I now am a self-apointed member of the Taliban as of that moment. It was masterful politics, given the limitations of my position at the time. This was my way of getting attention to my protest of unjust and unjustified aggression. (Elsewhere in the letter -- you do not quote it for some reason -- I stated correctly that Mullah Omar had offered to turn over bin Laden to Bush if Bush would only provide him with some evidence of his guilt -- which is the ordinary international agreements protocol of providing a country with the basis of the charge whenm seeking extradition of a malefactor. Omar did the right and honorable thing-- and I did the right and honorable think in defending him.

BUT AGAIN NOTE -- I ASK YOU TO RESPOND TO THE SMOKE TRAIL IN THE PICTURE RELEASED BY THE PENTAGON, AND TO NOT THE TOO-SHORT KILLER JET, AND THE TOO-WHITE-HOT EXPLOSION, AND THE TOO-SMALL HOLE THAT WILL NOT ACCOMODATE A STARBOARD WING ENGINE -- AND DO YOU RESPOND??

HELL NO -- RATHER, FROM 10,000 POSTS YOU PICK QUOTATIONS ON WEATHER, WHITEWATER, AND MY EFFORTS TO DISUADE BUSH FROM ATTACKING AFGANISTAN TO PRESENT YOUR EXCUSE FOR NOT LOOKING AT THE PHOTOS, NOT COMPAING WITNESS STATEMENTS (WHAT RISKUS AND LAGASSE HAVE WRITTEN TO ME ABOUT WHAT THEY SAW ETC.), AND THE PHOTOS OF WITNESSES AT THE CRASH.


finally you say this,

=====================

boloboffin:

Stop wasting our time, Mr. Eastman. There's an election going on, in case you haven't noticed.


========

Eastman: And that is boloboffin's "9-11 joke" -- I present the photos, the witness testimony, the security cam picture sequence, showing the too-small plane, the missile smoke trail, the huge white-hot missile warhead explosion, the photos of the holes, the two paths given by testimony and evidence of the killer jet from the southwest that crashed and teh Boeing which came from over the Sheraton, over the Naval Annex and over the gas station which overflew the crash and landed at Reagan -- AND BOLOBOFFIN COMMENTS ON NONE OF IT -- BUT DIGS THROUGH 10,000 POSTINGS TO DISCREDIT ME AND COMES UP WITH ONLY CREDITIABLE, WELL-ARGUED AND STRONG-CASE PRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE ONLY THIS DEFECT, THAT THEY ARE HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL. THUS BOLOBOFFIN IS ARGUING LIKE THIS:


PEOPLE SOMETIMES ILLOGICALLY REJECT A PROPOSITION THEY ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH.

PEOPLE ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH CONTROVERSIAL POSITIONS.

DICK HAS EVIDENCE THAT I WANT PEOPLE TO REJECT.

THEREFORE I WILL SHOW DU DISCUSSANTS DICK'S MOST CONTROVERSIAL POSITIONS AMONG HIS THOUSANDS OF POSTINGS OVER SEVERAL YEARS.


I don't think it will work, boloboffin.

I think people will look at the too-short aircraft, the too-small hole, the wrong approach path by the Boeing (that doesn't line up with downed lamp posts and holes in the Pentagon walls), the many problems with the debris (only one engine, confetti like wreckage indicative of a blown missile casing, planted piece on the lawn, no passenger chairs, no luggage in any photo or written account of witnesses inside the building before it was taken down etc.) -- I think Du discussants will look at those pictures and reach the same very unpleasant conclusion I and many others have reached -- namely that the neo-cons at the DoD are heavily implicated in the planning and execution and coverup of the attack on the Pentagon.

And that is no joke.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.

You hate Hillary Clinton, convicting her of the OJ murders, the murder of a Secret Service agent, the bombing of the Murrah Building, and the 9/11 attacks.

You believe Bush to be a good man deceived by the neo-con Zionists.

You believe that joining the branch office of the Taliban in Yakima, Washington (current membership: 1) was "masterful politics".

You're seeking to exonerate Timothy McVeigh.

What part of Democratic Underground did you miss before you started peddling your wares here, Mr. Eastman? The John Birch Society is someplace else on this wide web.

Tell us your opinion about the Holocaust - 6 million dead Jews, by last count. Anything you want to correct about that figure?

PS: I've seen the pictures before. I've heard the testimonies before. What can I say? I'm a speed reader. Nothing new there. Unusual? Three planes doing precision evasive manuveurs to distract the people at the Pentagon that day - that's just nutty. I don't have to disprove any of it - it disproves itself.

PPS: If there's a hell, David Koresh is burning there today because of what he did to his followers. Sleeping with the wives of his followers and then burning down the evidence on top of children doesn't go down well with the Lord you profess to follow.

Just asking... :shrug:

:nuke:

There were no such "interior walls" in the vicinity of columns 16 and 17.


The floor plans given as an apppendix to the Arlington After Action show that the area between and immediately behind columns 15 to 18 were one single interior room.

Flight 77 overflew the Pentagon, banked to the right -- being seen over the 14th street bridge?

:puke:

Nobody there to see it for themselves ever said anything of the sort, did they?

Come on then. :hi:

Give us a quote or a reference.

Who saw the B757 over the 14th street bridge?

Radio stations received and broadcast reports that 14th street bridge was hit.

When are you going to ask who saw the missile smoke trail, Ron?
When are you going to ask who saw the Boeing over the gas station, over the Annex, over the Sheraton -- from which it would be impossilbe to align with the downed lamp posts and the holes in the wall.

I've seen your pathetic covering attempts raped in forum after forum -- either you are a masochist or you just write what they tell you to write -- which is it?


Also, while I am here, there are witnesses who say that interogators representing themselves to witnesses as FBI agents actually intimidated people who claimed to have seen multiple aircraft. For example, this one:


Subj: Re: Fl. 77: What Did Happen to the Plane? Where is it? ...
From: < Name(s) removed to protect identities >

The interesting thing is that I live only about 30-40 minutes from the Pentagon. One of the Elders of our church was down there that day standing outside of the Pentagon when the plane crashed.

He stood there on the lawn of the Pentagon and watched the plane fly toward the Pentagon, circle around it, aim for the Capitol, then did another u-turn (because another plane and helicopter went after the plane) and the hijacked plane went back toward the Pentagon, smashing into it. He said the wing of the plane hit the ground before it hit the building.

When some FBI agents questioned him on what he saw, he told them. They asked him again what he saw and he repeated himself. Then the agents told him that he did not see what he saw. He jokingly said "I have four eyes (glasses) and I know what I saw." The agents then told him very firmly "You don't understand what we're saying...You did not see what you think you saw!!"
Very interesting stuff, huh? Something top secret happened that day that they do not want the public knowing.

==========

The helicopter provided visual distraction near the Pentagon.

The C-130 provided distraction of any eyes looking at airliners, . Also it provides confusion that made it harder for people to assert that they saw all that they saw.

Virgin territory is the path of the plane before it came over the Sheraton?

We have this witness and we have a shart turn reported from the tower and we have reports of steep corkscrew dives -- although that may have been the four-engine job that buzzed the capital building, a video shown on BBC and the dive also captured in a photograph from the Capitol Building. Also distraction.

The helicopter, the C-130 and the four-engine jet were there to distract eyes before and during the crash and to confuse accounts after the crash.

I think the circling around was because on a first approach the killer did not line up properly to invade the first floor on the southwest side at exactly the right angle to get the designated target which was non-conspiratorial Naval Intelligence.

Why the hell haven't resources been put at our disposal to hunt down
witnesses, take on-the-scene measurements, talk to Boeing engineers etc.

Our situation in fighting for the truth is similar to anyone's situation in going against the power of this filthy rich and powerful criminal establishment.


Have a blessed week-end!
Love You!



p. s. I've wondered the same thing concerning these pictures of the September 11th attack on the Pentagon. Plus you usually don't hear people talking about the Pentagon. Everything that is talked about that day is the World Trade Centers.

======================================

Comment: The helicopter was seen circling the building -- it was there as a visual distraction from eyes that might have seen the killer jet, and also as plausible denial for those who did see the killer jet -- "oh you just saw the helicopter (or the C-130 which was also their to distract eyes and provide confusion for plausible denial/)

Which Radio stations? Where did that come from? And why pursue at all what was clearly an error? The 14th Street Bridge was not hit.

The position of the plane was precicely located by witnesses immediately beneath it, aloing the southern edge of the Navy Annex.

Resources were put at your disposal.

:eyes:

I published a compendium of eye witnesses, the first version of which was presented by Steve Riskus. Some researchers then took the trouble to respect the witnesses. The whereabouts of many of them was no great mystery. Others preferred to ignore them.

Your absurdities, Eastman, do at least serve to separate the intelligent observers from the imbeciles. The former category know your pretension to objectivity to be the joke that it is.

You have yet to name as much as one single witness who saw the B757 fly beyond the point where it was seen by your star witnesses to hit the Pentagon.

:hurts:

and I'll have to go through it all a few times including the interesting links, to make sure I do GET IT!

Your use of language is as dodgy as ever. No one ever said that the Pentagon was a "pre determined target". The point is (and was) that Flight 77 wasn't merely on a "joyride" and that the people operating the plane at that time did in fact have deadly intentions--whether they were going for the Pentagon, the White House, the Capitol, the Monument,or even if they chose a target at the last minute. Whether the Pentagon was their original "pre determined target" is beside the point. The POINT is that these were no f***ing joyriders, these were hijackers with murder and martyrdom on their minds and your "theory" (or whatever it is) that a "joyride" explanation is "not so unlikely" is still a big joke and one of the most ridiculous things ever posted on this (or any) message board. You should work for the Bush administration. The way you dogde and weave to avoid the main point is truly something to behold.

Ms.Cole, I apologize for hijacking your thread with this "Pentagon attack" talk. This guy pops up periodically (and idiotically) from time to time talking the worst kind of nonsense. However, in a 9/11 Joke thread his particular brand of nonsense is especially apropos.

The same applies.

Where exactly is the evidence of any "deadly intentions" and since when would a deadly intention not be a joyride? Would you seriously think that the culprits were not exhilarated?

The moot issue would be the supposed political purpose which according to the 'Bin Laden did it' conspiracy theory is anything but clear anyway. Qui bono?

Is there anything then apart from the Olson phone call to prove a purpose? And from that then what would the purpose be?

I propose that their purpose was to spring the biggest practical joke ever, with much of the 'No Boeing at the Pentagon' aftermath continuing in the same vein.

Where is the evidence of deadly intentions? Ask the families of nearly 3,000 people who died that day.

And what is this nonsense about the culprits being exhilarated? Yes, I'm sure they were exhilarated at the thought of killing "infidels" and achieving martyrdom. That doesn't constitute a joyride in the sense in which the word is usually used. As far as the "purpose" of it all, I'm not a mass murderer so I don't know what these mass murderers (or any others) hoped to achieve. Maybe they wanted to bring about the "clash of civilizations" that we seem to be moving towards. Like I said in another post to you, the hijackers took their reasons with them to a fiery grave.

Let me ask you something. Are you trying to defend the hijackers? I mean, what exactly does "Where is the evidence of deadly intention...?" mean?

And NO, a "deadly intention" is not alway a "joyride". People are also very often full of rage when they go on a killing spree, or hadn't you heard. Your posts are becoming more and more bizarre.

Ask the families of nearly 3,000 people who died that day?

So they were consciously involved in the planning of the deadly intention were they?

That's a conspiracy theory I'd never heard before!

Perhaps you do not understand what an intention is.

A result is not an intention.

Nor had I previously heard it suggested that the events were performed in a fit of rage, albeit that the notion would be closer to my own understanding.

Was there ever any evidence of such a rage?

Hani Hanjour's eldest brother said "We Thought He Liked the USA"

Was it not rather the story that they'd planned it coldly over a period of months if not years?

"Where is the evidence of deadly intention...?" is a straight question.

Where is the evidence?

A conjecture is not evidence.

No one but YOU would read my post and think that I was suggesting that the families of the victims were complicit in the attacks. I'm not even going to bother explaining to you what I meant because I think you actually know despite your amazing and willful display of obtuseness.

So you don't think that the "result" of close to 200 people dying at the Pentagon is enough evidence of deadly "intentions"? So, I guess we're back to your ridiculous "joyride" assertion. Tell me, were there no deadly intentions on the part of the hijackers who crashed into the WTC towers? Were they just on a joyride too? Maybe they just meant to buzz the towers and freak out the traders on the upper floors but somehow steered wrong and...well, you know the rest.

I'm going to try to make this post more in line with what this thread was originally intended for. Ms.Cole was researching 9/11 jokes. As I read your ridiculous posts I realize that there has to be a joke in there somewhere (on you, of course) but I'm so blown away by the sheer nonsense that is RH that I can't quite put my finger on it. Anyway, what I propose is this, I'll get the joke started and you can finish it.

"Hey, did you hear the one about the Flight 77 hijackers?......"

There you go. You can provide the punchline. I'm sure that ANYTHING you tap out on your little keyboard over there will do the trick. Cheers.

:eyes:

200 people dying at the Pentagon per se is no evidence whatsoever of a deadly intention.

Hundreds of people have died previously in aviation incidents with nobody at all having supposed an intention. A result is not an intention.

If you ever happen to come across any better evidence of a deadly intention please let us know.

I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

You always ignore it when I ask you about the planes that flew into the WTC towers. Is there no proof of deadly intention there either? What is so special about the Pentagon hijackers that you seem to almost come to there defense? Are we to believe that they were just boys being boys who crashed into the Pentagon by accident and were subsequently unfairly vilified along with the other hijackers? It was all just a big misunderstanding, right?

Tell me.

What is the proof of deadly intention?

I consider the Pentagon event because I happened to have looked into
it as a follow up to having collected eye witness reports and "spot the lamp poles":
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

The impression I gain is not one of a pre planned attack.

Why would a pre planned attack choose a precarious route, very low, close to buildings and through five lamp poles?

Why would a pre planned attack first fly past the Pentagon to have to turn back again to get to it?

Why would a pre planned attack with deadly intent chosse the only part of the Pentagon especially strengthened to resist attack?


Hani Hanjour's brother said "We thought that he liked the USA"

Did anybody ever say otherwise about him?

If there was a political or quasi religious purpose, why then would those dedicated to it not have wished to declare the same? What is the psychology of that supposed to be?

I've already told you that I'm not a murderer so I (nor you) am in a position to say what goes through a murderers mind, what his "psychology" is, or whether it makes any sense.

You seem to treat the crash at the Pentagon as though it were the only crash that occured that day. The things you are saying might make some tiny bit of sense if that were the case. But the Pentagon attack happened within a certain context: two attacks (by airplane) before and one attack (by airplane) after. You talk as though the crash of Flight 77 were some isolated event that day--just another unfortunate crash such as we get from time to time only this one having a very significant crash site. You DO know that three other planes were hijacked and crashed that morning, don't you? I'll ask you once again, what is so special about the Pentagon crash that you think it differed from the others that occured that morning? Or is it just that you fancy yourself an "expert" on the Pentagon crash for some reason? Was Hani Hanjour a friend of yours? Are you on a mission to clear his name and let the world know that "he like the USA" and so would never deliberately carry out an attack such as occured that morning.

As for all of your silly "Why would a pre planned attack..." questions, here's an idea: It was a SUICIDE mission! It didn't matter if their route was precarious and very low or if they flew past the Pentagon the first time or if they struck the side of the Pentagon that was recently strengthened or if they knocked down some light poles. They were going to take innocent people (and themselves) out either way. And if a military plane tried to shoot them down on their precarious and low route lots of people on the ground would have been doomed. So the hijackers do what they set out to do either way. It didn't have to be flawless just deadly. But you don't get the "impression" of a preplanned attack. Fine. Stick with your silly ideas. I can tell that you take a kind of lonely pride in them.

Yes, at last you have got it.

:toast:

You are not in a position to say what goes through a murderers mind.

Exactly.

You are not therefore in a position to know what was planned or intended.

Right?

...that they were "murderers". The intent of a murderer is murder.

...on the admirable job you're doing at avoiding all of MY questions.

but only if you can prove it.

So before accusing anybody else of avoiding questions, what then is supposed to prove it?

What then would establish the mens rea?

A result is not a proof of an intention. The proof of an intention would be in something said or done before the event, not in whatever anybody else would prefer to imagine after the fact.

...in one way or another and, in one way or another, I keep asking you to put the Pentagon attack in the context of the other events of that day (you know, the OTHER three hijackings) and explain to me why Flight 77 should be considered in any way different. I'm still waiting.

Did I say that they should be considered to be so different?

:shrug:

There were differences as a matter of fact but similar questions apply.

Like what? Was there actual intent to kill that can be proved? Were the other hijackers maybe on a "not so unlikey" joyride? Let me tell you something, if you have any "similar questions" about the intent of the other hijackers then you are the only person in the world who does. Any moron with two brain cells to rub together can figure out what the result will be if he flys a plane into a building and if he goes ahead a DOES it anyway that pretty much establishes his intent. Only someone as thick as you would have any questions about this.

I see.

So if somebody were to tell you they are going to fly a plane into a building, you wouldn't wonder why or what for.

Right?

...is the result of another one of your misreadings of my post. You are SO dodgy but it won't do. Of course I would question why or what. You either have a reading comprehension problem or you deliberately misread some posts to give yourself some wiggle room. This post is more of a response than your last post deserves.

:eyes:

So what then is the proof of deadly intention?

RH is saying that there is no evidence Osama's group intended to kill anyone on 9/11; therefore, they must have been mere patsies. Like Oswald and so many others.

The question that keeps coming up is one of "intentions" not who's actually responsible.

I mean, someone DID fly those planes into those buildings. Whether we are blaming the right people is not what this argument is about (at least not in my mind). It is about what was intended by whomever was piloting those planes.

Was it intended to crash Flight 93 into an unremarkable out of town location?

A result is not per se an intention.

It's intent was most likely to crash into a building somewhere the way the other hijacked planes did. Obviously the intent of the hijackers on Flight 93 was foiled. Like I said before YOU would be the only person with questions like that.

...on looking at each crash as a stand-alone event rather than looking at it in relation to the larger picture of events of that day.

"Carefull"

Go to the "People's Investigation of 9/11" and you'll see the same nonsense there. When he posted as Ron Harvey, he was just as phonyNasty as he is here. Now, as "Carefull", his messages are just as illogical and diversionary, but his style is slightly less obtuse.

I suppose they're taught that being nasty is more effective, because that way no one will expect them to have a constructive dialogue, and they can just play "hit and run." (you know, like Cong. Janklow and Laura Bush)

Ron Harvey was blocked from posting to People's Investigation of 9/11.

Good job too.

Serves him right for expecting to get some respect from the donkeys.

It was a complete waste of time anyway.

No fun at all.

When somebody is blocked from that forum there is not even an announcement to tell others what the game is.

Conduct not to be recommended.

:eyes:

Why Carefull should want to waste the effort there is a mystery.
Carefull moved off for a while and then went back.
I wonder why.
Is Carefull one person or two?

:shrug:

Carefull is certainly much more patient than RH.
Will it last?
More patient even than anablep who wanted me to promise never to mention her ever again.
Sorry.
Couldn't help it.

Constructive dialogue?

You really must be joking!

"they're taught that being nasty is more effective"?

Is that supposed to be some sort of constructive dialogue?

Who I am is no mystery.

The name is in the BT phone book and the local electoral register. Ask anybody from the local council or the Green Party who knows me.

Nothing to do with being taught anything.

You should get youself some treatment for you paranoia Mr. Linkman. It could be dangerous.

:scared:

Some people just want to keep an open mind but without being abused.
Is there something wrong with that?
USA is very strange.
As to being logical, how about just for once working backwards from the evidence instead of forwards from a premise?

Ron Harvey asks:


Where ever was there a shred of evidence to support the notion that the Pentagon was a pre-determined target? I have never yet seen any of any sort anywhere. How come then that those so keen to doubt every other "official version" as if by religious devotion are so keen to swallow that part as if without a second thought? It makes no sense.

No plans, shredded or otherwise, of the attack on the Pentagon have come to light. However, intention is an inference we can make when we see eccentric coordination involving many players. On the basis of the following findings we can be sure that the false-flag inside-job black-op mass-murder and frameup was meticulously planned and coordinated in advance by an organization with capablilites on a par with those of the CIA, MI6 or Mossad.

The Pentagon was attacked to kill certain Naval Intelligence personnel on the first floor while not hitting Donald Rumsfled or other Mossad deep-cover operatives. The interconnectedness of the coverup before, during and after the attack could only have been the product of prodigious precision prior planning.

Here is what we are talking about:

a) too-short aircraft, the security camera recorded the tail fin of the killer jet sticking up behind a flat-topped rectangular parking-pass dispenser -- but given the size and proportion of the tail fin visible there should be also visible projecting out from behind one side of the parking-pass device 2/7ths of the length of a Boeing 757. However there is not. Therefore the plane had tail-fin-to-fusleage-length proportions closer to a fighter jet (like the F-16) than an airliner. See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/2 But here is much more proof of a deliberate attack on the Pentagon than that.

The attack was virtually choreographed involving several aircraft and a missile.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/38



Let us continue with the evidence:


b) obvious missile trail and missile warhead explosion,


c) witnesses account of Boeing path different from physical-evidence-determined path of the killer jet;

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/27

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quigs_Fight/message/508

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quigs_Fight/message/495

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/36

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quigs_Fight/message/501



d) not enough wreckage and only a few pieces Boeing 757 wreckage all portable and able to have been planted where photographed;


e) an entry by a plane that was swallowed up whole by the building clearly lacking penetration through still-standing interior walls (between exterior pillars 16 and 17) where a starboard wing engine would have had to have entered, given the hole made by the entering fuselage, if the killer jet had been Flight 77, a two-engine Boeing 757.
First look at this:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/1

Then this:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/10





f) coverup caught planting one of the few actual 757 pieces as false evidence; see how I proved this:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/3



(g) witnesses who heard a jet fighter, missile, sonic boom before the explosion;



h) the obvious targeting of naval intelligence in the first floor of D-ring with a precision ground hugging attack that entered the first floor horizontally (impossible with a Boeing);


i) the impossible stand down of air defenses of world US military headquarters 40 minutes after the WTC is hit by an airliner and then a second airliner -- when they knew for a half hour that other planes were missing with transponder switched off;



j) the odd behavior of Donald Rumsfeld -- incomunicato before the crash and then disappearing right after the crash -- only to order rescuers away from rescue because of a bugus rumor that another plane was on the way -- during which time the outer wall, where the too-small hole was so obvious and was being photographed, suddenly all collapses (in what could only have been deliberate demolition);



k) asce civili engineers who identify interior piller damage inconsistent with intrustion by an airline with two massive wing engines;



l) only one engine ever seen and accounted for, and that (having broken through the last wall in C-ring) exactly in line with where the fuselage entered (indicative of a single-engine, i.e., military, aircraft;


m) predominantly "confetti"- like debris -- consistent only with the casing of a missile blown to smitherines in the warhead explosion



n) and then there is this curiosity
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quigs_Fight/message/484
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quigs_Fight/message/552





Now let me back all of this up with full evidence in detail:

Organized Crime in the Administration did 9-11

Best collection of evidence and analysis (30 evidence articles with photos):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/

Key evidence photos compiled in fewer articles:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/

Investigative sites reviewing honestly and competently all aspects of the Pentagon attack (these are they investigators who have never been intimidated or bought off):

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index.html
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://www.911dossier.co.uk/

http://www.geocities.com/killtown/

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm
http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html
http://www.the-movement.com

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war (Neils Groenveld et al.)
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://www.911dossier.co.uk/ (Ian Henshaw et al.)

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm (Frank Levi)
http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html

http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html
http://www.911timeline.net/
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html

http://www.tomflocco.com/bush_may_invoke_9.htm
http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html
http://www.etherzone.com

http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html#preface
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/

http://hamilton.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=1786&group=webcast
http://www.world-action.co.uk/conspiracy.html

http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site/dossier.php?dosnum=60
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htmhttp://www.
http://asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htm


http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4578.php
http://hamilton.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=1786&group=webcast
http://buffalo.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=3265

Clearly, folks here are a little too wound up. Probably myself included. :eyes:

I thought I could hit the 9/11 experts here, but it's funny what you come up with when you mention "9/11" and "joke" in the same breath in these circles! I posted on Guerilla News Network and the same thing happened. Here I am trying to do a totally apolitical ethnographic project... :)

Personally, I think the most tasteless 9/11 joke was Bush's oft-repeated "trifecta" remark that he got such big laughs on. Anyone know where I could find video/audio of this on the Web?

I think these German terms (a neologism in the latter case) are both relevant here. The first was, interestingly enough, brought up by someone in the American press after 911 trying to explain the phenomenon that not all the world would rally to their cause of "War against Terror" as defined by the US government, if I remember correctly. It was pointed out, maybe not without some glee, that "Schadenfreude" is a German word, with no equivalent term in the English language.

"Trauerarbeit" OTOH is a term that was introduced by Alexander Mitscherlich in a psychological study on how Germans dealt with or rather avoided dealing with the Nazi period, after WWII. The study's title was "The incapability of mourning". The term "Trauerarbeit" denotes that you have some work to do in order to be capable to mourn (something like "mourning work").

The main impetus for both sceptics and some debunkers of various and all theories here may be their need to do this kind of "mourning work".


The audio of trifecta joke, BTW, is here, at the bottom of the page:

http://globalfreepress.com/trifecta/

I am not sure that I know what that means.

The joke project intention intrigued me by being one that I would never have dared to pursue seriously.

Now how's that for an ironic conundrum?

:toast:

Do US residents have any idea of how they really look now to those elsewhere in the World, any idea of how terrifyingly obtrusively awkward their sense of insecurity has been since September 2001?

Worse things have previously happened during the history of humanity.

:nuke:

I figured here I'd find people who are immersed in 9/11 information and lore and not so likely to be shocked by an unorthodox take on the subject!

What you said about how we look to the rest of the world... that's one thing that's really on my mind, living abroad. I'm using this project in part as a way of exploring this huge divide between how America sees itself and how it's seen by the rest of the world.

Reorg, thanks for the link! Say, what's the deal with the trifecta remark, anyway? Which one of Bush's speechwriters came up with it and why did he use it so often? I mean, did he just think it was funny or is he (or whoever) trying to send a message?

Do you have a source for that "Schadenfreude" article? It's very interesting that the term cropped up back then.

Googling around I found two references I remember having read:

An article by war trumpet Hitchens in the Atlantic Monthly with some musings about German literature on the horrors of war:

"(Interesting that we still employ the German word schadenfreude when speaking of a cruel sense of satisfaction, as if nationalizing an emotion that is common to all.)"

This article was published in the run-up to the Iraq war in January 2003, rather than directly after 9/11. All in all generous in explaning the German anti-war stance/failure, Hitchens does not fail to hint at and laud German abilities to adapt and mend their ways ...

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/01/hitchens.htm


Another reference was in the Independent at about the same time, shortly before the war, also in an article on Germany:

http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=384553

(pay per view, unfortunately)

"Schadenfreude, or joy in the misfortune of others, is a lovely word and a pleasant sensation. But we should contain ourselves at the news of yet another big rise in unemployment in Germany."


As to the trifecta joke -- I have no idea. Probably was some schadenfreude involved, directed at Democrats who would be hard put to criticise spending increases for any of the fecta, let alone all three at once! But this guy apparently never realizes the entire context of what he says.

How ridiculous to turn this thread into a yet another, completely off-topic slugfest (among the usual suspects) about what hit the Pentagon!

This project is completely serious (sort of, given the approach) and helps put things in perspective. If 9/11 had not been used as a gigantic brainwashing operation and as the pretext to "change the world," it would be a very real tragedy - on the level of a bad mudslide in Bangladesh, or of a day's casualties in the Congo war, or 10 percent of an earthquake in Turkey. And I say that as a New Yorker for whom Sept. 11 was the worst day in my life! Americans should get over their self-importance. (Case in point: the black out. Now ask yourself, how many times in the last year did 150 million people in say, India experience a power blackout? And why did you hear nothing about it on CNN?)

Humor is often nasty and knows no bounds. It can tell us a lot about what people really think. So let's help Isabel Cole get her damn jokes.

Full Disclosure: Okay, I admit I sort of know her...

Here are two cartoons for you, Isabel:

:hi:

I appreciate most of what you are saying. I live on the East coast, though not in NY, and even on 9/11 I thought of Hiroshima and the fact that the WTC going down was not the same as an entire city blowing up. On the 9/11 message boards here at DU I think most people are disturbed by the idea that our own government may have just sat back while this event happened. It's not so much the event itself--as bad as it was. I think most Americans are capable of putting 9/11 in perspective and comparing it to the tragedies that occur around the world on a daily basis but those sinister forces that are using this event as a "gigantic brainwashing operation" and as the "pretext to change the world" should not be downplayed just to show that we in the US can bear our suffering the way the rest of the world has born its own. It's not just about Americans crying "Poor us".

I was just writing about something different.

We agree on the IMPERATIVE of investigating 9/11 and demanding disclosure, because it was used as a brainwashing operation and as a pretext for war & repression - more simply, because WE STILL DON'T KNOW ALL OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, certainly not everything that is relevant to making democratic decisions. And although we don't know, it has been used to justify wars.

Nothing I wrote was meant to downplay the cardinal importance of cracking the 9/11 riddle, which is why I hang out here in the first place.

Anyway, let me relativize what I wrote above. As a world-psychological event, 9/11 was much worse than the final death count indicates, because everyone got to see it happen live. The pictures were unprecedented and very traumatizing, more so than photos of even worse disasters where we only see fragments of what happened, after the fact. Here we saw the actual event itself as it happened and at first everyone thought 10,000 or 15,000 or more people were dead, all in the space of a few seconds. The downright biblical imagery of the towers falling greatly contributed to the subsequent brainwashing.

Furthermore, I shouldn't have compared it to any natural disasters, but to man-made ones, at any rate to things that human decisions affect. In that sense 9/11 is more politically "relevant" than an earthquake. (Unless that earthquake is being indirectly caused by nuke tests or HAARP or the like, but we don't actually know that. Okay, it's more relevant than an asteroid hit!)

All that being said, there's no doubt that MANY Americans and especially the U.S. media have vastly exaggerated the importance of 9/11 as a tragedy. Effectively (and often intentionally) this serves the brainwash and the big-lie politics of Bush, but more generally, it caters to the incredible self-indulgence of our culture, which has always tended to view "America" (United States) as all the world that matters. Anyway, does my "many" qualify as "most," or is it less than "most"? Does it matter? I'm sure you'll agree these tendencies are there!

Best,

JR

Your Sceptic site, Jack, on 9-11 investigators cleaves to the doctrine of John Judge, Mike Rivero and Joe Vialls -- that there is not need to even being investigating whether something other than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Whatever you are, you are protecting Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. When I see that you have published a book attacking holocaust deniers -- in a very self-righteous and intolerant attack on freedom of inquiry, I have a guess of what you are really all about.

But let me not simply vent my outrage at seeing you here providing backup for Ron Harvey and Sarah Roberts, let me also put you on the spot.

What is the trial of white smoke to the right of the tail fin of the killer jet in the first picture of the sequence released by Pentagon from their security camera overlooking the crash site from the north?

Why is there such a bright white-hot explosion if and aluminum plane with mere kerosene, which burns orange-red with sooty smoke,in the second frame, if not from an air-to ground missile fired at the first floor level of the Pentagon?

How come there is still interior wall still standing across what would been the entry path of a Boeing 757 starboard engine if the killer jet had really been a 757? Because certainly if, as the civil engineers say, the nose it pillar 14 then the starboard engine would have had to have hit between exterior pillars 16 and 17. Even between pillars 17 and 18 there is exterior wall showing.

And of course you never mention the fact that the coverup has been caught planting false evidence, and bungling it so they were caught.

I am so glad to have caught you.

Let us debate the issue right here, Jack "Riddler" -- and why not use your real name for the debate -- that's what honest men do isn't it. That is according to the norms of science in presenting research is it not -- so that you can be held responsible for what you say.

The Boeing flew over the Pentagon and proceeded to Reagan National. It came directly over the Sheraton Hotel and directly over the Annex and over the gas station, as reported by witnesses -- while the killer jet took a different path, the path that passes among the lamp posts that were downed by the off-wing turbulence of a fighter jet doing close to 700 mph ( faster than a bullet fired from a pistol -- one witnesses hearing the sonic boom) from the southwest and hitting the Pentagon outer wall at about a 55 degree angle.

An F-16 (or very similar aircraft) hugging the ground flew into the Pentagon horizonally at first floor level, firing a missile ahead of itself to break up the first floor wall.

This is what the evidence points too, as found at my site, the site that you do not include in your listing of 9-11 sites.

In fact, readers who only know the universe of 9-11 investigations from the site of Jack "Riddler" have a little shock in store for themselves.

I suggest you begin your studies here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/messages

Discussants at DU -- you have been getting bad information on the 9-11 frameup. I bring you the photo evidence and the witness evidence that proves that the Boeing flew over the Pentagon and landed at Reagan National while a very fast tactical jet that people were distracted from seeing during its three second final approach from the freeway to the target.

I hope you will take the trouble to see for yourself, rather than picking who you want to beleive on the basis of argumentative style or your own pre-conceived notions.

Anyway, Jack Riddler is the best 9-11 investigation debunker Sharon has working for him or I miss my mark.


Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

a) love, work, play, sleep, fidget, rise and fall and rise again... fight and write for what I believe in...

OR

b) spend eternity answering the ad hominem, perpetually ill-informed and ever-new attacks of Dick Eastman. (What is this book I wrote? Are you once again confusing me with someone else?)

So let's settle it.

I hereby declare that, together with the other miscreants named* by Mr. Eastman, and whether I know this consciously or not, I am a disinformation agent of the Sharon government, dispatched to protect Wolfowitz and Perle on this board and on other 9/11 forums against Dick Eastman's indisputable and definitive treatment of what happened at the Pentagon on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

Furthermore, "readers who only know the universe of 9-11 investigations from the site of Jack Riddler," if any such exist, are advised to do more research on most everything, as any one site will of necessity be very limited in what it offers.

Click away, kids!

Over and out.

Now that you have my full capitulation, there will be no further responses from me, but perhaps you, Mr. Eastman, can reciprocate by enlightening us briefly on the following items:

1) Your evidence that Hillary Clinton masterminded 9/11 for the purpose of eliminating her arch-enemy Barbara Olsen. I think it fits the subject of this thread quite nicely.

2) Further material about how 9/11 is the second greatest crime in history, following the murder of our Saviour by the eternal Jews.

----------

* NOTE: None of whom I have ever met and only one of whom I have barely corresponded with, and all of whom can barely agree on practically anything amongst themselves ... but never mind. And who the fuck are Sarah Roberts and Ron Harvey?

The Riddler:

a) love, work, play, sleep, fidget, rise and fall and rise again... fight and write for what I believe in...

OR

b) spend eternity answering the ad hominem, perpetually ill-informed and ever-new attacks of Dick Eastman. (What is this book I wrote? Are you once again confusing me with someone else?)

==========

Eastman:

Actually you will do choice "a" no matter what -- these are not options.

As for "b" -- the book was not on holocaust deniers, rather it was on "right-wing extremists" -- according to a mutual correspondent from Italy -- so please accept my correction.

No one asks you to spend eternity. I am not perpetually anything, least of all on the hard photographic evidence and witness account that by themselves force the conclusion that the Flight was not the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. YOU KNOW I AM MAD BECAUSE YOU HAVE EXCLUDED ALL RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE COME FROM THIS CONCLUSION FROM YOUR 9-11 SURVEY SITE, 9-11 SCEPTICS, -- NEVER ADDING ANY OF THOSE INVESTIGATORS WHEN BACK WHEN MY LETTERS TO YOU WERE CIVIL AND IMPLORING. AND EVEN TODAY, THERE IS NOTHING ON THE SMALL-PLANE FINDINGS AT YOUR SITE. And that infuriates me. And so I call you names in my anger. And you get to be excused from accountability because I am rude and using "ad hominum."

The riddler:


So let's settle it.

I hereby declare that, together with the other miscreants named* by Mr. Eastman, and whether I know this consciously or not, I am a disinformation agent of the Sharon government, dispatched to protect Wolfowitz and Perle on this board and on other 9/11 forums against Dick Eastman's indisputable and definitive treatment of what happened at the Pentagon on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

=========

Eastman:

So it is sarcasm and no response. Nothing about the all important picture released by the DoD that shows the missile plume. HAS ANYONE EVER DISCUSSED THIS DATA ON A DU FORUM? HAS ANABLEP (SARAH ROBERTS) OR RH (RON HARVEY)

Sarcasm -- and the only place I can find the owner of the 9-11 sceptics site is in a forum thread on 9-11 jokes!!!!

================

The riddler:

Furthermore, "readers who only know the universe of 9-11 investigations from the site of Jack Riddler," if any such exist, are advised to do more research on most everything, as any one site will of necessity be very limited in what it offers.

===============

No, Riddler, you represent your site as a survey of the field, you state your intention to list all investigators -- you offer your work as an aid to researchers -- you undertook the responsibility and you gave indications that you were seriously attempting to be complete -- of course, and understandably, being able to criticize them as you did, for the ones you choose to include. But I pointed out to you again and again the biased selection that excluded small-plane explanations.

It is clear that you know me and no me well -- and therefore know the case that the photos and witness accounts I have assembled make.

I jumped on you when I saw your name -- because you are loading the debate -- like John Judge, Mike Rivero, Joe Vialls -- to reject the small-plane findings without an investigation -- and you make yourself the reference source for finding 9-11 investigators, but systematically exclude mention of the one explanation that fits the facts.

Yes, I attacked the man -- ad hominum -- but not to win any argument -- rather to get you to start arguing, to get you on record as being without excuse for blacklisting the small-plane findings and those investigators who know this data from your survy of the field.

AND LOOK BELOW, EVERYONE -- OUR BOY HAS USED THE SAME AD HOMINUM DEFENSE AS BOFO, ABOVE. HOW IRONIC. HE ACCUSES ME OF AD HOMINUM -- WHEN IN FACT I HAVE BEEN ARGUING THE EVIDENCE ALL ALONG -- AND NOW, AFTER A BARAGE OF SILLY SARCASM -- SAYS HE REFUSES TO RESPOND TO WHAT HE HAS NEVER NEVER NEVER ONCE GIVEN REPLY TO -- AND TELLS DU READERS THAT I HAVE ARGUED THAT 9-11 WAS PLANNED BY HILLARY CLINTON TO GET RID OF BARBARA OLSEN!!!!!! Take a look:

==============

the riddler:


Click away, kids!

Over and out.

Now that you have my full capitulation, there will be no further responses from me, but perhaps you, Mr. Eastman, can reciprocate by enlightening us briefly on the following items:

1) Your evidence that Hillary Clinton masterminded 9/11 for the purpose of eliminating her arch-enemy Barbara Olsen. I think it fits the subject of this thread quite nicely.

2) Further material about how 9/11 is the second greatest crime in history, following the murder of our Saviour by the eternal Jews.

=============

Eastman:

I have never posted an opinon on the death of Jesus of Nazareth. I have never spoken of "greatest" or "second greatest" crimes of history either. But, Riddler, do suddenly feel a close afinity to both Mel gibson and the Batman comic hero -- you are a clown worthy of your namesake -- but also a rat, who had better start talking 9-11 evidence because this and subsequent responses of yours are going all over the internet.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.

"the idea that our own government may have just sat back while this event happened"

What happened on 9/11 was more than a single event and the attacks and related actions could not have occurred without SOMETHING(s) taking place that made it possible for the alleged attackers to do all of what they did.

Thus, there is no such thing as "sitting back & letting it happen." 9/11 was MIHOP.

But the one I did hear was particularly nasty:

"Why didn't Superman save the World Trade Center? Because he's a quadriplegic."

A quadriplegic Superman and hypocritical neo-cons gone wild creating terror to profit off it....
Sometimes I feel that our culture has sunk below the level needed to face the universal challenges of the Nuclear Age. No doubt Ike and JFK would agree: we can do a whole lot better than this!

"we can do a whole lot better than this!"

If you know much about the history of this country (or just about any other one, for that matter), you know that little (of consequence) has changed. Progress comes very, very slowly, by degrees. I know that you know all of this, so forgive me for saying it.

Personally, I don't think we really can do much better than this, in the short term. The value system of most Americans, combined with the kind of governing structure we have (winner take all etc.) and a corporate owned Congress and media, makes it nearly impossible for significant progress to be made.

Have fun being enlightened in a deep way: http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2003_98/news/10756-1.html

How could they tell what shampoo was a certain World Trade Center victim's favorite? They found the victim's HEAD AND SHOULDERS in the rubble.


Here's one that I made up


Did you know what a certain airline should be renamed after a certain post September 11 flight? UNITED WE STAND AGAINST HIGHJACKERS AIRLINES.