9/11: The Official Account of the Pentagon Attack is a Fantasy

[mountain_jim]

Posted by iceni tribe (here)
Oothere

lets try another direction , you agree that the black box data is nul and void , so where is the real black box data from flight 77 ?

who were the FBI agents that allegedly found the black boxes at 3 am ?

how can a 757 that has just smashed into the pentagon still be flying 20 minutes after the event ?


thats just for starters , now i will give you another angle , lets put ourselves in their shoes for a bit.

we have to get rid of the department who are investigating the missing 2.3 trillion , lets hit it with a missile that is also carrying 757 parts from the 1995 Columbian air crash that would/has confused the hell out of the truth brigade and kept them bickering for shall we say 11 years.

psssssssssssssst do you want to know who did 9/11

start here , and also follow the links from the comments at the bottom and you shall have your answer.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08...-israels-role/

Yes, that article is a great summary of the key Israel/Mossad involvment in 9/11. On other forums, anytime I brought up the facts about the 'dancing israelis', the Urban Moving Systems and proof of Mossad involvement, I would get shouted down. Folks don't want to hear or know the truth, including my Dad, I have found.

Here is a great link with police reports and much other documentation on this aspect of 9/11

http://www.takeourworldback.com/danc...sfbireport.htm

The documents were partly declassified in 2005. However, there are many parts that are still blanked out and classified until 2030 or 2035. Apart from names of individuals, the unreleased material includes longer passages such as the section following the question: "1. Did the Israeli nationals have foreknowledge of the events at WTC and were they filming the events prior to and in anticipation of the explosion?" The fact that it's blanked out indicates that the answer is clearly not an emphatic "no".

Nonetheless, the material that has already been released is sufficient to prove that the Israelis did indeed have foreknowledge of the attacks on the WTC.

[Oouthere]

Posted by iceni tribe (here)
Oothere

lets try another direction , you agree that the black box data is nul and void , so where is the real black box data from flight 77 ?

who were the FBI agents that allegedly found the black boxes at 3 am ?

how can a 757 that has just smashed into the pentagon still be flying 20 minutes after the event ?


thats just for starters , now i will give you another angle , lets put ourselves in their shoes for a bit.

we have to get rid of the department who are investigating the missing 2.3 trillion , lets hit it with a missile that is also carrying 757 parts from the 1995 Columbian air crash that would/has confused the hell out of the truth brigade and kept them bickering for shall we say 11 years.

psssssssssssssst do you want to know who did 9/11

start here , and also follow the links from the comments at the bottom and you shall have your answer.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08...-israels-role/

These are great questions. I agree with what a lot of the speculation in regards as to who did this, why it was done, etc.

I'm just saying that before you can get to a point of entering a court room (in hopes of putting a few people in prison or executed for being traitors) that the case has to be based on physical evidence. I will guareentee that if a U.S. supreme court is approached using black box data or witness testomonies that the physical evidence will overide everything.

Working around other incredibily bright electronic techs makes you prove your points. For a long time we had daily conference calls with probably 10 to 15 electronic techs and the object of these calls was to find if you made a mistake in your analysis of a circuit failure and why it took so long to effect the repair. People got hammered daily and you learned quickly to have your ducks in a row concerning the analysis, what steps you took to arrive at your conclusions, who you contacted, shipping number of parts, etc. Human error was basically not allowed nor accepted for the most part. This is how 9/11 needs to be looked at. This is serious with a potential of revolution.

Rich

[Cidersomerset]

I'm just saying that before you can get to a point of entering a court room (in hopes of putting a few people in prison or executed for being traitors) that the case has to be based on physical evidence. I will guareentee that if a U.S. supreme court is approached using black box data or witness testomonies that the physical evidence will overide everything.

If only ! these people own the courts , they have ratified all federal Judges in the US...

They have already been found guilty of crimes against humanity by a international panal of judges in Kuala Lumpa last year.......How much was that covered in the corporate media....

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zn8i4C5YBOs

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vp-vdfkfZO0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States federal judge


In the United States, the title of federal judge usually means a judge appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution.

In addition to the Supreme Court of the United States, whose existence and some aspects of whose jurisdiction are beyond the constitutional power of Congress to alter, acts of Congress have established 13 courts of appeals (also called "circuit courts") with appellate jurisdiction over different regions of the United States, and 94 United States district courts. Every judge appointed to such a court may be categorized as a federal judge; such positions include the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, Circuit Judges of the courts of appeals, and district judges of the United States district courts. In addition, judges of the Court of International Trade are appointed pursuant to Article III.

Other judges serving in the federal courts, including magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges, are also sometimes referred to as "federal judges"; however, they are not appointed pursuant to the procedures designated in Article III. The distinction is sometimes expressed by saying that they are not "Article III judges," because the power of these other kinds of federal judge does not derive from Article III of the U.S. Constitution. See Article I and Article III tribunals.





Tenure and salary

"Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased as appointed "for life"). Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from office. Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to impeachment.[1]

Since the impeachment process requires a trial by the United States Senate, and since the constitutional provision concerning federal judges' tenure cannot be changed without the ratifications of three-fourths of the states, federal judges have perhaps the best job security available in the United States. Moreover, the Constitution forbids Congress to diminish a federal judge's salary. Twentieth-century experience suggests that Congress is generally unwilling to take time out of its busy schedule to impeach and try a federal judge until, after criminal conviction, he or she is already in prison and still drawing a salary, which cannot otherwise be taken away (see Nixon v. United States, a key Supreme Court case about Congress's discretion in impeaching and trying federal judges).

As of January 2010, federal district judges were paid $174,000 a year, circuit judges $184,500, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court $213,900 and the Chief Justice of the United States $223,500. All were permitted to earn a maximum of an additional $21,000 a year for teaching.[2]

Chief Justice John Roberts has repeatedly pleaded for an increase in judicial pay, calling the situation a "constitutional crisis." The problem is that the most talented associates at the largest U.S. law firms with judicial clerkship experience (in other words, the attorneys most qualified to become the next generation of federal judges) already earn as much as a federal judge in their first year as full-time associates.[3] Thus, when those attorneys eventually become experienced partners and reach the stage in life where one would normally consider switching to public service, their interest in joining the judiciary is tempered by the prospect of a giant pay cut back to what they were making 10 to 20 years earlier (adjusted for inflation). One way for attorneys to soften the financial blow is to spend only a few years on the bench and then return to private practice or go into private arbitration, but such turnover creates a risk of a revolving door judiciary subject to regulatory capture.

Thus, Chief Justice Roberts has warned that "judges are no longer drawn primarily from among the best lawyers in the practicing bar" and "If judicial appointment ceases to be the capstone of a distinguished career and instead becomes a stepping stone to a lucrative position in private practice, the Framers' goal of a truly independent judiciary will be placed in serious jeopardy."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._federal_judge

[Bill Ryan]

-------

The group controlling events in present day America must be delighted that smart folks are still debating the fine details of what happened on 9/11 -- over a decade ago -- while the controllers debate whether or not to give the green light on the next false flag event.

The most important things to discuss might be

1) What have we learned?
2) What have we not learned?
3) Why isn't it obvious to at least 100 million other Americans that this was a carefully constructed inside job?
4) What, when and where might the next such event be?

[Tangri]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
-------

The group controlling events in present day America must be delighted that smart folks are still debating the fine details of what happened on 9/11 -- over a decade ago -- while the controllers debate whether or not to give the green light on the next false flag event.

The most important things to discuss might be

1) What have we learned?
2) What have we not learned?
3) Why isn't it obvious to at least 100 million other Americans that this was a carefully constructed inside job?
4) What, when and where might the next such event be?

I can answer only Q3- Because they do not chose to see , this is a will. You can not question the choice of person, without question of their coming(~deporting) point

[Cidersomerset]

1) What have we learned?
2) What have we not learned?
3) Why isn't it obvious to at least 100 million other Americans that this was a carefully constructed inside job?
4) What, when and where might the next such event be?

All very good questions Bill and to be fair we do try to answer them on various different threads...

The Intel agencies are always several steps ahead of us with their arsenal of 'tricks' and we are
like knats biting on the back of a elephant in their eyes, but if enough people bite we can
make a difference in the long run.....Thats at least must be our goal imo...

Knowledge is power !! The elites have known this for thousands of years. The more
this is discussed the drip drip effect may eventually get to people who have the
documentation that may be presented to a brave enough judge and jury to bring
this out into the open.

At the moment most mainstream news readers/presenters & reporters start any article
about truth seekers on 9/11 as conspiricy nuts followed by a laugh and raising of the eyebrows..
But many are not bothered by this and are trying to get the message out that 9/11 was a inside job!

I have learn't many things over the last five years , that I would not have thought possible....
But lieing to a nation to start wars for proffit is not one of them, that I knew from reading
history and nearly all wars were fought for proffit by taking your neighbours land, goods and people
from pre history thru the mighty empires of Persia , China , Greece,Rome , Arabia, Ottoman , European
and now the united states with hundreds of military bases around the world..

I thought this was just human nature , survival of the fittest and most powerfull, war and killing just
a consequence, but listening to the research of David Icke and others.There maybe more sinister reasons
for all this bloodlust , which on the surface seems so ridiculous.But the killing of millions in Iraq and Afghanistan,
is even more stupid so going down the rabbit hole and listening to many other explanations has opened my eyes.
If there are entities that feed off the terror of death and destruction. Earth would be a good place to be over the
last 10,000 years, and they would of been having a 'orgy of blood lust' for the last 100 years !!

As you know Bill every thread you can look at on several levels and the more I peer up out of the rabbit hole
the more some of the more unbelievably things that have happened in recent history makes more sence if
they were contrieved by a small elite, rather than random chance events by disperate groups ! ! just a few thoughts ..Steve

[Arrowwind]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
-------

The group controlling events in present day America must be delighted that smart folks are still debating the fine details of what happened on 9/11 -- over a decade ago -- while the controllers debate whether or not to give the green light on the next false flag event.

The most important things to discuss might be

1) What have we learned?
2) What have we not learned?
3) Why isn't it obvious to at least 100 million other Americans that this was a carefully constructed inside job?
4) What, when and where might the next such event be?

1. we have learned that the American people have not sufficient interest in confronting their governement and that they will allow the lies to continue. .... likely because the masses are either drugged, brainwashed and/or overwhelmed with debt and survivial responsibilities. Then there is also a large portion of people who are too busy watching "reality TV" or other trash and have little capacity or interest in critical thought.
2. We have not leared how to unify and become an effective force to stand up to a criminal government, including loss of control of media, and the loss of control of legal voting.
3. They are brainwashed to believe what they are told without much question. They are involved in self service to make money and survive, involved in religous or party propaganda that limits free thought, or simply involved in recreation and consuming material goods.
4. The next event could be at any time... when the PTB determine that our repression will be taken to the next level. (I think that they are getting ready now.)

[Arrowwind]

Posted by Oouthere (here)
HaveBlue, I'm not fighting that there was not inside help but this non-sense about no-plane hitting the Pentagon is separating those that look at critical and undeniable evidence with those that saw the event. There seems to be no happy place, currently here are the choices:

a. Something happened and yes there is parts but miracle grow fertilizer is responsible for them.

b. A plane hit the Pentagon as per the official story (remembering details that do not add up such as Mineta, automated aircraft intercept protocol being changed only months before 9/11, no hijacker signal from any planes, etc).

c. A plane hit the Pentagon that was allowed to impact and/or controlled/programmed by outside forces.

You tell me, which makes the most sense?

Rich

It makes absolutley no sense that a plane fit into a whole that is too small for it. How you could possibly think it could be is beyond me.

[Arrowwind]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Oouthere (here)
Let's take this a different route, above is a much more telling image before the collapse. Notice the damage extends from the generator to the far side of the photo.

Nice picture ... but where's the plane ?

What? You cant see the plane? Whats the matter with you?

[Oouthere]

Posted by Arrowwind (here)

Posted by Oouthere (here)
HaveBlue, I'm not fighting that there was not inside help but this non-sense about no-plane hitting the Pentagon is separating those that look at critical and undeniable evidence with those that saw the event. There seems to be no happy place, currently here are the choices:

a. Something happened and yes there is parts but miracle grow fertilizer is responsible for them.

b. A plane hit the Pentagon as per the official story (remembering details that do not add up such as Mineta, automated aircraft intercept protocol being changed only months before 9/11, no hijacker signal from any planes, etc).

c. A plane hit the Pentagon that was allowed to impact and/or controlled/programmed by outside forces.

You tell me, which makes the most sense?

Rich

It makes absolutley no sense that a plane fit into a whole that is too small for it. How you could possibly think it could be is beyond me.

Please look at both sides of the debate. The hole is over 90' across and does fit a 757.

Rich

[Arrowwind]

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0307-Pentagon.html

Just minutes after the attack, standing in front of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Jamie McIntyre, CNN's senior Pentagon correspondent since November 1992, reported:

From my close up inspection there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . . The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage - nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon. . . . It wasn't till about 45 minutes later . . . that all of the floors collapsed.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck

Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher, incident commander at the Pentagon on September 11, corroborates Jamie McIntyre's report. At the September 12, 2001, DoD briefing, when asked: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" said: "there are some small pieces of aircraft ... there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."
In response to another question: "Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel", Plaugher responded: "You know, I'd rather not comment on that."
Victoria Clarke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs - "presenter" of the DoD briefing, did not contradict Chief Plaugher.
Evidence that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon?

Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who from her fifth-floor, B-ring office at the Pentagon, witnessed "an unforgettable fireball, 20 to 30 feet in diameter," was called for stretcher duty as she and others

stared in disbelief at a smoking gash in the Pentagon . . . But no person or thing emerged from that side of the Pentagon. We heard that survivors and injured folks were being recued from the inside, . . . and out the River exit into ambulances.

There was, writes Kwiatkowski,

a strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a 'missile'.

Barbara Honegger, military affairs journalist and former White House policy analyst, writes NORAD's

Gen. Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack that morning, and that his pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.

Publicly available photos support these statements by Jamie McIntyre, Ed Plaugher, Karen Kwiatkowski, and Barbara Honegger.
Questions about what hit the Pentagon on September 11, continued to be raised at the Dept. of Defense News Briefing on September 15, 2001.

One thing that's confusing - if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there's apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring.

Hole reported made by a Boeing 757

The hole in the Pentagon wall - prior to the collapse of the roof - appears much too small to accomodate a Boeing 757. If only the front end penetrated the Pentagon, then the wings, a portion of the fuselage, and tail would have remained outside. But no large debris - anything resembling the Boeing 757 wings, fuselage, or tail - is visible on the Pentagon lawn, and the lawn itself shows no sign that a Boeing 757 skidded across it or struck it.
The engines of the Boeing 757 would have survived the impact and heat. An engine from a plane that struck the World Trade Center was shown on network television, and so was an engine from American Airlines Flight 587 which crashed shortly after takeoff from New York on November 12, 2001.
One photo from the Pentagon crash site shows what could be an engine part about 30 inches in diameter outside the Pentagon. Another photo shows what could be an engine part (its size is difficult to determine) inside the Pentagon. Were these parts, and another piece of debris on the Pentagon lawn traced to Flight 77? According to George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.), serial numbers on aircraft parts could confirm the plane's identity. But the FBI has refused to make that evidence available to the public.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Oouthere (here)

Posted by Arrowwind (here)

Posted by Oouthere (here)
HaveBlue, I'm not fighting that there was not inside help but this non-sense about no-plane hitting the Pentagon is separating those that look at critical and undeniable evidence with those that saw the event. There seems to be no happy place, currently here are the choices:

a. Something happened and yes there is parts but miracle grow fertilizer is responsible for them.

b. A plane hit the Pentagon as per the official story (remembering details that do not add up such as Mineta, automated aircraft intercept protocol being changed only months before 9/11, no hijacker signal from any planes, etc).

c. A plane hit the Pentagon that was allowed to impact and/or controlled/programmed by outside forces.

You tell me, which makes the most sense?

Rich

It makes absolutley no sense that a plane fit into a whole that is too small for it. How you could possibly think it could be is beyond me.

Please look at both sides of the debate. The hole is over 90' across and does fit a 757.

Rich

Oh yes, and after that fireball that obviously burned up all the seats, they identified people by their finger prints.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
3) Why isn't it obvious to at least 100 million other Americans that this was a carefully constructed inside job?

It wasn't obvious to me, for the first five years after 9/11, as I was busy developing some Linux kernel code, tending to the usual sorts of family matters, and running on "autopilot" so far as my awareness of the most of the "rest of the world". For those first five years, I was a red-blooded, patriotic American supporter of W (Bush), Rummy (Rumsfeld), Dick (Cheney) and Condi (Rice), in the war on those damned Islamic terrorists.

My views have changed quite a bit since then ... on many topics. It's become a full time job, just keeping up with my changing views.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Arrowwind (here)
What? You cant see the plane? Whats the matter with you?

The aluminum in my "tin foil" hat must be poisoning my brain. It's one of the risks of being a conspiracy theory nut job, ya now.

[TargeT]

Posted by Paul (here)
. It's become a full time job, just keeping up with my changing views.

so glad to hear I'm not the only one.. haha...

if only I could get paid to do this, I end up giving "hip pocket" lectures everywhere I go, luckily it still fascinates me so it doesn't feel like a chore.

[Oouthere]

I agree, when you first look at the hole it does not appear large enough....but it is. Do I believe everything that was stated by our government about 9/11? Hardly any of it. But when the evidence is physically photographed (and witnessed by people of which I want to avoid a discussion of since this is supposed to be based on physical evidence only) then it needs to be accepted for what it is. If a theory does not contain an explanation for the parts it has to be dismissed.

Rich

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Oouthere (here)
Please look at both sides of the debate. The hole is over 90' across and does fit a 757.

That link goes to a picture of a hole ... without a plane.

Yes, debates have sides. So long as someone is willing to keep making the case for both sides, putting up the words, making what purport to be logical points (even if they aren't), and presenting what purports to be evidence (even if it's evidence for the other side), debates can go on forever.

I'd like to think this forum is not a debate society, but rather a place for people to share with, teach, learn from, and nurture each other, as we, both individually and as a group, increase our awareness and well being. Our collective awareness becomes part of the basis of an increasingly awake humanity.

[Arrowwind]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
3) Why isn't it obvious to at least 100 million other Americans that this was a carefully constructed inside job?

It wasn't obvious to me, for the first five years after 9/11, as I was busy developing some Linux kernel code, tending to the usual sorts of family matters, and running on "autopilot" so far as my awareness of the most of the "rest of the world". For those first five years, I was a red-blooded, patriotic American supporter of W (Bush), Rummy (Rumsfeld), Dick (Cheney) and Condi (Rice), in the war on those damned Islamic terrorists.

My views have changed quite a bit since then ... on many topics. It's become a full time job, just keeping up with my changing views.

and I suffered ridicule from family and at work for speaking my truth which in this case I think is the truth, and espeically when I said that I could not support the impending war in Iraq.... oh well. It is very easy to get swept up in the day to day and most people I know did not really look listen or see for one reason or another.

[Arrowwind]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Oouthere (here)
Please look at both sides of the debate. The hole is over 90' across and does fit a 757.

That link goes to a picture of a hole ... without a plane.

Yes, debates have sides. So long as someone is willing to keep making the case for both sides, putting up the words, making what purport to be logical points (even if they aren't), and presenting what purports to be evidence (even if it's evidence for the other side), debates can go on forever.

I'd like to think this forum is not a debate society, but rather a place for people to share with, teach, learn from, and nurture each other, as we, both individually and as a group, increase our awareness and well being. Our collective awareness becomes part of the basis of an increasingly awake humanity.

and I see in that photo two standing posts on each side of the hole with hole on both sides of them... go figure how a plane got through that with out taking them out. Also I see the bottom floor demolished with the second floor essentiall intact and those spindle looking things were on the ground... so lets guess that due to this being a big building the floor is maybe 12 feet high (especially since its an old building) to the second floor.... not tall enough for a large plane to accomodate.

[Huma]

With all due respect, I do see the thrust of your point here....however question 3 is without a doubt the most important question there, because if we can address that, we can then try to understand future events and how they might shape our world. These things *only* change when more of the human populace recognizes this event for what it is, and unfortunately that does mean getting the details right, not to the exclusion however of your other points made, but details yes including the ones already having been gone over included, do matter.

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
-------

The group controlling events in present day America must be delighted that smart folks are still debating the fine details of what happened on 9/11 -- over a decade ago -- while the controllers debate whether or not to give the green light on the next false flag event.

The most important things to discuss might be

1) What have we learned?
2) What have we not learned?
3) Why isn't it obvious to at least 100 million other Americans that this was a carefully constructed inside job?
4) What, when and where might the next such event be?

[donk]

I'm sure this is somewheres in his thread and discussed and debunked or whatever, but I missed it the first couple times around and really found it compelling, I never heard of Honegger or paid much attention details (ie I agree totally with bill's post above but still find new perspectives on them interesting and appreciate hearing them regardless)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk