OT

B. Lafferty said:

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

http://tiny.pl/glbg

But's that precisely what *they* want you to believe.

--
Bill Asher

"William Asher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

http://tiny.pl/glbg

But's that precisely what *they* want you to believe.

--
Bill Asher

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0801-911Press.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/estrin05252004.html and note the last paragraph
of the review.

http://www.mises.com/misesreview_detail.asp?control=254&sortorder=issue

http://www.nypress.com/17/25/books/RussWellen.cfm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=R.%2020050324&articleId=456

http://www.perc.ca/PEN/2005-03-04/reviews.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566565529/sr=8-1/qid=1147805189/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-8798273-1834441?%5Fencoding=UTF8

B. Lafferty said:

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

Not surprisingly, the Pentagon has never released their videos of LANCE
on 9/11 either. Makes you wonder...

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Not surprisingly, the Pentagon has never released their videos of LANCE on
9/11 either. Makes you wonder...

LOL. The Pentagon also hasn't released the security video from the top of
the Holiday in near the Pentagon or the video from the gas station facing
the site of impact. Nor have they allowed anyone to see the 757 wreckage
they have reconstructed---oh, that's right, they first said it was all
vaporized by the heat of the fire. But then the identified victim bodies
from DNA taken from the remains--the remains that weren't vaporized with the
titanium engine parts. I have some land in Florida, if you're interested.

Interestingly, the video the Pentagon released today shows what appears to
be a white aircraft (possibly with no markings) hitting the building. IIRC,
American flies silver craft with red markings. And the time and date on
that Pentagon security video is also wrong. I'm certain there's a logical
explanation that the Pentagon will tell us. :-)

B. Lafferty said:

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Not surprisingly, the Pentagon has never released their videos of
LANCE on 9/11 either. Makes you wonder...

LOL. The Pentagon also hasn't released the security video from the
top of the Holiday in near the Pentagon or the video from the gas
station facing the site of impact. Nor have they allowed anyone to
see the 757 wreckage they have reconstructed---oh, that's right, they
first said it was all vaporized by the heat of the fire. But then the
identified victim bodies from DNA taken from the remains--the remains
that weren't vaporized with the titanium engine parts. I have some
land in Florida, if you're interested.

Interestingly, the video the Pentagon released today shows what
appears to be a white aircraft (possibly with no markings) hitting the
building. IIRC, American flies silver craft with red markings. And
the time and date on that Pentagon security video is also wrong. I'm
certain there's a logical explanation that the Pentagon will tell us.
:-)

Have you ever considered the Pentagon and CIA and Black Helicopter People
keep these wacky conspiracy theories alive solely to deflect people from
focusing on the fact that the real crime committed by the U.S. government
related to those attacks was dereliction of duty by Bush, Cheney, Rice, and
Ashcroft?

--
Bill Asher

B. Lafferty said:

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

LOL. The Pentagon also hasn't released the security video from the top of
the Holiday in near the Pentagon or the video from the gas station facing
the site of impact. Nor have they allowed anyone to see the 757 wreckage
they have reconstructed---oh, that's right, they first said it was all
vaporized by the heat of the fire. But then the identified victim bodies
from DNA taken from the remains--the remains that weren't vaporized with the
titanium engine parts. I have some land in Florida, if you're interested.

Interestingly, the video the Pentagon released today shows what appears to
be a white aircraft (possibly with no markings) hitting the building. IIRC,
American flies silver craft with red markings. And the time and date on
that Pentagon security video is also wrong. I'm certain there's a logical
explanation that the Pentagon will tell us. :-)

You and the makers of the Flash video must be the last people
in the U.S. that think Bush's government is competent enough
to (a) engage in such a conspiracy and (b) successfully cover it up.
They couldn't even whack Harry Whittington _or_ keep it secret,
for [censored]'s sake.

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

LOL. The Pentagon also hasn't released the security video from the top of
the Holiday in near the Pentagon or the video from the gas station facing
the site of impact. Nor have they allowed anyone to see the 757 wreckage
they have reconstructed---oh, that's right, they first said it was all
vaporized by the heat of the fire. But then the identified victim bodies
from DNA taken from the remains--the remains that weren't vaporized with the
titanium engine parts. I have some land in Florida, if you're interested.

Interestingly, the video the Pentagon released today shows what appears to
be a white aircraft (possibly with no markings) hitting the building. IIRC,
American flies silver craft with red markings. And the time and date on
that Pentagon security video is also wrong. I'm certain there's a logical
explanation that the Pentagon will tell us. :-)

You and the makers of the Flash video must be the last people
in the U.S. that think Bush's government is competent enough
to (a) engage in such a conspiracy and (b) successfully cover it up.
They couldn't even whack Harry Whittington _or_ keep it secret,
for [censored]'s sake.

That's wut ya git fer sendin' a boy ta do a man's job.

[email hidden] wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

You and the makers of the Flash video must be the last people
in the U.S. that think Bush's government is competent enough
to (a) engage in such a conspiracy and (b) successfully cover it up.
They couldn't even whack Harry Whittington _or_ keep it secret,
for [censored]'s sake.

That is precisely what they want you to think.

--
Bill Asher

"William Asher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:
> http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

Not surprisingly, the Pentagon has never released their videos of
LANCE on 9/11 either. Makes you wonder...

LOL. The Pentagon also hasn't released the security video from the
top of the Holiday in near the Pentagon or the video from the gas
station facing the site of impact. Nor have they allowed anyone to
see the 757 wreckage they have reconstructed---oh, that's right, they
first said it was all vaporized by the heat of the fire. But then the
identified victim bodies from DNA taken from the remains--the remains
that weren't vaporized with the titanium engine parts. I have some
land in Florida, if you're interested.

Interestingly, the video the Pentagon released today shows what
appears to be a white aircraft (possibly with no markings) hitting the
building. IIRC, American flies silver craft with red markings. And
the time and date on that Pentagon security video is also wrong. I'm
certain there's a logical explanation that the Pentagon will tell us.
:-)

Have you ever considered the Pentagon and CIA and Black Helicopter People
keep these wacky conspiracy theories alive solely to deflect people from
focusing on the fact that the real crime committed by the U.S. government
related to those attacks was dereliction of duty by Bush, Cheney, Rice,
and
Ashcroft?

--
Bill Asher

Have you red Griffin's book?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

LOL. The Pentagon also hasn't released the security video from the top
of
the Holiday in near the Pentagon or the video from the gas station facing
the site of impact. Nor have they allowed anyone to see the 757 wreckage
they have reconstructed---oh, that's right, they first said it was all
vaporized by the heat of the fire. But then the identified victim bodies
from DNA taken from the remains--the remains that weren't vaporized with
the
titanium engine parts. I have some land in Florida, if you're
interested.

Interestingly, the video the Pentagon released today shows what appears
to
be a white aircraft (possibly with no markings) hitting the building.
IIRC,
American flies silver craft with red markings. And the time and date on
that Pentagon security video is also wrong. I'm certain there's a
logical
explanation that the Pentagon will tell us. :-)

You and the makers of the Flash video must be the last people
in the U.S. that think Bush's government is competent enough
to (a) engage in such a conspiracy and (b) successfully cover it up.
They couldn't even whack Harry Whittington _or_ keep it secret,
for [censored]'s sake.

The flash video has some interesting images that go along with what Griffin
raises as questions in his book. Now tell me how you explain:
1. The absence of 757 wreckage at the impact site.
2. The 18ft hole with everything around it virtually intact after supposedly
being hit by a 757. What happened to the wings, and tail?
3. How a 757 with a carbon fiber nose could penetrate several interior
reinforced walls.
4. Why it was that about a year later, Rummy, in a public speech,
"mistakenly" referred to "the missile" that hit the Pentagon.

Answer these and I'll post additional questions. You might consider reading
Griffin's book. Please remember that Griffin and others (not on the fringe)
are asking questions based on what is in the public record.

B. Lafferty wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Have you red Griffin's book?

Did you listen to the testimony of Clark and that FBI agent? Really, which
is more plausible, that the Bush Administration completely dropped the ball
in stopping the attacks and are looking for anything to deflect public
opinion away from their own misconduct or that the Bush Administration, in
the space of less than nine months, orchestrated a vast conspiracy killing
thousands of people so as to justify a war with Iraq?

--
Bill Asher

"William Asher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Have you red Griffin's book?

Did you listen to the testimony of Clark and that FBI agent? Really,
which
is more plausible, that the Bush Administration completely dropped the
ball
in stopping the attacks and are looking for anything to deflect public
opinion away from their own misconduct or that the Bush Administration, in
the space of less than nine months, orchestrated a vast conspiracy killing
thousands of people so as to justify a war with Iraq?

I heard the testimony. Now will you answer my question?

B. Lafferty said:

The flash video has some interesting images that go along with what Griffin
raises as questions in his book. Now tell me how you explain:
1. The absence of 757 wreckage at the impact site.
2. The 18ft hole with everything around it virtually intact after supposedly
being hit by a 757. What happened to the wings, and tail?
3. How a 757 with a carbon fiber nose could penetrate several interior
reinforced walls.
4. Why it was that about a year later, Rummy, in a public speech,
"mistakenly" referred to "the missile" that hit the Pentagon.

Arguing facts with you is a mug's game. I am not an NTSB
investigator and don't wish to pretend to be an expert on airplanes.
However, it seems to me you are arguing two near-contradictory
points: you want to argue that a 757 isn't solid enough to penetrate
several walls of the Pentagon, and yet that it is strong enough that
you should see remnants of wings, tail, and other wreckage.

I think this is a fundamental misconception about the solidity
of airplanes. Just like cagers think their SUVs are solid objects
that will protect them if they smack into a solid object. In a fight
between a tree and a car, the tree wins. A car is a thin shell of
metal with one large solid component, the engine.
Even more extremely, airplanes are basically beer cans with
some internal bracing and motors mounted to the wings (on a 757).
Sit in a passenger plane sometime as it lands, look out at the wing,
and watch how much it sags from flying to landing, as the lift force
is removed. The entire structure is only as stiff as it needs to be
in ordinary flight use (plus a margin of safety that covers overspeed,
but not crashing into things.)

On a high speed impact, much of the airframe of an airplane will
disintegrate. Probably some of the frame of the fuselage went into
the building, and I don't know where the engines went. Here's an
aerial photo of the debris field of USAir 427, which crashed at
300 mph due to (it is generally believed) a rudder malfunction:
<http://www.sptimes.com/28-seconds/zulu1.html>
Do you see any wing? Should you? If you aren't squeamish,
you can read those articles for a description of the debris
and remains.

Here is a web page which argues that it really was a 757:
<http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html>
I didn't read the whole thing and can't vouch for the website.
But let's suppose that the photos are genuine. Some of them appear
to be airplane debris and one is clearly painted in American Airlines
colors. It's sourced from a Navy site, though, so maybe it's all
part of the Big Con:
<http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_010911-N-6157F-001.jpg>

Now get back to doing something useful - quit obsessing over
Rummy's slips of the tongue and think about his cavalier
attitude toward intelligence and getting us into and out of stupid
pointless battles.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

The flash video has some interesting images that go along with what
Griffin
raises as questions in his book. Now tell me how you explain:
1. The absence of 757 wreckage at the impact site.
2. The 18ft hole with everything around it virtually intact after
supposedly
being hit by a 757. What happened to the wings, and tail?
3. How a 757 with a carbon fiber nose could penetrate several interior
reinforced walls.
4. Why it was that about a year later, Rummy, in a public speech,
"mistakenly" referred to "the missile" that hit the Pentagon.

Arguing facts with you is a mug's game. I am not an NTSB
investigator and don't wish to pretend to be an expert on airplanes.
However, it seems to me you are arguing two near-contradictory
points: you want to argue that a 757 isn't solid enough to penetrate
several walls of the Pentagon, and yet that it is strong enough that
you should see remnants of wings, tail, and other wreckage.

I think this is a fundamental misconception about the solidity
of airplanes. Just like cagers think their SUVs are solid objects
that will protect them if they smack into a solid object. In a fight
between a tree and a car, the tree wins. A car is a thin shell of
metal with one large solid component, the engine.
Even more extremely, airplanes are basically beer cans with
some internal bracing and motors mounted to the wings (on a 757).
Sit in a passenger plane sometime as it lands, look out at the wing,
and watch how much it sags from flying to landing, as the lift force
is removed. The entire structure is only as stiff as it needs to be
in ordinary flight use (plus a margin of safety that covers overspeed,
but not crashing into things.)

On a high speed impact, much of the airframe of an airplane will
disintegrate. Probably some of the frame of the fuselage went into
the building, and I don't know where the engines went. Here's an
aerial photo of the debris field of USAir 427, which crashed at
300 mph due to (it is generally believed) a rudder malfunction:
<http://www.sptimes.com/28-seconds/zulu1.html>
Do you see any wing? Should you? If you aren't squeamish,
you can read those articles for a description of the debris
and remains.

Here is a web page which argues that it really was a 757:
<http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html>
I didn't read the whole thing and can't vouch for the website.
But let's suppose that the photos are genuine. Some of them appear
to be airplane debris and one is clearly painted in American Airlines
colors. It's sourced from a Navy site, though, so maybe it's all
part of the Big Con:
<http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_010911-N-6157F-001.jpg>

Along those lines but as a counterpoint, here's a web site arguing the
opposite. I can't vouch for it's credibility but it's interesing and I
would like to see an intelligent, informed discussion, not here but in a
national forum under oath.
http://www.rense.com/general26/penta.htm

Quoted message said:

Now get back to doing something useful - quit obsessing over
Rummy's slips of the tongue and think about his cavalier
attitude toward intelligence and getting us into and out of stupid
pointless battles.

email hidden said:

Here is a web page which argues that it really was a 757:

Anyone who thinks that anything other than AA#77 hit the Pentagon is a
freaking idiot.

Jack Hollis said:

email hidden said:

Here is a web page which argues that it really was a 757:

Anyone who thinks that anything other than AA#77 hit the Pentagon is a
freaking idiot.

The only thing crazier than the "Missile hit the Pentagon" theory is the
"Anyone who believes different things than I do is a freaking idiot" theory.

So I'm agreeing with you, kind of.

Quoted message said:

Here is a web page which argues that it really was a 757:
<http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html>

Ben,

You've managed to bring this thread on-topic. This article mentions the
757 that crashed in Colorado Springs. A USCF development coach from
Wyoming named Dan Birkholz died in that crash. He's missed by all who
knew him. I hadn't heard that they'd discovered the cause of the crash.

Dan's mentioned on this page:
http://www.laramiebikenet.com/Dead%20Dog/History.htm

Bret

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Have you red Griffin's book?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Now will you answer my question?

yes.

no. but I always check in at www.gulliblenutjob.org to see the latest in
whack-job conspiracy theories. in my opinion the debunking of the
evidence for a missile strike on the pentagon is much more convincing
than than the evidence itself. but the main point is that the ass-clowns
in the bush administration can't even pacify a two-bit dirt-poor country
like afghanistan, much less pull off the biggest conspiracy in the
history of the u.s.a. these guys are opportunists, they're not deep
thinkers or planners and every shred of good advice they've gotten along
the way related to tactical and strategic issues they've ignored and
things have turned out to be as nearly completely a disaster as they
could be. why exactly do you think they were able to successfully
organize and conduct something like an attack on the pentagon (and the
world trade center)?

--
Bill Asher

Quoted message said:

They couldn't even whack Harry Whittington _or_ keep it secret,
for [censored]'s sake.

Don't you mean [censored] Whittington?

--
E. Dronkert