Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

by **Darklo** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:44 pm

There was a plane, there wasnt a plane, blah blah blah... That something hit the Pentagon is in no doubt. If it was proved it was hit by a plane would we all be saying it was remote control? If so, then whats the point arguing over what hit the pentagon. We've made our minds up. Im not so sure about 911. To me it seems just as likely that there were terrorists, and it seems likely that the truth behind 911 is being hidden just because its EVEN scarier and far more complicated than the version put forward by the so called "911 truth movement". The approach by the truth movement et al does actually shut down a whole range of much darker theories, much darker than it being arabs, or US shadow government.... As Jeff points out, that might be the intention and we have all fallen for it.

by **NewKid** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Is there a consensus, among those who believe Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, about what happened to passengers aboard the flight? <hr></blockquote> Don't know. It's a legitimate question, but I think that's one of the easier problems to resolve. It surprises me that so many people bring that up as though that would be a problem. There are a million possibilities, only one of which is that the flight they were on was shot down somewhere else. Weren't there some fighter jets "accidentally" scrambled out into the Atlantic Ocean? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 3/2/06 1:53 pm

by **Byrne** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:54 pm

ProfPan Maybe this hints at an answer to your question...<blockquote>Quote:<hr>HUMAN GREED AIN'T WHAT IT USED TO BE. 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund This is where our government opened up the Treasury and gave family members of those who lost their lives that day lots of money. In return, these families were basically told to shut up about anything else concerning 9-11. (Considering all the lies surrounding this horrific event, you can see why.) At this point there is one thing we should never forget, and that is how powerful the notion of human greed is. Remember this concept as you read the number of victims whose family members sought compensation. The names of the victims can be found on the CNN website. Flight 11: of the 92 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 20 are listed in the SSDI (22%) Of these 20 people, only three are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list: Judy Larocque Laurie Neira Candace Lee Williams ======================================= Flight 77: of the 64 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 14 are listed in the SSDI (22%) Of these 64 people, only five on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list: William Caswell Eddie Dillard Ian Gray John Sammartino Leonard Taylor ======================================= Flight 175: of the 65 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 18 are listed in the SSDI (28%) Of these 65 people, only three are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list: Michael C. Tarrou Gloria Debarrera Timothy Ward ======================================= Flight 93: of the 45 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 6 are listed in the SSDI (13%) Of these 45 people, none are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list: No one ======================================= Have you noticed anything strange yet? Of the passengers and crew of Flight 11, 77, 175 & 93, only 22%, 22%, 28%, 13% respectively are in the SSDI. Remember human greed? Of the 266 people that we were told died on these jets, only 11 relatives applied for compensation. Now ain't that odd boys and girls? <a href="http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html">69.28.73.17/thornarticles...rlist.html</a> SSDI = Social Security Death Index <hr></blockquote> I can't vouch for the validity of the info, I'm only passing it on.

by **dbeach** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:03 pm

"If it was proved it was hit by a plane would we all be saying it was remote control? If so, then whats the point arguing over what hit the pentagon. We've made our minds up.' Some of the specifics of the crime will help identify the criminals.... real plane? remote controled plane? missle ? plane firing missle?

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:50 pm

by researcher Penny Schoner <a href="http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentaToC.html">here</a>. From her introduction:  The biggest evidence of government complicity in the events of 9/11/01 is the stand down of air and missile defense systems. Only NORAD could have ordered that stand down. Researchers who are serious about interesting the public in an analysis of who was behind 9/11, should concentrate on putting before the public the obvious evidence, not unsubstantiated work. Our research has to be responsible and citations must be thoroughly checked and listed with observations and pictures. Otherwise the public will quickly tire of talking to us.  Also, some thoughts from <a href="http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mickeyz12062004/">Sander Hicks</a> You had rush hour traffic on I-395 that saw the plane hit, you have 100 eyewitnesses compiled in the pamphlet published by Penny Schoner. Where the hell did this theory come from? Thierry Meyssan’s book “The Horrible Fraud” was the original source. Meyssan wrote his book from Paris, he didn’t travel over here. The book is highly imaginative, and in the middle of a trauma, people are searching for answers. A lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement glommed onto this one and I think it’s hurt our credibility over all. You have to wonder if that was by design. For instance, all the right-wing magazines (e.g. National Review) have had a field day. And more detail <a href="http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html">here</a> from John Judge: At the end of her shift on Saturday morning, September 22nd, she was approached along with other attendants to visit the crash site. One declined, but she and two others took a van driven by the Salvation Army to the area. They were forced to wait almost 45 minutes at a safety fence around the area before being admitted into the area of destruction. As they waited, members of a psychological support group talked to them about their feelings. She will never forget what she saw there. The area was covered with rescue equipment, fire trucks, small carts, and ambulances. They were still hoping to find survivors. Small jeeps with wagons attached were being used to transport workers and others at the site. One flight attendant was driving one of these around the site. Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly discern where the original wall had been. There was just a gaping hole. She got off the van and walked inside the crash site. The other attendants broke down crying once they were inside. But my friend went in further than the others and kept her emotions in check as she has been trained to do and usually does in emergency situations. She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane. She identified the charred wreckage in several ways. She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell, an unpainted silver color that is unique to American Airline planes, and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white. ... There are many legitimate unanswered questions about the events of September 11, 2001, its sponsorship, and the official version of events. We benefit from serious research and the issues raised by victim's families seeking accountability. Not the least of these is the apparent lack of standard FAA/NORAD response to these emergency events. Rather than use our time proving and belaboring the obvious, or focusing on areas of total speculation that can only hurt our public credibility, I encourage serious researchers to focus on the historical context of the event, the alleged conspirators, the funding, and the government response or lack of it. And a <a href="http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html">resource</a> compiled by researcher Jim Hoffman.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:08 pm

The issue of WHO was controlling the planes remains open to conjecture and, imho, is the key to the day's tragic legacy. Remaining is the possibility of remote control with the infamous Flight Termination System that German cabinet minister Andreas Bulow hinted was removed from Lufthansa's planes to prevent 'liberation' by the US government. www.sysplan.com/Radar/CTS www.oilempire.us/remote.html This could allow both versions of the day to be true at the same time, extremist patsies allowed to enact a hijacking and a guarantee of its success with the added Pearl Harbor effect of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. This was the binary tactic used to assassinate Robert Kennedy, patsy plus insider. A Manchurian candidate was hypnotised and programmed to be at the place and time of the hit (Sirhan Sirhan) while someone else actually carried it out to guarantee both its success and the focus on the patsy. This is why LA coroner Dr. Thomas Noguchi was not allowed to testify in Sirhan's trial. He would have shown that Sirhan could not have possibly fired the fatal point-blank shot which actually came from RFK's 'body guard,' Thane Eugene Cesar. www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/rfk.html Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/2/06 3:10 pm

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:15 pm

Nice way of putting it. It's my best speculation about the mechanics of the day, too. It's no hardship finding people willing to carry out such a mission. Finding those who could execute it and do only the desired damage (ie, hitting the only unoccupied and impact-hardened side of the Pentagon) meant taking control out of their hands.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:09 pm

Getting in a hit on the Pentagon also filled the post-Cold War mission void that was reported to be demoralizing the military intelligence infrastructure with the added insult of budget cuts. Rumsfeld's 9/10/01 admission of missing a trillion dollars was instantly remedied and our military was recharged with the ultimate motivation missing in the Vietnam War, the defense of one's own homeland and family. War correspondent Chris Hedges book 'War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning' was an eye-opener. He confirmed the efficacy of psychological warfare by writing that what allows us to cope is a COHERENT NARRATIVE. Hence the trauma of wondering what happened to the disappeared and mass graves. Knowing makes all the difference and is deeply tied to our survival instincts. I consider this website to be an "anti-fascist board" just as you (Jeff) wrote recently because understanding defeats fascist manipulations.

by **NewKid** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:09 am

"Time has upset many fighting faiths." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes "Trust but verify." -- Ronald Reagan Sorry Jeff, I'm with you 99.99% of the time, but on the John Judge friend and the eyewitnesses, I'm with McGowan. Double hearsay from unidentified declarants and wildly inconsistent statements are bad enough, but you have to remember that eyewitness testimony even if the declarant is telling the truth is a notoriously unreliable form of evidence, especially in traumatic events. None of it would be admitted in court, and for good reason. There are thousand reasons why even honest witnesses might have been fooled by what they saw or think they saw. The Pentagon is a great illustration of why we have the hearsay rule in courts: a) we need the witness under oath and subject to rigorous questioning about what it is they say they saw so that we can test their perceptions and b) to try and figure out if the witnesses are lying. A second layer of course comes in when we have doubts about whether the witness made the statements at all. Noticeably lacking are both in the cases of the eyewitnesses, along with any other verifiable evidence to prove what happened. And I'm afraid John Judge and Sanders Hicks said so just isn't it. Nor, for that matter, is the fact that disinformational theories exist in support of a no plane argument. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Conclusive proof of what hit the Pentagon is not available due to parking lot videos and materials similar being held secret by the government.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta03.html#p3" target="top">www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta03.html#p3</a> Which is one of the reasons I can't understand why otherwise perfectly rational and skeptical investigators are so certain about what the hell happened. If conclusive proof is unavailable, and the case for a plane hitting is, let's say, a bit sketchy, why the certainty? Isn't it a bit odd that none of the 85 surveillance cameras identified in the DOJ brief showed the crash? Only one "CD ROM" apparentlty exists and it is still being withheld because, yes, it might prejudice the Moussaoui jury in the penalty phase. You'd think the National Military Command Center might have some sort of way of detecting when 200 ton objects are approaching. I don't know, satellite footage maybe. Now perhaps the govt has its reasons for wanting everyone to doubt what happened even if a plane did hit. Well, sure they would, but then you'd still think there might be some videos from some regular folks? Journalists even? How many of those have we seen from New York? From how many different angles? And how many have we seen of the Pentagon, which occurred after the towers had already been hit in New York? Maybe it all happened just like they said, but I'm at a loss at this point to understand why either side thinks it knows why. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 3/2/06 9:24 pm

by **smithtalk** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:27 am

i disagree jeff, the theory or bunch of theories did not come from thierry whatever his name is, it came from anyone who was watching a television set thinking, where the fuck is a single recognisable piece of a massive plane which hit a reinforced structure on an angle,

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:35 am

"Now perhaps the govt has its reasons for wanting everyone to doubt what happened even if a plane did hit." I think that's worked out nicely for them. And I agree about the untrustworthiness of eyewitnesses. However, many no-plane people make a great deal over a very small handful of eyewitness quotes, some yanked well out of context, and ignore the dozens more eyewitnesses on record as having seen a commercial jet airliner. But we don't all need to be lock-step about this stuff. I'm just disheartened at how this has become a 9/11 wedge-issue. I'm curious what you think of these <a href="http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm">photos</a> of interior flight wreckage.

by **smithtalk** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:57 am

well personally i find the photos interesting but unconvincing either way, seriously, they are massive aircraft, with hundreds of seats, hundreds of bags, plenty of steel providing the structural strength upon which the aluminium sits, and at least 70 people on board, and the best evidence is a wheel hub and a tire? it just doesnt make sense, personally i think eye witness statements have very low value, i saw a car crash and discussed it with a work mate who arrived at work two minutes later and had seen the same scene and the accounts were incredibly different, since then i have felt it better to look elsewhere for evidence, and fr the record that goes with the wtc too, accounts of explosions, pops etc are fascinating but liitle value as far as i am concerned

by **Floyd Smoots** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:01 am

....post a current, modern day link to our "agreed-upon" mis/disinfo site, Rinso.chem!!!!!! I only quit checking out "the other Jeff's" site on a regular basis, not 'cause your peeps said I shouldn't, but out of sheer boredom with the bulky Bulk of unimportant crappola there.

by **mother** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:50 am

I lived within walking distance of the Pentagon for 3 years, until 2000. And am around DC a lot. For what it's worth, as far as eyewitnesses seeing 747's or other aircraft flying low, this happens constantly. Sunbathing on our apt. roof planes right up close. Often, crossing the 14th St. Bridge you think they're going to hit you. There are planes constanly; it is very busy there. There was never anything like the huge mess caused by a plane crash around the pentagon, either. For quite a long time the local newscasters didn't know what had happened. If anyone here is from DC or Arlington, they can easily imagine that the first thing you'd think you saw while driving was a plane, because they're everywhere there at NationalAirport. The runway is so short there the planes go really low. Although it'd be really easy to see the plane from 395, and the traffic is insane at rush hour....but we drove past after 911 and to my eye they sure had everything back to normal very quickly, and it didn't look as though they had had to repave any of the area, either. 747's are enormous-I once visited a nightclub made of one.

by **NewKid** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:51 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think that's worked out nicely for them.<hr></blockquote> Sure has. One thing I have no doubt about is that whatever happened, there was a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. One thing I'm dying to see is what the govt will do with the CD ROM after the Moussaoui trial. My suspicion is that if it's released, it'll be basically the same thing as the "leaked" footage that the DOJ itself has said isn't authentic in its briefs, and we'll be right back where we started. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And I agree about the untrustworthiness of eyewitnesses. However, many no-plane people make a great deal over a very small handful of eyewitness quotes, some yanked well out of context, and ignore the dozens more eyewitnesses on record as having seen a commercial jet airliner.<hr></blockquote> I agree. And I don't doubt many people may have seen a commercial jet airliner or think they did, but (without going all StarTrek technology on everyone) I think there are just so many possibilities there that it's hard to evaluate. And by on record, I'm assuming that means to journalists and not in a deposition or anything. Whatever their motives and eyesight, I think their testimony needs some sort of challenging before it can be considered serious support for the plane theory. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>But we don't all need to be lock-step about this stuff. I'm just disheartened at how this has become a 9/11 wedge-issue.<hr></blockquote> I agree, and I also think that the Pentagon is not really a good talking point for 9-11 stuff. Not because a plane actually hit, but because we just don't know and the whole thing could blow up in our faces if we take hard and fast positions on this. But that's not to say that the absence of any skeptical inquiry by the mainstream media and officialdom shouldn't be a talking point. Nobody points it out much, but the fact that WaPo and the Times etc. never bothered to file FOIAs for the video or satellite footage or do any investigation at all is a dog that didn't bark that should raise an eyebrow for anyone familiar with investigations or basic journalism. Even if a plane did hit. The fact that nobody bothered to ask the questions is much more important than the answers themselves. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm curious what you think of these photos of interior flight wreckage<hr></blockquote> I have to say, not very much. There's just too much possibility for tampering even if that stuff is what they say it is. In half the pictures, I'm not even quite sure what it is I'm supposed to be seeing. Is it something? Sure. But we have to have to ask who has the burden of persuasion here. I don't start from a default premise of plane or no plane and say the other side has to knock it down. I'm perfectly happy saying I don't know until one side makes a compelling case. Now I know everyone here is familiar with Northwoods, but I think it's helpful to actually go back and read some of what they were talking about in 1962 to consider just how skeptical we need to be before accepting anybody's story, whatever they're arguing. The language is truly extraordinary. Note also how normal this all sounds to them: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces. (1) start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio. (2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base. (3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base. (4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans). (5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires. (6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage). (7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations. (<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City. (9) Capture militia group which storms the base. (10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene. (11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)). snip A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms: a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation. snip We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). snip Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. snip It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight. a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled,to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to " sell" the incident. It Is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack. a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs. b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared. <hr></blockquote> You get the idea . . . <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf" target="top">www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 3/3/06 12:06 am

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Analysis of eyewitness statements

Re: Analysis of eyewitness statements

"extremist patsies"

Re: "extremist patsies"

Re: Analysis of eyewitness statements

Re: Analysis of eyewitness statements

precisely what I think:

Re: precisely what I think:

Oh, No, Girlfrien' You Did'n....

pentagon

Re: Oh, No, Girlfrien' You Did'n....

Who is online