Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by weedwhacker

It was a terrorist attack --- pure and simple!

Your right about that part...

Terrorist organization ...AlQaeda? I think not...

Al -CIA- da...Yes.

Government terrorists. The best of the worst, two in one.
If any one can do it, they can get it done.



[edit on 31-10-2009 by burntheships]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ahmonrarh

 

Soooo...you are saying WHAT??? exactly???


Oh, I see...the SAUDIS are behind it...yeah, I agree....

OBL is SAUDI....BUT, the connection the Bushes had WITH the SAUDIS....we won't discuss....or maybe we should.....because it POINTS to the errors in "trust".....

Look....9/11 caught US off guard....it happened.

The BUSH family is not clean, we know that already...it's been covered.

BUT!!!! IF Bush (and company) wnted to go into Afghanistan or Iraq....they would NOT have needed something as elabarate as 9/11!!!!

They could have orchestrated something else.... Darn it, this is just nonsense!!!!

I HATE BUSH as much as the next guy....but neither HE, NOR his compadres were smart enough to pull this off!!!!!


It was a terrorist attack --- pure and simple!

We will NOT let it happen again, and that is truth.

All the rest???

NONSENSE!!!!!



[edit on 31 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

the timeframe i was referring to was pre-GWB, it was clinton-era. let it go. operations, like screenplays, take longer than 1hour to create, if they are to be potentially successful.

what i'm saying now, as i said when news reports released post 9-11. how is it, that our particular country boasts of how powerful it's intel agencies are, allow "terrorists" train on mil installations, and not know anything?
odd, when if you apply for anything that has a secret status or higher, they call people you forgot about years ago, that you may have punched in the nose in third grade, in respect to U.S. citizens.

on one side of the story, the US dropped the ball. oops, we trained some of the bad guys and they rammed planes up our noses...

the other side? the PTB knew, needed ones to blame(RED HERRRING), to be able to sell the story to citizens, stirring the hornets nest that we Americans are, so that certain interests can be satisfied.

i find it hard to believe personally, that US has satellites that can possibly see a booger in the nose of a sunbather laying on a CALI beach, but doesnt know that certain individuals in an assigned group of nationals, may not be who they are?

To you weed wacker, i'm POSITIVE, you wont just let anyone walk into your house, if they were to say "i know your cousin, see, here's his drivers license as proof", eat your food and know the code to your safe in your home. without verifying facts first...if you would? belay my last.


[edit on 31-10-2009 by ahmonrarh]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I just love it how the "truth" movement says 9/11 was done so we can go and invade Afghanistan and Iraq. But wait, why are most of the terrorists Saudi? That doesnt make any sense now does it? I wonder why or how are the "truthers" even coming up with these nonsensical connections in trying to find a conspiracy.

So according to them, the US planned and faked the whole thing, blamed it solely on Saudis, then they attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Right............
Does that make sense to ya Weed?

That would be like saying we got attacked by Mexico, so we go an bomb the hell out of Canada and Greenland.

[edit on 10/31/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


From what i remember during reported 9/11 investigations, is that some of the Al Qaeda hijackers were alleged to have trained at a facility i was trained personally. they were alleged to be posing as Saudi nationals, during the same time frame, and Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks right?

who's leader(bin laden) then fled into the afghan mountains, and we pursued, but took a quick detour to Iraq to depose a dictator, who was hanged later....and now we're back to afghanistan.....that's the shortened history of things post 9-11 right? so why bring in canada and mexico?

"truthers" and myself have not too much in common, unless that's asking questions where things look a little loose or dont add up.

but this is wayyy off topic. the original topic was based on the angle of impact being off for a 757 to strike the pentagon.


[edit on 31-10-2009 by ahmonrarh]

reply to post by ahmonrarh

To you weed wacker, i'm POSITIVE, you wont just let anyone walk into your house, if they were to say "i know your cousin, see, here's his drivers license as proof", eat your food and know the code to your safe in your home. without verifying facts first...if you would? belay my last.

I'm with you, in one sense bro.....I think that the INTEL fully fumbled the ball on this this one...

Do I think it was intentional?? Not sure. (See the 'conspiracy' of Pearl Harbor...a rather weak comparison, but it exists, nonetheless...)

Point is...FOUR simulataneous hijackings...it WAS unprecedented. It WAS unexpected...(at least to us)...it WAS pre-planned.

AND, it will NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!!!! Because, it is NOT going to be allowed, now that we are more alert to it....

September 1, 2001??? We were lax. We did not expect this. NOW is different.

reply to post by weedwhacker

of course NOW is different. that i can agree with. citizens of this country are and were forced out of our false sense of security. the only question people have apparently....is who is the cause of that security horror. that's the only question. it's one thing to defend ourselves. but it's better to know who your defending yourself from. that's the point of it all.

our military is tasked with defending from enemies both foreign AND domestic. I personally would not like our soldiers to be swinging at the wrong people. the unsurety of the entire world in regard to who's ultimately responsible, has already made us look like trash in the worlds eye. arrogance makes that worse.

reply to post by ahmonrarh


Look....the consequences of 9/11 on the comfort of the traveling public (and, in no lesser extent, the airline crewmembers) have rippled throughout the industry of air travel.

Allow me, please a moment of perspective: 1987. (Or was it 1988? Doesn't matter....)

I will go even FARTHER back, then come to the above...

The 1960s....airline travel was much like TRAIIN travel is today....NO security, as you see it now. (Yes, I was just a child then, but I can watch Doris Day movies too...)

The 1970s...Air Piracy..."Take me to Cuba!" and such...well, that started a change in the way airports operated.

Fast-forward to MY era, working at the airlines. We routinely could by-pass 'security' by flashing our employee badges...UNTIL the incident in 1987 (1988??) when a disgruntled FORMER airline employee (who, when fired, had ANOTHER airline ID badge in his possession....they did not track the 'lost' badges very well, back then) got on an airplane and committed suicide...by KILLING THE PILOTS and killing everyone else onboard...look at PSA flight 1771.

AFTER that, we (meaning even the working airline crew) had to undergo the magnetometers and X-Ray machines....funny how, even to THIS DAY, this is not the case for EVERY airline or airport employee....hmmmmm...

I know for a FACT that...yes, even in airports such as Washington National (now called 'reagan', but I refuse to give him the recognition) most of the airport and airline workers do NOT pass through 'security' screening in order to get to the "sterile" portions of the airport.

I only mention ONE airport...this is a constant ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!

There is NO 'universal' badging system...it it is still, after all of these years, based on individual responsiblity and up to the various Airport Authorities to administer...

True story:

An actual FAA Inspector, conducting his duty as an Inspector was walking around an airplane in Guam (Agana, Guam) which is an off-shore 'hub' for a major US Airline. He had his FAA badge on display, on his suit jacket...BUT, he DID NOT have an approved AOA (Airport Operations Area) badge as required by the Guam Airport Authority....he received a fine and an injunction .....

Just to clarify for the audience...a working crewmember FOR the airline, IN UNIFORM and displaying a valid AIRLINE ID while what's called "In The Shadow" of the airplane (meaning in the near proximity) is allowed on the ramp areas...in GUAM!!!!!

Guam has MORE restrictive rules than any airport in the Continental US!!!!

As I said, even in DC....a ticket agent can (and does) enter the "secure" areas by simply swiping their ID badge through certain doors...BYPASSING the X-Ray machines!!!!

This happens in EVERY AIRPORT in America!!!

It was this way BEFORE 9/11, it is the same now.

Don't even get me started on the mechanics, and caterers and cleaners...who ALL have access to airplanes when they're parked....


More personal experience...to avoid the sometimes long lines at 'Security' in Honolulu...working crew for my company are taken behind the ticket counter, through the back offices....(pilots stop off to pick up the paperwork, but FAs go on, pilots follow a few minutes after...) and bypass security routinely...it is a 'perk', and it should be....BUT....the rest of it?

What we call 'eyewash'....purely fiction, for publlic consumption....





[edit on 31 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


So are you saying 9/11 was beneficial? That good comes from bad?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

I just love it how the "truth" movement says 9/11 was done so we can go and invade Afghanistan and Iraq. But wait, why are most of the terrorists Saudi? That doesnt make any sense now does it? I wonder why or how are the "truthers" even coming up with these nonsensical connections in trying to find a conspiracy.

But in the public mind, its all connected. If you look at the responses after the attacks, a lot of people were talking about wiping out the whole Middle East. Afghanistan was attacked because of its supposed hiding of Bin Laden and crew, so it wasn't just a "Saudi" question, and they used 9/11 to sell a war that was planned in advance amongst other things.

reply to post by TheAntiHero420


No.

I am NOT saying that 9/11 was "benificial"

I am saying...not sure what I was trying to say...guess it's that the whole sense of "security" is a complete fallacy.

Has been, is now.

Taking off of shoes, no liquids...it's all madness and over-compensated knee-jerk reactions...stupidity.

Yet, we all fall for it...a 'false' sense of 'security'.

Because it is imposed on us.

The cockpit doors are now reinforced. Procedures are in place to be aware of possible intrusions. This has affected lifestyles of flight crewmembers adversely.

AND...this only applies to the US!!! I wasin Europe, just last year...THEY do not have the same attitude to cockpit security that is mandated by the FAA.

I thought I shouldn't post this, but I realized that those who fly in Europe surely have seen what I've seen as well...

I have seen such casual inattention when the cockpit door is open...and I guess I'm alarmed by it because WE have been conditioned to think defensively, ever since 9/11....but in Europe (and I assume other areas of the planet) the casualness persists....I hope this post doesn't give anyone any ideas.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


first you say.........

AND, it will NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!!!! Because, it is NOT going to be allowed, now that we are more alert to it....

September 1, 2001??? We were lax. We did not expect this. NOW is different.

Then you say...........

...guess it's that the whole sense of "security" is a complete fallacy.

Has been, is now.

Taking off of shoes, no liquids...it's all madness and over-compensated knee-jerk reactions...stupidity.

Yet, we all fall for it...a 'false' sense of 'security'.

You seem confused....

Originally posted by talisman
If you look at the responses after the attacks, a lot of people were talking about wiping out the whole Middle East. Afghanistan was attacked because of its supposed hiding of Bin Laden and crew, so it wasn't just a "Saudi" question, and they used 9/11 to sell a war that was planned in advance amongst other things.

It is now known that in mod-2001 the US had a serious falling out with the Taliban regarding assurances of protection for a new oil and gas pipeline to go through the region. The Taliban were given an ultimatum of complying or having Afghanistan invaded. The Bush admin exploited the anti-Muslim public sentiment to actually go in right after.

Similarly, the war with Iraq was suspended in 1991 with Saddam given conditions regarding oil exports and a no-fly zone. He flagrantly abused the terms and the US felt they had legitimacy in presuming the conflict.

Arguably, had 9/11 never happened, the US would have gone into Afghanistan, Iraq, or both. 9/11 provided a different political atmosphere. Bush took office determined to continue the Republican hard line policies of his father.

Not that these policies were the right approach, but it has to be noted the Bush admin felt they had due cause to initiate regime changes in these countries. 9/11 made it easier.


Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


The ends justify the means eh, mikey. Seems similar to ww2 and vietnam, when you put it like that. It was bound to happen right?

WHERE THE TRUTH MOVEMENT HAS GONE OFF THE RAILS

9/11, is no different from any other crime and can be worked out by simple logic.

It falls into two parts, the mass murder and the cover-up.

As Sherlock Holmes said, remove what is impossible and whatever is left, however unlikely, must be the truth.

The Truth Movement has gone off the rails be accepting a group of basic assumptions that seem very reasonable, by make the case insoluable, indicating that the assumptions, however ridiculous are wrong.

WRONG ASSUMPTIONS:-

- Those involved in 9/11 were traitors yet were patriotic enough to use only US personnel and kit... This is obvious nonsense!
- Only those with authority to act wold have done certain functions as opposed to unauthorized people exceding their authority being responsible.. This is silly and does not comply with the real world. It als assumes that all levels of command structure in every nation is infallible and as well coordinated as the US.
- The planes taking off from Langley were either a mistake or deliberately sent to the middle of nowhere to get them out the way. There is a third possibility that is being ignored.
- It a assumed that either there were no planes or no missiles and that there was no mix...A group of conspirators from whereever, Al Qaeda or the US would use the most efficient means not restrict themselves.
- The Pentagon must have been knowingly involved...A blind belief in patriotically believing that ONLY the Pentagon has the means of destruction is not sound. Furthermore, as debunkers point out, how is that no-one from the Pentagon has broken down and confessed?
- The hey to the event is in the means and opportunity, whilst the motive is considered to be obvious and of no particular interest...This is not sound thinking.
- The transponders must have been switched on and off...This is a tough task and makes no sense. There is an alternative possibility that has been ignored.
- Norad is an American organization that only Americans have access to...This is totally false.
- A list of incidental evidence that fails to back either side is being totally ignored, even though it points to who did it.
- Rich people are just like us. They'll do terrible things to get an extra million in the bank when they are already loaded...This is the sort of view that one would expect from a peasant tolling the field.
- The reason for Building 7 collapse is of little importance - this is a serious oversight.

Once these assumptions are dumped from the minds of the Truth Movement,then one can actually see who did it.

reply to post by TheAntiHero420


Mmiichael was not justifyig anything, he was stating the facts as he knows them. He is not responsible for the Bush Administrations' policies or actions.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by TheAntiHero420

 

Mmiichael was not justifyig anything, he was stating the facts as he knows them. He is not responsible for the Bush Administrations' policies or actions.

Never said he was, but I thought the Bush Admin had nothing to do with it Pter. Look at what he said, seems to be exactly like the entry into ww2 and vietnam, you can deny this if you want. Operation Northwoods doesn't sound too bad does it?

As 9/11 gutted the US economy costing well over a trillion dollars in lost revenues from things like the closed market, disruption of business, insurance and replacement costs, investigation costs, and so on - I don't see where the profits were.

In 2001 the US was already planning to move into Afghanistan after the Taliban reneged on their agreement to protect the proposed new regional pipeline. Iraq was a resumption of the suspended 1991 war after Saddam refused to comply with the no-fly zone and oil-for-food program.

Anyone is welcome to put any spin on events. The planning, financing and execution my Muslim extremists and their funding sources has been deeply documented with evidence, communications, records, bank transfers, testimony, confessions. Most from non-US sources.

In 8 years no one has come forward, no documentation has emerged, no records have been found, no evidence of US direct involvement of 9/11.

No one has presented a credible sequence of events, naming of participants, outlining of means. We are just told it was an "inside job." So who were the insiders, how did they do it? Where is there something beyond conjecture and speculation to support it?


M

reply to post by mmiichael

As 9/11 gutted the US economy costing well over a trillion dollars in lost revenues from things like the closed market, disruption of business, insurance and replacement costs, investigation costs, and so on -

Not saying your wrong there. When you remodel a house you gut it. But could you do me a favor and show a source on it, your rule not mine.

I don't see where the profits were

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In 2001 the US was already planning to move into Afghanistan after the Taliban reneged on their agreement to protect the proposed new regional pipeline. Iraq was a resumption of the suspended 1991 war after Saddam refused to comply with the no-fly zone and oil-for-food program.

English? Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, Operation Northwoods, Lusitania... nothing in common?

Anyone is welcome to put any spin on events.

We know Mikey, we know.

The planning, financing and execution my Muslim extremists and their funding sources has been deeply documented with evidence, communications, records, bank transfers, testimony, confessions.

Your Muslim extremeists, must be a mistake.

Most from non-US sources.

Can I see these sources, cause there is a considerable amount of non-Us sources that say otherwise, some are intelligence angencies.

In 8 years no one has come forward, no documentation has emerged, no records have been found, no evidence of US direct involvement of 9/11.

Yes this happens all the time. Cover ups and unsolved cases.

No one has presented a credible sequence of events, naming of participants, outlining of means. We are just told it was an "inside job." So who were the insiders, how did they do it? Where is there something beyond conjecture and speculation to support it?

Tight circles can keep anything in, so I would say inside.

Motivation is all that is needed.

reply to post by mmiichael

mmiichael, welcome back to the thread.

You still have not substantiated your claim about alleged passenger bodies, specific to the Pentagon, from a few pages ago.

I asked mmiichael to prove his two very specific claims:
1 - passenger bodies were found strapped to airline seats.
2 - rear seated passenger bodies were found relatively intact.

All that mmiichael has to do is to prove these claims - or retract them.

Instead, he has avoided, deflected and then finally used name-calling. He's invented things that I have not stated or claimed, and basically made things up along the way.

I see that this thread has drifted from the topic of CIT's investigation about the Pentagon and we've not got mmiichael discussing his opinions of Middle-East policy. I hope that he doesn't try to claim twitters and bloggers to use as credible sources, as he has done in another thread.

EDIT: On the bottom of page 57, we have:

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm outta here after this.

So why did you return to a thread that you promised us you were leaving?


[edit on 31-10-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by pteridine

pteridine, welcome back to the thread.

You made some specific claims earlier in this thread that you have still not supported or retracted.

You claimed that airline passenger bodies were found strapped to seats.
You claimed that the light pole hit the taxi and you tried to use McGraw as a witness to this.

When can we all expect proof or a retraction from you?