[Peace-discuss] Pentagon

Tue Jun 26 13:16:24 CDT 2007

As I said before, you certainly have my condolences. My computer works just fine.

And to the moderators/gatekeepers of this list: If my conduct is egregious, I request that you kindly unsubscribe me.

"Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu> wrote:  Why is your e-mail post trying to run activeX scripts on my computer, 
binaries jackass?

Fixed so other users' computers won't think you're sending them a virus. 
Your routine non-attention to basic email list ettiquette forbidding 
binaries and scripts is once again non-appreciated.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Chuck Minne
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:21 AM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Pentagon

From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20070621/bs_prweb/prweb534642_1

New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon
Thu Jun 21, 3:01 AM ET

Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the 
Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77, which The 9/11 Report claims 
hit the Pentagon. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in 
direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts 
and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. 
This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 
9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.

ADVERTISEMENT

Madison, WI (PRWEB) June 21, 2007 - A study of the black box data provided 
by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous 
findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Surprise! lol Apparently the fact that a terrorist isn't going to 
bother with routine resetting of the altimeter skated right past these 
'pilots'. Of course, when your own woowoo group is doing its own woowoo 
analysis for its pet woowoos, anything goes.

http://www.aeroscholars.org/course-demo1/crs/lec_006/pag-002.php

Now all you need is the same results posted by a non-woowoo site. But I 
wouldn't hold my breath:

BTW, not even your fellow woowoos agree with this one:

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

The "no Boeing hit the Pentagon" claim is the most important and widespread 
9/11 hoax. It was probably set up before the event since seizing of 
surveillance camera videos within minutes of the crash. It is extremely 
unlikely that the conspirators who allowed (and assisted) 9/11 would not 
have taken care to create misdirecting hoaxes before the "attack," since 
they are very aware that large segments of the population would have 
suspicions about the events and therefore they would "need" to disrupt 
skeptical inquiry with red herrings, hoaxes, false dichotomies, etc.

This hoax is based on misrepresentation of photos taken shortly after the 
crash, ignoring of physical evidence and documented reports from hundreds of 
eyewitnesses who saw the plane. There is NO credible, verifiable evidence in 
support of ANY of the many and varied "theories" pretending that a plane did 
not crash into the Pentagon, and therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. See 
www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html for details.

It was first floated in early October 2001 by French author Thierry Meyssan 
and US War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Monsieur Meyssan started a webpage 
that suggested a plane did not hit the Pentagon on October 7, and Rumsfeld 
gave an interview to Parade magazine on October 12 where he said a "missile" 
hit the Pentagon. That "missile" quote was then used by many no plane 
advocates as part of the campaign to draw attention to this claim. Meyssan 
went on to create the "Hunt the Boeing" website and then published two books 
"The Horrifying Fraud" (published in English as "9/11 The Big Lie") and 
Pentagate. These books have been translated into a total of 28 languages, 
which ensures that they are the dominant version of the claim suggesting 
complicity or conspiracy that is seen around the world.

On September 4, 2004, two months before the pseudo Presidential election, 
Parade magazine claimed that this quote was a mis-statement and the sole 
source for the no plane hoaxes, thus dismissing 9/11 "truth" to an audience 
of millions of voters.

The biggest claim for the no plane hoax is that the "hole" in the facade of 
the Pentagon was supposedly too small to have been created by a 757. Many of 
these claims state that photos taken during the half hour between the crash 
and the collapse of that part of the building show a hole merely 16 to 18 
feet across. However, those photos have most of the damage obscured by 
firefighting foam and smoke -- the full hole was about 90 feet wide, and 
additional damage (from the wingtips) is visible for tens of feet beyond the 
hole. The impact on the outside of the building was the size and shape of 
the cross-section of a 757.

Perhaps the most intriguing claim from those who cling to the "no plane" 
claim is the fact that the Pentagon is hiding footage from the video 
surveillance cameras that filmed the event constitutes evidence that 
something other than Flight 77 hit the building. This suppression of 
evidence shows foreknowledge (since FBI agents who seized the film were 
immediately able to grab the videos), but not "no plane." Hotel workers who 
watched "their" video before it was seized saw the plane. And the hundreds 
of commuters and other bystanders who were in the area also saw the plane. 
The video is probably being withheld in a form of "reverse psychology" to 
get the skeptics to think the Pentagon is hiding something when they are 
not, which is needed to keep this hoax alive. Some 9/11 activists who 
disbelieve the "no plane" stuff think the Pentagon is planning to release 
"newly discovered" video of the plane hitting the building to discredit 9/11 
truth, but it is more likely that they are enjoying the spectacle of the 
activists discrediting themselves and 9/11 complicity in general. More 
important, they understand that if the "no plane" claims are extinguished, 
most of those focused on the "Pentagate" will shift their attention toward 
real evidence of complicity that the "no plane" stuff distracts from.

The eyewitnesses who had a good view of the event are unified in their 
reporting -- they saw a large, twin engine jet. Some had better views than 
others, some saw the crash, some had the final moment obscured from their 
vantage point. Some were stuck in traffic on nearby roads, others were 
outside. Some were military officials, others include cab drivers, ordinary 
commuters and even a Unitarian minister (a cross section of people normally 
found in northern Virginia during rush hour). Some hoaxers claim that the 
eyewitnesses are not reliable, and the "physical evidence" should be used 
instead -- except the physical evidence shows that Flight 77 definitely hit 
the Pentagon.

Hundreds (if not more) people saw the plane, and hundreds more participated 
in the cleanup and saw plane debris and bodies of the passengers. It is 
ridiculous to think that everyone in the vicinity (including the rush hour 
traffic) was somehow an agent or dupe of the "inside job" conspirators -- 
that would have expanded the needed size of the conspiracy to absurd levels, 
and the insinuation has helped ensure that the eyewitnesses, their families, 
friends, co-workers, etc. think that 9/11 skeptics are rude, insulting and 
generally making up nonsense. Cui bono? Who benefits?

Newsweek reported a few weeks after 9/11 that the "black boxes" from the 
plane were found, and that data would indicate how the plane was steered in 
its final moments in an incredible spiral dive into the nearly empty, 
recently reconstructed and strengthened sector of the Pentagon. The alleged 
hijacker, Mr. Hani Hanjour, flunked out of flight school and clearly did not 
have the skills to perform that maneuver. The fact that the plane flew 
around the Pentagon, past Donald Rumsfeld's office, past the National 
Military Command Center, and struck the least populated part suggests that 
whoever was at the controls wanted to ensure the minimal level of 
casualties. Would a "terrorist" have chosen to fly this way? Even an expert 
pilot would have had a hard time doing this. This is strong circumstantial 
evidence for remote control technology. Proving its use is probably 
impossible, but the technology is commercially available.This suggests that 
remote control technology of some sort was actually used to hijack the 
plane, and that the role of the "hijackers" may merely have been that of 
patsies. The black boxes would confirm or refute this theory, but most 9/11 
"conspiracy" investigators have fixated on the fleeting hope that the 
surveillance videos would be released (which would merely prove the obvious) 
while ignoring the hidden data that could actually prove something.

The "no plane" hoax discredited claims of complicity inside the Beltway 
among the general public and the political and military elites. Washington, 
DC voted 90% against Bush in 2004, and Arlington County (where the Pentagon 
is located) is the most Democratic constituency in the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. (The Republicans in the DC area are more concentrated in Fairfax 
County and other outer suburbs, especially those outside the Capitol 
Beltway.)

This hoax created a false dichotomy between "no plane" and "no complicity" 
when neither is true.

It is not a coincidence that many supporters of the official "surprise 
attack" story focus exclusively on the "no plane" theories when smearing 
9/11 skeptics. The "no plane at the Pentagon" has been the most successful 
disinformation meme used against the 9/11 truth movement, which distracts 
from the fact the Pentagon was hit in the mostly empty part, why the Air 
Force did not defend its own headquarters and the roles of the multiple war 
games run by the military and intelligence agencies that morning.

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

  But judge for yourself, don't be afraid, Watch This or This

---------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070626/5cd24c9a/attachment.html