Jesse Ventura: 911 Pentagon Attack

[Selene]

To clear up the Pentagon attack, it was hit by a missile. Not sure why this forum is 5 pages long. The Pentagon was hit by a missile. That should be the end of the story.

I would suggest that you see William's post number 69.

Post #35 and 47 are also generally relevant and then you can retract you statement.

Yeah I'm sure 9/11 myths debunked will present empirical evidence to the contrary. I will not retract my statement. Proving that the towers fell under their own weight or that the pentagon was hit by a plane is like proving the fallacies of the Bible. Many people attempt it and bring forth seemingly logical evidence but the truth remains the same.

And of course you possess the truth about the Pentagon, the Towers and Building Seven. Ok. Well I tried.

[basimpson22]

where is the fuselage, the wings, the tail? Did the plane completely burn up? Why were surveillance videos confiscated?

[basimpson22]

what did you try? To impose your opinion of how the pentagon attack happened with a single, and blatantly biased video? Yes, I suppose you tried.

[basimpson22]

And no, I don't possess the truth. The truth can be revealed through use of the scientific method that you, as a self-proclaimed Objectivist, pretend to uphold.

[basimpson22]

Hard to believe that mental programming by the state dates back prior to your adolescence. You may as well believe that the U.S. Government is ordained by God. There's no arguing with people like you.

[kane4]

Leiberman says that WTC 7 did not fall:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911-joe-lieberman-wtc-7-did-not-occur-i-do-not-support-a-new-investigation.html

I wonder how many Americans actually know about building 7? Or the fact that its fall was reported about a half hour before it actually happened.

Shayne

It was reported that day that Building 7 was empty, and they were warning people to get away from the building because they were going to demolish it. At least that's what I have in the notes I took in my Franklin Planner while listening to the news that day. I wish I had tape to prove it, but I don't.

[Jerry Biggers]

where is the fuselage, the wings, the tail? Did the plane completely burn up? Why were surveillance videos confiscated?

I don't know why (or if) the surveillance tapes were "confiscated." However, at least one surveillance tape has been shown on TV. And, slowed-down, it clearly shows the fuselage of the plane impacting the Pentagon building.

Now, of course, the tape could have been faked or otherwise altered. All sorts of barely implausible theories can be offered to "explain" past world events.

For example, "The moon landing never occured. The U. S. government faked it." This is at least as plausible as the 9-1-1 conspiracies. Among other reasons that this sort of conjecture is irrational, is that the Soviet Union, if they had evidence of such duplicity, would have just loved to broadcast the evidence to the world that the landing was faked. And the supposition that they would not have known, is not plausible since (as has been revealed since the Soviet Union collapsed and the KGB files were opened) it is clear that they had quite successfully compromised U.S. security on our most secret defense technology.

In any case, conspiracy theories are internally contradictory and self-defeating, if you work through the implications of what they are saying. An application of Occam's Razor (and Rand's Razor [Peikoff, OPAR, pp.139-141]) reduces this type of thinking to its baseless foundations. All of these theories require vast numbers of people in on the conspiracy, with absolute loyalty, and who never make a mistake, and these people never divulge anything. A highly unlikely scenario. Examples are "The Pentagon Papers" (from Daniel Ellsberg) and, most recently, and spectacularly, the recent Wiki-Leaks. Those revelations show how unlikely it is to be able to keep any state secret.

By the way, though, if you like these sort of "explanations," try Jonathan Vankin's books. They are a virtual compendium of almost all of the major conspiracy theories, and discuss where you can find even more juicy stuff. (Hmmm,...by the way, if any of these conspiracies existed, and they are so powerful and impenetrable, why would they allow themselves to be exposed in such books?).

On the other hand, the Objectivist in you might be interested in a more scholarly and reasonable discussion of this mindset, try Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From, by Daniel Pipes. The book was published in 1997 and should be in your local library (if they have not removed it, that is).

[sjw]

I prefer nutty conspiracy theorists to nutty ostriches. Of course, it's always better to be reasonable and to deal with all the evidence at hand, but often that isn't the alternative you get.

Much of the reason behind conspiracy theories is illegitimate government classification and secrecy. Also, it investigates itself, which is a recipe for disaster regardless of what kind of fantasy world you live in where government officials never do nefarious things.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Airplanes are almost completely made of aluminum which easily melts in a fire.

If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go to?

My theory is a duck flew into the building setting off a secondary explosion of illegally stored explosives to be used in a military coup.

--Brant

didn't you guys ever watch "Seven Days in May"?

[Jerry Biggers]

I prefer nutty conspiracy theorists to nutty ostriches. Of course, it's always better to be reasonable and to deal with all the evidence at hand, but often that isn't the alternative you get.

Much of the reason behind conspiracy theories is illegitimate government classification and secrecy. Also, it investigates itself, which is a recipe for disaster regardless of what kind of fantasy world you live in where government officials never do nefarious things.

Shayne

Most of which does not contradict what I just posted, above.

With the possible exception of your first sentence. If both the "conspriracy theorist" and the "ostrich" are "nutty," then neither brings you any closer to the truth.

Oops, I forgot to mention your premise in your next paragraph. Are you saying, for example, that the charges against Jefferson that he was an agent of the Illuminati was based on "illegitimate government classification?" Or, are you referring to more recent government commissions on, say, the Kennedy assasination or 9-1-1?

As for the government investigating itself as a "recipe for disaster," I would say that that depends on who is on the commission, and what evidence is presented to it. Instead of conspiracy, which requires that all members of the commission are "in" on it - and will bend the evidence to reach the conspirators' foregone conclusion, what you are more likely to see as a result is typical of large committee projects: consensus, compromise, and incoherance. Plus trainloads of "documentation" which gives the impression of thoroughness, but usually, when examined, does not prove the commission's conclusions. That's not a conspiracy, that's incompetance.

[Jerry Biggers]

Airplanes are almost completely made of aluminum which easily melts in a fire.

If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go to?

My theory is a duck flew into the building setting off a secondary explosion of illegally stored explosives to be used in a military coup.

--Brant

didn't you guys ever watch "Seven Days in May"?

No, the explosives are stored at Site Y (in the movie). Nowadays, that of course would have to be Area 51. ;)

BTW, where is "General James Matooon Scott" when we need him?

[sjw]

With the possible exception of your first sentence. If both the "conspriracy theorist" and the "ostrich" are "nutty," then neither brings you any closer to the truth.

Yeah but ostriches are way more annoying. I mean, if I'm going to pick a pet, it's not going to be an ostrich.

Oops, I forgot to mention your premise in your next paragraph. Are you saying, for example, that the charges against Jefferson that he was an agent of the Illuminati was based on "illegitimate government classification?" Or, are you referring to more recent government commissions on, say, the Kennedy assasination or 9-1-1?

As for the government investigating itself as a "recipe for disaster," I would say that that depends on who is on the commission, and what evidence is presented to it. Instead of conspiracy, which requires that all members of the commission are "in" on it - and will bend the evidence to reach the conspirators' foregone conclusion, what you are more likely to see as a result is typical of large committee projects: consensus, compromise, and incoherance. Plus trainloads of "documentation" which gives the impression of thoroughness, but usually, when examined, does not prove the commission's conclusions. That's not a conspiracy, that's incompetance.

This is wildly off point. Government is radically more secret than it should be. On 9/11 it didn't treat the situation as a crime scene, it destroyed evidence. It didn't allow third parties to investigate or access evidence. It keeps relevant documentation hidden. It doesn't show who profited from the stock trades that took place just prior to 9/11. And it has a long track record of doing nefarious things behind closed doors (that no ostrich cares about no matter how factual).

Shayne

[Jerry Biggers]

With the possible exception of your first sentence. If both the "conspriracy theorist" and the "ostrich" are "nutty," then neither brings you any closer to the truth.

Yeah but ostriches are way more annoying. I mean, if I'm going to pick a pet, it's not going to be an ostrich.

Oops, I forgot to mention your premise in your next paragraph. Are you saying, for example, that the charges against Jefferson that he was an agent of the Illuminati was based on "illegitimate government classification?" Or, are you referring to more recent government commissions on, say, the Kennedy assasination or 9-1-1?

As for the government investigating itself as a "recipe for disaster," I would say that that depends on who is on the commission, and what evidence is presented to it. Instead of conspiracy, which requires that all members of the commission are "in" on it - and will bend the evidence to reach the conspirators' foregone conclusion, what you are more likely to see as a result is typical of large committee projects: consensus, compromise, and incoherance. Plus trainloads of "documentation" which gives the impression of thoroughness, but usually, when examined, does not prove the commission's conclusions. That's not a conspiracy, that's incompetance.

This is wildly off point. Government is radically more secret than it should be. On 9/11 it didn't treat the situation as a crime scene, it destroyed evidence. It didn't allow third parties to investigate or access evidence. It keeps relevant documentation hidden. It doesn't show who profited from the stock trades that took place just prior to 9/11. And it has a long track record of doing nefarious things behind closed doors (that no ostrich cares about no matter how factual).

Shayne

"Yeah but ostriches are way more annoying. I mean, if I'm going to pick a pet, it's not going to be an ostrich".

- So you're considering keeping a conspiracy theorist as a pet?? I think you should forget about Jesse Ventura: he could be quite nasty about that idea.

Birchers, on the other hand, are quite tame. Moreover, they have the added benefit of actually being right on a lot of issues (politically and economically speaking, not necessarily the issues being discussed in this thread).

Some of the 9-1-1 "truthers" seem to want to look at anyone but radical Muslims. If the government (ours) is covering-up anyone involved in planning 9-1-1, it's likely Saudi interests.

Also, some "truthers" could also be in it for the money. Or they could be advancing the interests of Osama bi Laden's backers and friends in the Middle East. And Ventura is a clown. His "show" is embarrassingly contrived. But don't get him for a pet!

[sjw]

"Yeah but ostriches are way more annoying. I mean, if I'm going to pick a pet, it's not going to be an ostrich".

- So you're considering keeping a conspiracy theorist as a pet?? I think you should forget about Jesse Ventura: he could be quite nasty about that idea.

Birchers, on the other hand, are quite tame. Moreover, they have the added benefit of actually being right on a lot of issues (politically and economically speaking, not necessarily the issues being discussed in this thread).

Some of the 9-1-1 "truthers" seem to want to look at anyone but radical Muslims. If the government (ours) is covering-up anyone involved in planning 9-1-1, it's likely Saudi interests.

Also, some "truthers" could also be in it for the money. Or they could be advancing the interests of Osama bi Laden's backers and friends in the Middle East. And Ventura is a clown. His "show" is embarrassingly contrived. But don't get him for a pet!

You should worry less about conspiracy theorists and particular conspiracy theories and more about the fact that your government conceals relevant information from you.

Shayne

[sjw]

Nothing to see here folks, it's just evidence of your government planning behind closed doors to suspend the Constitution:

http://www.slate.com/id/2176185

Shayne

[algernonsidney]

With all this talk about "razors," I might add that we should be using Hanlon's Razor as well. The gist of Hanlon's Razor is: "Never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity."

There are many questions which American should be asking regarding the fateful events of 11 September 2001. For me, the most important is: where are flight recorders? There were four of them, and the feds claim that none have been found. And it is extremely rare that flight recorders are not found when a plane crashes over land. Here is a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders

It seems to me that a serious investigation was never tried. That often indicates that someone is trying to cover up something.

Personally, I do not believe that it is possible to prove or disprove whether or not the buildings were brought down by explosives. Engineers themselves seem to have conflicting theories on this, too.

The Pentagon being hit by a missile claim is totally absurd. That's simply based on the fact there were so many people there. I do sometimes wonder if these people are trying purposely to discredit legitimate conspiracy theorists.

My theory is that the attack was ALLOWED TO HAPPEN ON PURPOSE, much like Pearl Harbor. The fact that the planes were not intercepted is clearly evidence. In fact, it seems that no attempt was made to stop them even though it was clear that they had been hijacked.

One of the arguments I constantly from apologists for the warfare state is: "If there was a conspiracy, how come nobody has come forward?" Actually people have come forward to say that the federal government was at least negligent with regard to preventing the attacks. And there are also plenty of conspiracies which have stayed secrets. How is it that Colonel Sanders's recipe of "eleven herbs and spices" has stayed a secret all these years?

Ultimately, the burden of proof is always on the believer.And disproving one person's theory does not prove yours.

It's more important to ask how and why people would try to benefit from this terrible tragedy. I sincerely do believe that people like Cheney and Rumsfield wanted something like this to happen, even though I do not know them personally. To paraphrase Randolph Bourne: "The date of 11 September 2001 was the health of the state." It was a colossal failure of the state at doing its alleged job--protecting the people. It was used to justify massive expansion of military and police state. And after it happened, the overwhelming majority of Americans put more trust in government than they ever had in my lifetime. Not to mention, I have seen people that I used to respect go absolutely insane.

[sjw]

My theory is that the attack was ALLOWED TO HAPPEN ON PURPOSE, much like Pearl Harbor. The fact that the planes were not intercepted is clearly evidence. In fact, it seems that no attempt was made to stop them even though it was clear that they had been hijacked.

[Jerry Biggers]

My theory is that the attack was ALLOWED TO HAPPEN ON PURPOSE, much like Pearl Harbor. The fact that the planes were not intercepted is clearly evidence. In fact, it seems that no attempt was made to stop them even though it was clear that they had been hijacked.

First of all, the excerpt presented here from the 9-1-1 comission hearings, does not establish why the planes were not in fact shot down. Perhaps this was answered more fully later in the testimony (or other testimony).

Stating a theory that the attacks were "ALLOWED TO HAPPEN ON PURPOSE," without providing any corroborating evidence, establishes nothing. It is merely an assertion. It is just another theory to be considered, along with all the others.

"The fact that the planes were not shot down is clearly evidence." If you are stating that that proves the prior assertion, it does not.

There are many reasons why the planes were not shot down. Were the fighters close enough to get a clear shot? Were these fighters carrying missiles that had a high probability of accurately hitting the plane before it crashed?

More importantly, consider this: When was the last time that an American fighter was issued and carried out a command to shoot down any commercial aircraft? Answer: never. There was no precedent for this action. Consider what was going through the minds of those who would have had to give this order. Regarding the attack on the World Trade Centers, prior to their striking the buildings, there was no reason at all to believe that that was what the hijackers had in mind. When has that happened before? Answer: again, never. They (the fighters) could hardly shoot down a fully-loaded commercial airliner if there was any reasonable belief that the hijackers would follow what all prior hijackers had done (i.e., land the plane and demand some type of ransom). The scenario that an American fighter would do that is absurd, given the above.

In the case of the attack on the Pentagon and also Flight 93 in Pennsylvanis, if the fighter pilots and the ground controller did in fact know by that time what had happened in New York, there would still be hesitancy abut whether shooting down the airliners was a rational alternative. (this is assuming that the fighters were, in fact, close enough to score a direct hit prior to the crashes). In the Washington case, if the fighter had actually shot down the airliner over that densely populated area, would that cause even more death than in fact occured? I would say that the answer is quite likely, yes, the destruction could have been much more extensive (or the fighter could have missed its target and caused widespread damage on the ground (that does occur. Missiles don't always hit their intended target).

Now consider the ground controller, and it does not matter if he is military or Vice President Cheney. They know that they will be held responsible for that action. What do you think would be the reaction of the American populace, the media, and of lawmakers, to that action? Imagine the headlines: "Cheney gives order to shoot down commercial airliner! Thousands killed on the ground by the plane's falling wreckage." "Did Cheney have proof that the hijackers intended to hit the Pentagon?" "Did Cheney's Action Cause An Even Worse Death Scene?", etc., etc.

Knowing that the consequences of giving the order to shoot down the airliner could easily result in even more widespread destruction, would you give the order to shoot it down?

Further, blaming U.S. government officials as complicit with, or "allowing" the attacks, while ignoring those who clearly did organize and commit this atrocity, is ignoring what is staring you in the face.

I may be mistaken, but it sounds like Osama bin Laden (and his wealthy radical/wahabi Islamic supporters) is being let off the hook (Or, the U.S. government is somehow in league with, or otherwise protecting governments and/or other powerful interests in the Middle East that it knows were responsible for the attacks).

If the first assertion is being claimed, how is it explained that, on several occasions, Osama has bragged about being responsible for the attacks, in video and audio recorded comments. Or are you going to claim that these admissions were concocted?

If, on the other hand, if it is being claimed that other Middle East interests/governments are being "protected" by our government from being linked with 9-1-1, that is partially plausible. However,the reasons for that would not necessarily mean the our government planned, aided, had prior explicit kowledge of, or somehow participated in, the 9-1-1 attacks.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[Jerry Biggers]

With all this talk about "razors," I might add that we should be using Hanlon's Razor as well. The gist of Hanlon's Razor is: "Never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity."

There are many questions which American should be asking regarding the fateful events of 11 September 2001. For me, the most important is: where are flight recorders? There were four of them, and the feds claim that none have been found. And it is extremely rare that flight recorders are not found when a plane crashes over land. Here is a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders

It seems to me that a serious investigation was never tried. That often indicates that someone is trying to cover up something.

Personally, I do not believe that it is possible to prove or disprove whether or not the buildings were brought down by explosives. Engineers themselves seem to have conflicting theories on this, too.

The Pentagon being hit by a missile claim is totally absurd. That's simply based on the fact there were so many people there. I do sometimes wonder if these people are trying purposely to discredit legitimate conspiracy theorists.

My theory is that the attack was ALLOWED TO HAPPEN ON PURPOSE, much like Pearl Harbor. The fact that the planes were not intercepted is clearly evidence. In fact, it seems that no attempt was made to stop them even though it was clear that they had been hijacked.

One of the arguments I constantly from apologists for the warfare state is: "If there was a conspiracy, how come nobody has come forward?" Actually people have come forward to say that the federal government was at least negligent with regard to preventing the attacks. And there are also plenty of conspiracies which have stayed secrets. How is it that Colonel Sanders's recipe of "eleven herbs and spices" has stayed a secret all these years?

Ultimately, the burden of proof is always on the believer.And disproving one person's theory does not prove yours.

It's more important to ask how and why people would try to benefit from this terrible tragedy. I sincerely do believe that people like Cheney and Rumsfield wanted something like this to happen, even though I do not know them personally. To paraphrase Randolph Bourne: "The date of 11 September 2001 was the health of the state." It was a colossal failure of the state at doing its alleged job--protecting the people. It was used to justify massive expansion of military and police state. And after it happened, the overwhelming majority of Americans put more trust in government than they ever had in my lifetime. Not to mention, I have seen people that I used to respect go absolutely insane.

Chris,

At the start of your post, you suggest Hanlon's Razor: "With all this talk about "razors," I might add that we should be using Hanlon's Razor as well. The gist of Hanlon's Razor is: 'Never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity.'"

Excellant point. But why do you then proceed as if you never said that, in the rest of your post?

Edited March 9, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[sjw]

First of all, the excerpt presented here from the 9-1-1 comission hearings, does not establish why the planes were not in fact shot down. Perhaps this was answered more fully later in the testimony (or other testimony).

Stating a theory that the attacks were "ALLOWED TO HAPPEN ON PURPOSE," without providing any corroborating evidence, establishes nothing. It is merely an assertion. It is just another theory to be considered, along with all the others.

"The fact that the planes were not shot down is clearly evidence." If you are stating that that proves the prior assertion, it does not.

There are many reasons why the planes were not shot down. Were the fighters close enough to get a clear shot? Were these fighters carrying missiles that had a high probability of accurately hitting the plane before it crashed?

More importantly, consider this: When was the last time that an American fighter was issued and carried out a command to shoot down any commercial aircraft? Answer: never. There was no precedent for this action. Consider what was going through the minds of those who would have had to give this order. Regarding the attack on the World Trade Centers, prior to their striking the buildings, there was no reason at all to believe that that was what the hijackers had in mind. When has that happened before? Answer: again, never. They (the fighters) could hardly shoot down a fully-loaded commercial airliner if there was any reasonable belief that the hijackers would follow what all prior hijackers had done (i.e., land the plane and demand some type of ransom). The scenario that an American fighter would do that is absurd, given the above.

In the case of the attack on the Pentagon and also Flight 93 in Pennsylvanis, if the fighter pilots and the ground controller did in fact know by that time what had happened in New York, there would still be hesitancy abut whether shooting down the airliners was a rational alternative. (this is assuming that the fighters were, in fact, close enough to score a direct hit prior to the crashes). In the Washington case, if the fighter had actually shot down the airliner over that densely populated area, would that cause even more death than in fact occured? I would say that the answer is quite likely, yes, the destruction could have been much more extensive (or the fighter could have missed its target and caused widespread damage on the ground (that does occur. Missiles don't always hit their intended target).

Now consider the ground controller, and it does not matter if he is military or Vice President Cheney. They know that they will be held responsible for that action. What do you think would be the reaction of the American populace, the media, and of lawmakers, to that action? Imagine the headlines: "Cheney gives order to shoot down commercial airliner! Thousands killed on the ground by the plane's falling wreckage." "Did Cheney have proof that the hijackers intended to hit the Pentagon?" "Did Cheney's Action Cause An Even Worse Death Scene?", etc., etc.

Knowing that the consequences of giving the order to shoot down the airliner could easily result in even more widespread destruction, would you give the order to shoot it down?

Further, blaming U.S. government officials as complicit with, or "allowing" the attacks, while ignoring those who clearly did organize and commit this atrocity, is ignoring what is staring you in the face.

I may be mistaken, but it sounds like Osama bin Laden (and his wealthy radical/wahabi Islamic supporters) is being let off the hook (Or, the U.S. government is somehow in league with, or otherwise protecting governments and/or other powerful interests in the Middle East that it knows were responsible for the attacks).

If the first assertion is being claimed, how is it explained that, on several occasions, Osama has bragged about being responsible for the attacks, in video and audio recorded comments. Or are you going to claim that these admissions were concocted?

If, on the other hand, if it is being claimed that other Middle East interests/governments are being "protected" by our government from being linked with 9-1-1, that is partially plausible. However,the reasons for that would not necessarily mean the our government planned, aided, had prior explicit kowledge of, or somehow participated in, the 9-1-1 attacks.

Evidently you have quite an appetite for conspiracy theories, but I don't, so I'm not going to get into this with you. Mainly what I want is government transparency and accountability and I see most conspiracy theories in that light.

The lesson here ought to be: if you want to be trusted, be trustworthy. It seems a simple enough point, and one that an Objectivist in particular ought to be able to grasp, but I guess the anti-conspiracy meme wins out over the pro-individual, pro-justice meme.

Shayne

[algernonsidney]

Stating a theory that the attacks were "ALLOWED TO HAPPEN ON PURPOSE," without providing any corroborating evidence, establishes nothing. It is merely an assertion. It is just another theory to be considered, along with all the others.

Well, who shorted all those stocks, particularly stock in American Airlines and United Airlines? It is impossible to prove what is or what is not in someone's head at a particular time.

There are many reasons why the planes were not shot down. Were the fighters close enough to get a clear shot? Were these fighters carrying missiles that had a high probability of accurately hitting the plane before it crashed?

Did you read my original comment? I referred to the fact that they were not intercepted. I said nothing about not shooting them down. I imagine they didn't want to shoot them down because they knew there were innocent people on board.

More importantly, consider this: When was the last time that an American fighter was issued and carried out a command to shoot down any commercial aircraft? Answer: never. There was no precedent for this action.

This is another response to fantasy comments--comments that I did not make, but you have fantasized that I made them.

Actually, I do believe that Flight 93 was shot down. There is at least one case of a person on a cell phone on the plane claiming that he heard an explosion.

Further, blaming U.S. government officials as complicit with, or "allowing" the attacks, while ignoring those who clearly did organize and commit this atrocity, is ignoring what is staring you in the face (and I'm bending over backwards to be as kind as I can).

Do you worship US government officials? Do you see them as some type of gods who are incapable of doing anything wrong? Do you believe that they are angels who are always good and righteous?

Who said anything about "ignoring those who clearly did organize and commit this atrocity"?

There is an excellent precedent for this. It's called Pearl Harbor. The feds had already broken the Japanese codes. Roosevelt knew that it was going to happen as well. In fact, this has become a mainstream opinion.

Now, I can and do accept the fact that Japanese fighter planes attacked Pearl Harbor. I can also believe that FDR knew that it was going to happen. Saying that FDR knew that it was going to happen has nothing to do with who did it. It also does not imply that they were working together. What it does mean is that FDR wanted to do things and that he needed a crisis to make those things possible. It's like something that a little troll named Rahm Emanuel said: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

[kiaer.ts]

To clear up the Pentagon attack, it was hit by a missile. Not sure why this forum is 5 pages long. The Pentagon was hit by a missile. That should be the end of the story.

I love posts like this. Nothing could be more revelatory or clarifying. With some people you wonder whether they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Posts like these put such concerns to rest permanently.

[sjw]

To clear up the Pentagon attack, it was hit by a missile. Not sure why this forum is 5 pages long. The Pentagon was hit by a missile. That should be the end of the story.

I love posts like this. Nothing could be more revelatory or clarifying. With some people you wonder whether they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Posts like these put such concerns to rest permanently.

Ironic.

Shayne

[basimpson22]

To clear up the Pentagon attack, it was hit by a missile. Not sure why this forum is 5 pages long. The Pentagon was hit by a missile. That should be the end of the story.

I love posts like this. Nothing could be more revelatory or clarifying. With some people you wonder whether they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Posts like these put such concerns to rest permanently.

Lol! This post was intended to stir the pot up a bit and hopefully raise a few peoples' blood pressure. I knew people would be aghast by it. Anyways, Below I am posting a somewhat lengthy video. This video goes into length about the plane's flight path. Its very interesting. I hope people will take the time to watch. Its about the length of the average movie. There are so many good points brought forward in this video. They even address the Purdue study. And the farther you get into the video the more interesting it gets. Pls Pls watch. Starting between 25-30 mins are two eyewitness accounts by officers of the law. This is very convincing in my opinion.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Aristocrates

[basimpson22]

Airplanes are almost completely made of aluminum which easily melts in a fire.

If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go to?

My theory is a duck flew into the building setting off a secondary explosion of illegally stored explosives to be used in a military coup.

--Brant

didn't you guys ever watch "Seven Days in May"?

I'll give you a blue tip wrench and time you on melting a boeing 757. Hell, I'll give you a flame thrower and time you. We'll call it, "make the boeing disappear". Now come on Brant! Why don't you but a little effort into your defense? That must explain the towers too since they were made of aluminum. No, they were made of tin right?! That's how they collapsed in on themselves. They were built with progressively more massive tin so the heaviest point of the building was at the top. Yep, that explains why both buildings collapsed on themselves. Thank you Brant. Really, truly, I've been blessed to learn that an objectivist best and most irrefutable arguments are those made purely of sarcasm.