Title: The Real Question
Description: why was it hit where it was hit
richardhw - October 13, 2006 05:49 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.
He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.
"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.
Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.
From The Pittsburg Post Gazette, December 20, 2001: "One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck."
The Arlington County After-Action Report noted that the "impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area." And Insight Magazine editorialized that "the Department of the Army, headed by former Enron executive Thomas White, had an excuse [for not making a full accounting]. In a shocking appeal to sentiment it says it didn't publish a "stand-alone" financial statement for 2001 because of "the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack." |
A day of coincidences ... they had to make it do some serious turns around the whole pentagon to get it to hit the right place!
Oceans Flow - October 13, 2006 06:10 AM (GMT)
If the "plane" had hit the other side, it would have destroyed Rumsfeld's office, and he was in it. :rolleyes:
Skorzeny - October 13, 2006 02:05 PM (GMT)
There are just too many coincidences. What are the odds that the airplane could hit those five light poles like they say it did, and not hit any others? And then hit that generator thing on the lawn, and hit that exact spot on the wall? And what are the odds that the security camera just happened to take its picture while the object in question was hidden behind a toll gate pedestal?
If you multiply out all these probabilities, it's very nearly zero probability that the airplane did what the government says it did.
George Hayduke - October 13, 2006 02:31 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (richardhw @ Oct 13 2006, 05:49 AM) |
http://www.oilempire.us/trillions.html
| QUOTE | "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.
He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.
"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.
Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.
From The Pittsburg Post Gazette, December 20, 2001: "One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck."
The Arlington County After-Action Report noted that the "impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area." And Insight Magazine editorialized that "the Department of the Army, headed by former Enron executive Thomas White, had an excuse [for not making a full accounting]. In a shocking appeal to sentiment it says it didn't publish a "stand-alone" financial statement for 2001 because of "the loss of financial-management personnel sustained during the Sept. 11 terrorist attack." |
A day of coincidences ... they had to make it do some serious turns around the whole pentagon to get it to hit the right place!
|
According to many sources, bombs went off in the rooms housing the auditors' work stations and computers at 9:32. Time froze, literally. Clocks plummeted from the wall and in other instances batteries were shaken lose, stopping several clocks around the building at 9:32. Witnesses report mayhem then breaking loose, with people running for cover screaming, "bombs!" Then you have the Pentagon personnel smelling cordite. So the case that bombs went off inside the Pentagon at 9:32 cannot easily be marginalized. What one writer has suggested is that the bombs went off and the fires that ensued were honed in on by whatever hit the Pentagon. Heat-seeking whatever.
Note that the Pentagon officially has 9:37 as the time of impact. Meanwhile 9:37 is also the time that the Air Force has a reconnaisance plane flying low over the Pentagon to assess the damage. The AF plane reported seeing no Boeing. One theory I like has the Pentagon asserting that the blip represented by the the AF reconnaissance jet being F77. This makes sense b/c the Pentagon's initial estimate of the time of impact was 9:43. Well, no FAA radar reconstructions had blips in the area at that time. The closest thing was a blip passing over the Pentagon at 9:37, a blip that FAA radar geeks said they thought was a "military plane." So the Pentagon changes its story and the time of impact.
The theory goes on to say that the bombs went off either simultaneous with or followed shortly by some sort of impact.
I don't know. I'm just a messanger.
Check out the WTC 7 room. There is a thread there where we are discussing AMECO, the company hired by DoD and Silverstein to "rennovate" WTC and the Pentagon with a deadline of, you guessed it, Sept. If that info checks out, we've probably got a company that can be added to our short list of suspects.
Method - October 13, 2006 02:37 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (George Hayduke @ Oct 13 2006, 10:31 AM) |
I don't know. I'm just a messanger.
|
.. but George you're so much more than that!!! I can't hold it in any longer!
:P
George Hayduke - October 13, 2006 03:02 PM (GMT)
Shucks method, this really isn't the place ...
Logic - October 13, 2006 10:08 PM (GMT)
Skorzeny - I'm not trying to disagree too much with you, but some of the things you mention do not have to all be pre-planned. I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just saying, the polls and generator could have been just luck by the angle of attack. The location at the pentagon is something that seems planned more than anything. If it was planned, I guess you could state that all damage was, but if you were to look at this with an open mind and state it was exactly what the offical story was, then the rest of the damage could have been caused exactly like it was stated.
I think the location was planned personally, the generator creates a smoke screen and more damage than what really happened, which when introduced into the entire situation, seems that the generator makes the viewer on tv see smoke that isn't actually from the pentagon, yet when it happened, it looked as though more damage was caused than what actually happened. That means, yes it could have been all figured in the flight path to target. I just want people to know, that the damage could have been caused by luck as well, so you have to look at it on both sides to be fair.
abcd - October 14, 2006 10:42 PM (GMT)
Thanks for sharing richardhw!
Thats one hell of a coincidence. I feel this should be on every 9-11 video.
BTW heres the video-Rumsfeld sayin that the Pentagon could not track $2.3 trillion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...+trillion&hl=enAnother one McKinney grills Rumsfeld
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU waterdancer - October 15, 2006 02:15 AM (GMT)
I can't seem to get youtube videos to play all the way through lately. Does that one by any chance have C McKinney's wargames question on it? It would probably be near the end, based on the transcript I've seen. I'm still waiting to hear on whether or not 9/11 was a national special security event.
fretwire - October 15, 2006 06:37 AM (GMT)
I have a question.
Why would hijackers fly an airplane into the side of the building (presuming this is true), where you have a small window to hit the building without hitting the ground when the pilot could crash into the top of the building at any angle and do massive damage?