Motive For Flyover?, Why fly a plane over the pentagon instead of just crash it into it Options

[dMz]

An interesting motif albert. (That the dems and reps are crawling around like fleas in a 2D political "flatland"). I just saw "off the table" Pelosi on Keith Olbermann's show talking about Leahy's new inquiry into the Bushit crimes. Pelosi speaks with forked tongue. Keith does not.

I think several members here have left the 2D "political plane" as it were, and that 3rd political dimension truly is a "red pill." The late Anthony Sutton's books pulled me off that political plane. I think only one of the things I voted for actually passed, and that was a local initiative. I think I have managed to make both of my red state Senators' "black lists" though.

For those not familiar with Abbot's wonderful novel, there is a new movie version out.

Here is the trailer:
http://www.flatlandthemovie.com/

The novel:
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/

You know, back when I read Orwell's 1984 in school, I never would have dreamed that I would be living it a few decades later here in the good ol' US of A. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/nonono.gif)

[saturnaspider]

I know you're gonna sock me for using Szymanski (Arctic Beacon) but he happens to be another journalist who went against the grain to cover this Depleted Uranium issue. Here's a snip from his reporting:

(August 18, 2005 ) — A radiation expert and high-ranking Army Major, who once headed the military’s depleted uranium project, both contend the Pentagon was hit by missile, not a commercial jetliner, adding high radiation readings after the strike indicate depleted uranium also may have been used.

“I’m not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used,” said radiation expert Leuren Moret in a telephone conversation this week from her Berkeley, CA home.

Moret, who has spent a life time working in the nuclear field, first as a staff scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory in California, is now a member of The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a privately funded group studying the devastating effects of depleted uranium especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regarding the missile theory, it is also backed up by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke, a PhD educational physics and former top military expert banished from the Pentagon after the military failed to follow regulations regarding the use, clean up and medical treatment regarding the use of depleted uranium.

“When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile‚s impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile,” said Maj. Rokke from his Rantoul, IL home this week. “And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.

I, personally speaking, will give "time of day" to the opinion of "A high ranking Army Major who headed up the military's Depleted Uranium project."

Thanks in advance for bearing with me on this, Saturna. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[amazed!]

Painter & Craig

Sorry for the late reply. Regarding the value of the parking lot video, and so much of the other "evidence", it seems to me that there are basically 2 possibilities: it is accurate, valid and meaningful and NOT manipulated, or the opposite.

Considering that there were 2 releases of this video, the first release and then a subsequent release of more footage that came out as the government response to the growing public skepticism about the official story, one must try to discover the true meaning of this second release. That second release came shortly after I became aware of the deception on the government's part.

In other words, if the video was intended to be misinformation from the beginning, and manipulated accordingly, why have this second release of what was nothing but another second or 2 of footage? Why not simply release the misinformation from the start as a complete package?

OTOH, if the footage happens to be valid and unmanipulated, it seems to show some sort of flying object other than a 757.

Frankly, I don't give a damn. It's just another trivial detail that can be easily dismissed without effecting the overall conclusion reached from all the other evidence::::there was no Boeing there.

[amazed!]

Albert

How right you are about the propaganda machine. Manipulation of the public perception is a full time job for quite a few employees. I can only speculate, but my guess is that there are people whose job description includes "advancing govt agenda on internet fora". And yes, there are some rabid ones. Kinda reminds me of The Lucifer Effect so quickly induced by Philip Zimbardo back at Stanford.

But what I wonder is from what part of man comes the notion behind dogma? By dogma I mean things simply NOT to be questioned. Any given concept or belief becomes the truth and only the truth--where in the human psyche does that originate?

All things considered, is the internet a tool for mind benders? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[saturnaspider]

Painter & Craig
(Re: the Pentagon CCTV frames) "there are basically 2 possibilities: it is accurate, valid and meaningful and NOT manipulated, or the opposite"

"if the footage happens to be valid and unmanipulated, it seems to show some sort of flying object other than a 757"

It seems, to my eyes, to the show absence of either a plane or its ground shadow and to show the presence of an exhaust plume from a "Self-Censored by Poster!".

BTW: these eyes are not untrained. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)

[dMz]

This speculative thread is a disaster IMHO (it has devolved into 4-6 different topics). Does the staff want to just close it, move it to debate, or ??

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Painter & Craig

Sorry for the late reply. Regarding the value of the parking lot video, and so much of the other "evidence", it seems to me that there are basically 2 possibilities: it is accurate, valid and meaningful and NOT manipulated, or the opposite.

Considering that there were 2 releases of this video, the first release and then a subsequent release of more footage that came out as the government response to the growing public skepticism about the official story, one must try to discover the true meaning of this second release. That second release came shortly after I became aware of the deception on the government's part.

In other words, if the video was intended to be misinformation from the beginning, and manipulated accordingly, why have this second release of what was nothing but another second or 2 of footage? Why not simply release the misinformation from the start as a complete package?

OTOH, if the footage happens to be valid and unmanipulated, it seems to show some sort of flying object other than a 757.

Frankly, I don't give a damn. It's just another trivial detail that can be easily dismissed without effecting the overall conclusion reached from all the other evidence::::there was no Boeing there.

This post completely underscores how you are missing the point.

ALL "evidence" that has been sequestered, controlled, and provided for solely by the suspect is INVALID whether or not it can be proven to be manipulated.

No truth seeker would accept it or use it as a basis for ANY conclusions other than to show that it is fraudulent as P4T has the NTSB data.

But this security video reeks of manipulation on many levels.

This is basic logic given the nature of the crime we are investigating and the ultimate power, authority, and resources of the suspect in question.

CIT has worked tirelessly to provide independent verifiable evidence.

It proves a deception.

How can that not be enough for you?

Why would you insist on speculating over government controlled information in light of what we have obtained?

There is ZERO logic in that behavior and it is very harmful to what we have worked so hard to accomplish thus far.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

This speculative thread is a disaster IMHO (it has devolved into 4-6 different topics). Does the staff want to just close it, move it to debate, or ??

Agreed.

To the debate section it goes.

[scott75]

On the other hand, if someone found out that explosives were used instead of the planes, there'd be a fairly large problem; a problem that wouldn't exist if the plane did it.

Unless you are willing to suggest that the WTC wasn't a controlled demolition, it's clear that they were willing to take that risk that would be much more easy to pull off in the completely secure and controlled environment of the Pentagon under the guise of the renovation that had been going on for years but was conveniently scheduled to be complete the week of 9/11.

Ok. I think there's very compelling evidence that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolition by the way.

However, there's another issue here- if the plane was a drone, then the debris wouldn't match up with flight 77. But then the question becomes, why use a drone?

There is no evidence for a drone or missile or anything at all hitting the Pentagon so this is not an issue.

I know, I just thought at the time that it might have been easier to have Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon then to have explosives do it, but I think that paranoia brought up a lot of good potential reasons in post 33.

I've re-read what you wrote in your response to the OP back in post 3 and realize that you explained why you believe they did the flyover instead of simply crashing the plane into the building there as well. Sorry about that :-).