Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, stillrobertpaulsen, Jeff

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby apeguia » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:33 pm

<br>Hi, I'm new at the board. On the old debate about what hit the Pentagon on 9/11, I stand on the side of those who think it was NOT Flight 77.<br><br>I thought I would contribute with an article that I found interesting:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm">signs-of-the-times.org/si...rticle.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I'm not posting the whole thing here cause it's too long, and besides it has lots of images.<br><br>I would be happy to read your opinions, if any.<br><br>A. <p></p><i></i>
apeguia
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby Byrne » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:49 pm

Just in case anyone else needs convincing.........View the Flash Presentation at <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/" target="top">www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Byrne
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby Qutb » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:59 pm

The fact that some people view a slick flash presentation such as the "pentagonstrike" as convincing, is part of the problem. <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby Byrne » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:05 pm

Part of WHOSE problem???<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Byrne
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who's problem indeed ?

Postby slimmouse » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:12 pm

<br> I was listening to late night radio a short while ago, and the subject was a discussion about what happened at the Pentagon. The Host was convinced ( like myself, and many others ) that there was no Plane.<br><br> But for those who see this as a red herring of course what accompanied this phone in was a plethera of information about the concrete intangible lies surrounding the whole official version of the entire 9/11 official liefest.<br><br> My point being that this issue acted as a stimulus for debate where more nitty gritty stuff can be brought into the public domain. <br><br>There can only be one group of people for whom this creates a problem, and it sure as hell isnt the 9/11 truth movement. <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Who's problem indeed ?

Postby Qutb » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:19 pm

The problem of people believing things like "no plane hit the Pentagon". <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby Rigorous Intuition » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:26 pm

I can't afford the time today to get dragged into another fractious thread, but I have to say I agree with Qutb: it <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>is</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> a problem.<br><br>I've posted a number of times on the blog about the mistake of constructing 9/11 "truth" upon the sand of physical evidence. The "no plane" hypothesis (more than a hypothesis for many; more like an unforgiving creed) is one of the most egregious missteps. One I believe encouraged, if not led, by COINTELPRO.<br><br>I hesitated weighing in here because I don't want to give the impression I'm "shutting down" discussion. Far from it. There ought to be room for disagreement when speculating about the mechanics of 9/11. I hope those who believe they <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>know</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> what happened will allow such a discussion without descending to personal attack and presumption of "disinfo." <p></p><i></i>
Rigorous Intuition
 
Posts: 1744
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby Gouda » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:43 pm

You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can however, can tuna fish. No chance that you can teach a fish to play piano. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby NewKid » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:52 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I hope those who believe they <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>know</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> what happened will allow such a discussion without descending to personal attack and presumption of "disinfo." <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Agreed. But that should work both ways. Anyone who thinks they "know" a plane did hit the Pentagon has the same problem. <br><br>Pictures of rusted wheels on websites, giant diet-pepsi-can-looking objects, and inconsisent triple hearsay from Gannett reporters are great and all, but let's be honest and say maybe the jury's still out on this. <br><br>Is there really a difference between whether a 757 did hit and someone wants you to think it didn't, or one didn't hit and someone wants to you to think it did? <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby Rigorous Intuition » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:00 pm

Sure, there should be respect on both sides.<br><br>There is more than "triple hearsay from Gannett reporters." For instance, I respect the judgement of Mae Brussell disciple John Judge, and he has <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/notAllCequal.html">this</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> to say:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>How do I know Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? First, local news immediately interviewed and broadcast eyewitness accounts of the plane going in. I have since interviewed many local people who watched the plane and even ducked as it flew so low overhead. The Pentagon has not released footage of it, and the local news media did not catch the moment as they had in New York City. It was not for lack of knowing it was coming, they had told us that a good 35-40 minutes ahead.<br><br>Second, I was convinced I had lost a dear friend and fellow assassination researcher that day, who was a regular flight attendant on Flight 77 from Dulles to LAX. Thankfully, she was home with her ailing father and was not killed. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>She was taken with other ground crew and attendants who worked that route to see the damage at the Pentagon, and she recognized parts of the plane she had flown so often.<br><br>There was rubble and remains despite your claims. She was shown autopsy photos of her fellow crew members, including the severed arm of her best friend at work, which she recognized from the bracelet she wore.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 3/2/06 1:01 pm<br></i>
Rigorous Intuition
 
Posts: 1744
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby dbeach » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:04 pm

UAV unmanned aeriel vehicles have been around since 1940s<br><br>Tesla demonstrated remote controlled motor boats in 1898.<br><br>Itis possible thata remote controlled plane was used on 9/11.<br><br>Dov Zacheim the pentagon comptroller who discovered the missing trillions from the pentagon budget which was announced on 9/10/01 by rummy has left federal service for his private business which BTW is remote controlled aircraft.<br><br>Heck of a coincidence. <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby NewKid » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:09 pm

Um, don't know enough about Judge to really comment, but on the friend, I'm still not impressed. <br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>John Judge is one name that immediately comes to mind here. Judge is, as most readers are probably aware, a veteran researcher who is revered in many 'conspiracy' circles. He is not only a current resident of the nation's capitol, but a native son as well. In fact, he literally grew up in the Pentagon, as he is fond of telling people. If any alternative journalist knows his way around the Pentagon, it is John Judge. <br><br><br>Perhaps more so than anyone else, John Judge was in a position to serve as a whistleblower. But John Judge was also ideally positioned to fill another role: upholder of the official story within the so-called 'truth movement,' and denouncer of anyone who dared to question the veracity of that official story. Ever since questions first began to arise about what really happened at the Pentagon, John Judge has filled the latter role.<br><br>Judge is smart enough to realize that he can't possibly come out on the winning end of any arguments over the merits of the available evidence, so he has, for some three years now, studiously avoided debating the actual evidence. Instead, he quickly created an apparently fictional entity, in the form of an unidentified, but supposedly dear friend of his who just happens to be a flight attendant for American Airlines, and just happens to regularly fly the route flown by Flight 77 that fateful day, but just happened to have taken that particular day off so that she survived and now has insider information, unavailable to anyone else, that Flight 77 really did crash into the Pentagon that day.<br><br>This mythical person has served Judge well for the past three years, enabling him to sidestep any and all substantive questions concerning the evidence anomalies with a pat answer that goes something like this: "Well, you know, there were hundreds of witnesses, and my friend says that it really did happen the way the government says, so it must be true."<br><br>Judge's phantom friend, it should be noted, is not your average flight attendant. In a post dated February 21, 2004, Judge told the latest fanciful, and unintentionally hilarious, version of his friend's story, which has grown more and more elaborate, and more and more ridiculous, over the past three years:<br><br><br>A dear friend and fellow researcher had been working as a flight attendant for American for many years, and that was her regular route, several times a week ... As it turned out, my friend had not been on Flight 77, having taken the day off work to care for her sick father ... When questions arose about Flight 77, I contacted her to raise the issues that concerned me and the speculation of others who denied the plane hit the Pentagon. She was adamant in saying it had, and told me she had been to the crash site and had seen parts of the plane. I asked her about the speculation that the plane would have made a larger hole due to the wingspan. She informed me that the fuel was stored in the wings and that they would have exploded and broken off, as the fuselage slammed through the building walls.<br><br><br>Already we see that not only is this person a flight attendant, but also a fellow researcher and, apparently, an expert on airplane crashes. As we return to the story, Judge's mystery friend has been "approached by another flight attendant to assist in support work for the rescue crews at the site." Let's see what happens next:<br><br><br>The Pentagon was seeking people with security clearances that they could trust to be near the site and all the airline attendants qualified for that level of clearance ... [My friend] and her mother signed up for an overnight shift on Friday, September 21st. She and her mother spent the entire night continuously providing drinks to rescuers ... At the end of her shift on Saturday morning, September 22nd, she was approached along with other attendants to visit the crash site. One declined, but she and two others took a van driven by the Salvation Army to the area.<br><br><br>I have to interrupt here briefly to ask a couple of silly questions that come to mind. First, how is it that someone who is supposedly a conspiracy researcher, and a dear friend of a very well known conspiracy researcher, obtains a security clearance that allows them to roam about the Pentagon? And second, if the mystery friend had just spent the entire night tending to the rescue teams working at the Pentagon crash site, why did she then have to be driven to the crash site? Where did that Salvation Army van take her -- across the Pentagon lawn?<br><br>Memo to John Judge: lying isn't as easy as it may appear to be. If you're going to completely fabricate a story, you have to be careful that that story is consistent. And with that out of the way, let's get back to the story, which is about to veer off into bizarro world:<br><br> <br>The area was covered with rescue equipment, fire trucks, small carts, and ambulances. They were still hoping to find survivors. Small jeeps with wagons attached were being used to transport workers and others at the site. One flight attendant was driving one of these around the site. Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly discern where the original wall had been. There was just a gaping hole. She got off the van and walked inside the crash site. The other attendants broke down crying once they were inside. But my friend went in further than the others and kept her emotions in check as she has been trained to do and usually does in emergency situations.<br><br><br>How do I even begin to dissect out all the absurdities present in this one brief passage? I suppose I could begin by pointing out that the mystery friend couldn't possibly have seen a "gaping hole" since any entry hole was buried in rubble shortly after the alleged crash, when the Pentagon was afflicted with that curious September 11 malady known as Collapsing Building Syndrome. I also have to point out how extremely unlikely it is that a group of flight attendants would be invited to freely tour a site that was: (1) one of the world's most secure military installations; (2) ground zero of an investigation into what was supposedly the deadliest act of 'terrorism' ever on American soil; and (3) a badly damaged, unsafe, partially-collapsed structure that obviously would have been off-limits to anyone who didn't need to be in there. <br><br>I was also going to comment on the scenario of the unnamed flight attendant cruising around the site in a jeep-and-wagon set-up, but, to be perfectly honest, every time the visual flashes through my mind I find myself too convulsed with laughter to think of anything to say. <br><br>At this point, you are probably wondering what the phantom stewardess/researcher/crash expert/rescue worker saw when she entered the building. Quite a bit, as it turns out. Certainly far more evidence of a plane crash than anyone else has ever claimed to have seen. And much of what she saw, believe it or not, was wreckage that could be positively identified as wreckage of an American Airlines Boeing 757, which she was, of course, an expert at identifying<br><br><br>She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane. She identified the charred wreckage in several ways. She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell ... and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane ... The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized ... The blue coloring of the drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes ... Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes ... She saw other parts of the plane and engine parts at a distance but they were familiar to her ... One area of fuselage had remaining window sections and the shape of the windows ... was also distinct to the 757's she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A logo, including parts of the tail of the plane. Smaller A/A logos and "American" logos are also on the planes and she saw parts of those.<br><br><br>Who knew there was so much identifiable aircraft wreckage? Wreckage that was apparently never photographed and never shown to anyone other than John Judge's friend? Am I the only one here who is wondering whether Mr. Judge has maybe been watching too many reruns of old Saturday Night Live skits featuring Jon Lovitz. "Yeah, John, that's it ... that's the ticket."<br><br>The anonymous friend "also saw," we are to believe, "charred human bones but not any flesh or full body parts." So the bodies were apparently reduced to charred bones, but the upholstery, carpet and drapes were, of course, still looking factory fresh.<br><br>In an earlier version of the flight attendant story, posted on October 30, 2002, Judge claimed that his friend was also "shown autopsy photos of her fellow crew members, including the severed arm of her best friend at work, which she recognized from the bracelet she wore." I have to confess here that I never realized how much access flight attendants have. I now find myself wondering what kind of access commercial pilots must have. I'm guessing they could probably sit in on the President's morning briefings if they really wanted to.<br><br>Anyhow, getting back to the story, we aren't quite through yet being subjected to outlandish claims. The next one goes something like this:<br><br><br>The crew of Flight 77 who died in the crash included her personal friend Renee May. She had spoken to Renee's mother after the crash, and Renee had used a cell phone to call her mother during the hijacking.<br><br><br>It sounds like the phantom stewardess has this case all wrapped up. She has, single-handedly, gathered more evidence that AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon than the entire federal government and all of its media mouthpieces combined. I, for one, am impressed. She has seen and positively identified wreckage of Flight 77. She has seen and positively identified the remains of actual humans who were supposed to be on the flight. She has seen the gaping entry wound. She has spoken to someone who can personally vouch for the hijacking story.<br><br>And that's not all! Judge has other phantom witnesses as well, and they can verify other portions of the official fairy tale:<br><br><br>Other American ground crew workers saw some of the suspects board American Airlines Flight 77 and recognized them from published photos ... My attendant friend knows and has put me in touch with other American Airlines employees and pilots who were at the site and took photographs. We are busy locating these, as well as another attendant who was at the site with her that day.<br><br><br>Well, you keep working on that, John. Let us know just as soon as you can produce a single one of these alleged witnesses, or any of their alleged photographs. But, really, there's no rush. We understand that these things take time, and you've only had three-and-a-half years to locate these witnesses that you claim to have already been in touch with.<br><br>By the way, what were they all doing stomping around the Pentagon crash site? Was it open to all American Airlines employees? How about United Airlines employees? Were Boeing employees allowed to tour the site as well? How about employees of Dulles International Airport? How about employees of the company that catered the meals for Flight 77? Did the baggage handlers get to take a peek? I don't mean to sound snide here; I'm really just trying to determine what the criteria were for deciding who was allowed to tour this very sensitive site, because, truth be told, I would have liked to take a look for myself, but my invite must have gotten lost in the mail or something.<br><br>Moving on, it's time for Mr. Judge to abruptly segue into the conclusion of his formidable case:<br><br><br>My friend is therefore a credible and very knowledgeable eyewitness to the fact that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. She has been vilified by those who refuse to believe the obvious ... My friend is herself a researcher for many years into government misdeeds and cover-ups. If she did not see the parts, she would say so. She has no reason to lie about it. Nor is she confused about what she saw. She is a professional and is used to looking at evidence.<br><br><br>Let it never be said that I participated in the vilification of a nonexistent person. That just wouldn't be right. For the record, the argument here is not that Judge's friend is a liar. No, the argument here is that John Judge is a liar. And not a particularly good one -- but certainly a very ambitious one. Lest there be any lingering doubt about that, Judge saves his best for last. In the final paragraph of his missive, he actually makes the following claim:<br><br><br>One employee saw the nose of the plane crash through her office wall.<br><br><br>No shit? I hope she didn't receive any serious injuries.<br><br>In that same paragraph, Judge claims that Flight 77 "flew dangerously close to the ground, skidding into the ground floor of the Pentagon." In yet another Pentagon rant, this one from October 23, 2002, Judge made a similar claim: "the plane bottomed out just short of contact with the building and bounced into it." That scenario, of course, was long ago discredited, owing to the fact that it is quite apparent that there was no damage to the Pentagon lawn consistent with an airplane crash. And yet, more than three years after the events of September 11, Judge is still hawking the same story.<br><br>The bottom line here is that Judge has quite obviously fabricated an elaborate tale - allegedly, but not actually, based on the testimony of unnamed witnesses - and he has used that story to shield himself from having to deal with the very real evidence anomalies uncovered by legitimate researchers. For three years, he has asked that we take him at his word, because he is, after all, the great John Judge. And that, my friends, is what legend building is all about.<br><br>After reviewing Judge's various Pentagon rants, I have a few final questions for the Tattoo theorists: why did the 'powers that be' feel the need to call on the services of an established 'conspiracy theorist' to further gild this lily? Why is John Judge so obviously lying? Or, if he is isn't lying, then why do all you Tattoo theorists shy away from referencing his 'work'? After all, he has obviously presented more evidence in support of your Tattoo theories than anyone else. Isn't the fact that you choose to ignore his contributions a tacit admission that you know full well that he is lying his ass off?<br><br>So, again I must ask: if the evidence of the crash of Flight 77 is so persuasive, then why is John Judge gilding the lily?<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html" target="top">www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby dbeach » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:15 pm

missing trillions BUT few want to discuss that a remote controlled airplane may have been used on 9/11 and Mr Dov Zachiem a huge war mongering chickenhawk may be the criminal who engineered it..<br><br>I prefer to call him the dov of hate..<br><br>pushing wars after NEVER serving in the war of his generation like most of todays leaders.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html">911research.wtc7.net/sept...lions.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"Missing Trillions <br>Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference <br>On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." 1 <br><br>Such a disclosure normally would have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington in the morning would assure that the story remained buried. To the trillions already missing from the coffers, an obedient Congress terrorized by anthrax attacks would add billions more in appropriations to fight the "War on Terror." <br><br>The Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon's money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. 2 3 Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America's Defenses which called for "a New Pearl Harbor." 4 "<br><br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby Fat Lady Singing » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:15 pm

Hi all: I would urge everyone to very carefully investigate information coming from signs-of-the-times.org. I'm not accusing anyone of anything but rather suggesting due dilligence before accepting what is posted there. I'm also not trying to single out the person who started this thread--I've seen others link to them as well. Just consider this a friendly tip. Honestly. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Fat Lady Singing
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby professorpan » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:34 pm

Is there a consensus, among those who believe Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, about what happened to passengers aboard the flight? <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest