Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pentagon Strike: Why didn't the show us the wreckage?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
veracity Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:57 AM
Original message
Pentagon Strike: Why didn't the show us the wreckage?
The 9/11 Pentagon Attack: Planes Simply Do Not Vaporize - Why Didn’t They Show Us the Wreckage?

As each day passes, more and more Americans are becoming aware of the startling evidence that clearly contradicts the official explanation of Sept.11th, 2001 offered by the Bush administration. In fact, as more and more evidence comes to light, incongruities in the official explanation become increasingly and undeniably apparent.

Ironically, the growing number of people new to these unexplained discrepancies poses a new problem for those of us who have been researching 9/11 for many months or years. We will have to find a way to explain the many complexities related to the attacks to those who now doubt the official version of events. We are faced with the overwhelming task helping great numbers of people understand the many contradictions in the 9/11 story they were fed by their government.

Obviously, that is not an easy assignment, even when the great majority of truth seekers agree that the official explanation is little more than a pre-written cover story designed to herd the American public into supporting an agenda that would otherwise horrify and outrage them. However, it becomes far more complicated in light of a topic that causes a great deal of confusion within the research community itself. That disparity relates to the strike on the Pentagon.

Many questions still remain about what actually took place at the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. That’s fine, because the goal of the 9/11 truth community is to raise these questions for further investigation. The problem arises when researchers feel that it is their responsibility to explain what happened at the Pentagon. It is NOT. Rather, it is their charge to highlight the doubts that have been legitimately raised regarding what exactly hit that building.

Some researchers claim that a 110,000 ton Boeing 757 hit the building, leaving only a 16 foot hole in the facade (prior to its collapse some 22 minutes after the initial impact.) Others claim that an A-3 Skywarrior fighter jet was the actual aircraft. Some say it was an unmanned Global Hawk armed with depleted uranium missiles, and still others claim that the Pentagon was hit by another type of military missile. We can argue each of these theories forever, and accomplish absolutely nothing.

We really have to put and end the internal dispute that is getting us nowhere and work together to bring information rather than more uncertainty to the public that is now just entering the 9/11 discussion. To that end, I am posing ONE pertinent question about the strike on the Pentagon: Why didn’t they show us the wreckage?

Planes do not simply vaporize. Never in the history of aviation disasters has an aircraft ever totally disintegrated. Even exploding space shuttles did not vanish into thin air. Therefore, it stands to reason that whatever hit the Pentagon had to leave some recoverable debris in its wake. Surely, there had be enough identifiable rubble remaining from a 110,000 ton aircraft to satisfy the skeptics?

Read the full blog here:


http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=355
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KJF Donating Member (792 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. Weight of aircraft
With reference to the fact that you multiplied the actual weight of the aircraft by more than one thousand (surely a record even on the 9/11 forum), how seriously should be actually take this post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
veracity Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. How seriously can we take you?
You wrote a 'b' instead of a 'w' in your criticism.

"how seriously should be actually take this post?"

My heavens! That totally discredits your entire thought process, your thinking ability, and everything you said.

I'm a quick learner.

PS. My more sincere and serious thoughts were removed by the free speech police here. I'll be interested if this one stays up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Last time I talked to old GW, he promised it was on his to do list. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. cute yet...
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 09:37 PM by wildbilln864
disingenuous?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. It was either that or ask him ..
why the hell GWB would listen to me.

You have never heard me say I was against releasing the tapes. I simply believe that there is enough evidence without them to support the fact that Flt 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
8. who pays you to write such stuff as
"Planes do not simply vaporize. Never in the history of aviation disasters has an aircraft ever totally disintegrated. "

These sentnces implicate vapotzation and disintegration when we have shown several times that parts of the planes were seen AND photographed AND published.

How many times aircraft fully hit buildings "in the history of aviation" ? How many parts have you seen from these planes ? Are they comparable ?

Why shozld the US government ever argue against such idiotic arguments ? They have sacked and destroyed EVERY evidence they could get. They will crack conspiracy nuts when THEY want it, when it is usefull for THEM to discredit the whole sceptic movement.

The main objective of those who did it is to lay out red herrings so nobody asks "who did it".

Reentering these issues of "too small holes" only serves their objective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC