Liberal Forum

Z09 » 23 Jul 2023, 9:35 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 9:35 am

Footage from two Pentagon security cameras outside the building shows the American Airlines flight crashing into the Pentagon. The footage was released by the U.S. Department of Defense in 2006 after conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request two years earlier, the Associated Press reported.In describing the footage, the AP stated: “The aeroplane is a thin white blur on the video as it hits the Pentagon at ground level. Almost instantly, a white flash and a huge orange fireball appear on the video, followed by a tower of grey-black smoke.”There are also multiple photographs of debris from the aircraft found at the Pentagon crash site, including images released by the FBI.

In describing the footage, the AP stated: “The aeroplane is a thin white blur on the video as it hits the Pentagon at ground level. Almost instantly, a white flash and a huge orange fireball appear on the video, followed by a tower of grey-black smoke.”

Did you look at your evidence?

thousands of cameras all over the DC area and one blurry streak is all that was captured?

and the photos from the FBI that you linked to show an entire jumbo jet reduced to a load that would fit on a pick up truck 
 

Mrkelly » 23 Jul 2023, 9:30 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 9:30 am

You read almost 600 pages of that report?

****

No.  Not almost 600 pages.  Every freaking page.  Right when it came out.  That's why I remember much of what is in it....as well as what it footnoted and what was later discovered to be not thoroughly covered in it.  I still have the original paperback Report on my shelf.
 
 
 

Skans » 23 Jul 2023, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 9:49 am

No.  Not almost 600 pages.  Every freaking page.  Right when it came out.

 

Mrkelly » 23 Jul 2023, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 9:33 am

that big round hole with no signs of wing impact was interesting too

That's another thing.. and then there is the missing wreckage, look at that grass, immaculate, looks like a golf course, not a crash site..

 

 
 


 

Z09 » 23 Jul 2023, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 9:49 am

So you actually think that no plane ever hit the Pentagon?

Suppose you tell us what happened to the plane?

An average house fly lives about a month. In that time, females can lay five to six batches of eggs. Although they’re more active in the summer, house flies reproduce year-round.

Mrkelly » 23 Jul 2023, 9:50 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 9:50 am

You are an illiterate, low-curiosity, 2-digit IQ fool.  Yes, some of us read.  Yes, some of us actually remember what we read.  Yes, some of us understand what we read.  Yes, some of us know to read the footnotes, because that's where the real information is, Yes, some of us recall this information when later reading something new about an event, and incorporate that information into a slightly more detailed understanding of what happened.

But, sadly, Mr. Kelly, you are not "one of us".
 

Z09 » 23 Jul 2023, 9:35 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 9:35 am

The footage was released by the U.S. Department of Defense in 2006 after conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request two years earlier 

Oh, I have seen that before.. another funny thing, why did it take 5 years and a freedom of information act request to get that released?

.. In describing the footage, the AP stated: “The aeroplane is a thin white blur on the video as it hits the Pentagon at ground level. Almost instantly, a white flash and a huge orange fireball appear on the video, followed by a tower of grey-black smoke.”

lol.. and that tiny white blur is a cruise missile.. which also answers the question..


 
 
 
 

Skans » 23 Jul 2023, 9:58 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 9:58 am

You are an illiterate, low-curiosity, 2-digit IQ fool.  Yes, some of us read.  Yes, some of us actually remember what we read.  Yes, some of us understand what we read.  Yes, some of us know to read the footnotes, because that's where the real information is, Yes, some of us recall this information when later reading something new about an event, and incorporate that information into a slightly more detailed understanding of what happened.

But, sadly, Mr. Kelly, you are not "one of us".

  I see what you post

IF you read anything , it’s the back of a cereal box

razoo » 22 Jul 2023, 4:11 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Jul 2023, 4:11 pm

They were receiving flight instructions and paying cash money for their instruction ........... odd thing about this instruction is they were not interested in landing only take off ....... 

Where was the GW Bush surveillance team? No where to be found. Clinton had these terrorists under surveillance then GW came along and provided no more funding. Inside job? You bet inside the Bush admin, 
Big brother knew of these nut jobs yet lost funding and they were living within walking distance of NSA headquarters yet still got away with this terrorist activity................. Inside job = the GOP

Ummm, George W. Bush was only president for 6 months prior to the event.  Clinton was president for 8 years prior to that, and during other events when muslim terrorists attacked America.  Stupid Democrat F-Tard.
 

Z09 » 23 Jul 2023, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 10:05 am

Razoo says Clinton had these terrorists under surveillence....
If so why were they still in the US?

Expired visas...
No known address....
Terrorists ties

I doubt that "Clinton" had these terrorists under surveillance.  But, I do believe that low-level people in different agencies had some information they gathered on the terrorists before they went into action.  The truth is that there really was a problem with agencies not sharing information.  Each piece of information that any one agency had would not have been enough to raise a red flag.  But, all of it taken together - yeah, it told a story, doesn't it.

Some aspects of the Homeland Security Act were good and necessary.  But, listening into the private conversations of American Citizens - I think that goes too far.
 
 

Z09 » 23 Jul 2023, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 10:06 am

CLAIM: A CNN report from Sept. 11, 2001, is evidence that no airplane debris was found at the site of the Pentagon attack.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The CNN report was deceptively recut to make it seem as though a correspondent at the scene, Jamie McIntyre, said debris from an airplane had not been found. In the real footage, McIntyre says that debris had not been found anywhere except the Pentagon, and describes in detail the parts of the plane that he did see. There is also photographic evidence of airplane debris found at the crash site.

Link?
 

Z09 » 23 Jul 2023, 10:01 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 10:01 am

So you think a cruise missile hit the Pentagon?

From where?

Who the **** cares, those cruise missiles have a range of a 1,000 miles, it could have come from anywhere, probably from a submarine if that makes you happy..

Suppose you tell us what happened to the airplane wreckage?


 
 

Z09 » 23 Jul 2023, 8:30 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 8:30 am

There is simply no way any deep state could keep the murder of 3000 people a secret during the planning or after the deed.

Like JFK...
After 60 years and there's still no evidence...Just speculation..

Does anyone really think the Secret Service, FBI, CIA and Dallas Police all got together and killed JFK and then kept it quietly...?
 

It's NOT the entire FBI, CIA, and ALL of any agency.  Just the heads.  Maybe 10 people who know full well what being outed would mean.
The meat and potatoes of those organizations are told what to investigate and cut off if they're headed in the "wrong" direction.

Z09 » 23 Jul 2023, 10:18 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 10:18 am

Sure.!

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-9 ... 5983695442

  Still no pictures

but there was this at your link

In the real footage, after McIntyre mentions the “huge, gaping hole,” he continues: “I can see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building — very small pieces of the plane — on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three-feet long. It was silver and it had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass that appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.”

jumbo jet reduced to a pickup load

Z09 » 23 Jul 2023, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 10:19 am

There was airplane wreckage on the scene...

No, there wasn't.. and don't come with pictures of those few crappy pieces that were clearly planted there later..where are the engines, the tail, the luggage..

And you think a cruise missile hit the Pentagon?

From where?
A ship?

Damn, I just told you, are you acting stoopid on purpose?

And most important...

If these planes crashed into the Towers that day why LIE about one crashing into the Pentagon?

lol.. that is the most important thing?

But if you want to know, the Pentagon was more difficult target, ground level and they needed to hit a specific section, they weren't sure they could pull that off with a remote controlled boeing 727 so they used a cruise missile..



 
 

razoo » 22 Jul 2023, 4:11 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Jul 2023, 4:11 pm

They were receiving flight instructions and paying cash money for their instruction ........... odd thing about this instruction is they were not interested in landing only take off ....... 

Where was the GW Bush surveillance team? No where to be found. Clinton had these terrorists under surveillance then GW came along and provided no more funding. Inside job? You bet inside the Bush admin, 
Big brother knew of these nut jobs yet lost funding and they were living within walking distance of NSA headquarters yet still got away with this terrorist activity................. Inside job = the GOP

“And the word back,” says Tenet, “‘was ‘we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.’” (Translation: GW admin did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.)

“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, has always been Exhibit A in the case that his administration shrugged off warnings of an Al Qaeda attack. But months earlier, starting in the spring of 2001, the CIA repeatedly and urgently began to warn the White House that an attack was coming.

By May of 2001, says Cofer Black, then chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, “it was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die.” “There were real plots being manifested,” Cofer’s former boss, George Tenet, told me in his first interview in eight years. “The world felt like it was on the edge of eruption. In this time period of June and July, the threat continues to rise.

The drama of failed warnings began when Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called “the Blue Sky paper” to Bush’s new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat—“getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.” 

“And the word back,” says Tenet, “‘was ‘we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.’” (Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.)

Black, a charismatic ex-operative who had helped the French arrest the terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal, says the Bush team just didn’t get the new threat: “I think they were mentally stuck back eight years [before]. They were used to terrorists being Euro-lefties—they drink champagne by night, blow things up during the day, how bad can this be? And it was a very difficult sell to communicate the urgency to this.”

That morning of July 10, the head of the agency’s Al Qaeda unit, Richard Blee, burst into Black’s office. “And he says, ‘Chief, this is it. Roof’s fallen in,’” recounts Black. “The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw.” Black and his deputy rushed to the director’s office to brief Tenet.

All agreed an urgent meeting at the White House was needed. 

“I said, ‘Condi, I have to come see you,’” Tenet remembers. “It was one of the rare times in my seven years as director where I said, ‘I have to come see you. We’re comin’ right now. We have to get there.’”

Tenet vividly recalls the White House meeting with Rice and her team. (George W. Bush was on a trip to Boston.) “Rich [Blee] started by saying, ‘There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months.

The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda’s intention is the destruction of the United States.’” [Condi said:] ‘What do you think we need to do?’ Black responded by slamming his fist on the table, and saying, ‘We need to go on a wartime footing now!’”
https://www.politico.eu/article/attacks ... bin-laden/

 
 

Z09 » 23 Jul 2023, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 11:16 am

If Clinton had these terrorists under surveillence then why didn't he stop them?

The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda’s intention is the destruction of the United States.’” [Condi said:] ‘What do you think we need to do?’ Black responded by slamming his fist on the table, and saying, ‘We need to go on a wartime footing now!’”

“And the word back,” says Tenet, “‘was ‘we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.’” (Translation: GW admin did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.)
https://www.politico.eu/article/attacks ... bin-laden/
 

Z09 » 23 Jul 2023, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 10:06 am

CLAIM: A CNN report from Sept. 11, 2001, is evidence that no airplane debris was found at the site of the Pentagon attack.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The CNN report was deceptively recut to make it seem as though a correspondent at the scene, Jamie McIntyre, said debris from an airplane had not been found. In the real footage, McIntyre says that debris had not been found anywhere except the Pentagon, and describes in detail the parts of the plane that he did see. There is also photographic evidence of airplane debris found at the crash site.

             Correct....
And the questions the Inside Job folks cannot answer is what happened to Flight 77 ---- or how did the charred remains and body parts of almost all the passengers & crew, as verified through DNA get to the Pentagon crash impact site... How did the Boeing 757 Commercial Airline parts get to the site ---both inside & outside the building... How did the Flight Recorders (aka Black Boxes) from Flight 77 that were used as an evidence exhibit at the Moussaoui trial find their way there?.... Are all the witnesses, including current and former Pilots (and also a Priest) lying or mistaken when saying they saw a commercial Airliner impact, or rapidly closing in to impact the Pentagon?  

             You also raise the question, if it were a missile, who fired it and from where?....

       
 

Z09 » 23 Jul 2023, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 11:23 am

Wait...

Yesterday you claimed the GOP planned 911...
Remember?

That's what you claimed I claimed .........

razoo » 23 Jul 2023, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jul 2023, 11:21 am

The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda’s intention is the destruction of the United States.’” [Condi said:] ‘What do you think we need to do?’ Black responded by slamming his fist on the table, and saying, ‘We need to go on a wartime footing now!’”

“And the word back,” says Tenet, “‘was ‘we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.’” (Translation: GW admin did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.)
https://www.politico.eu/article/attacks ... bin-laden/

Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions 

Military operations must be judged by whether and how they contribute to accomplishing war aims. No clear view is possible of where we are today and where we are headed without constant focus on war aims and how they affect US interests.

The interaction of interests, war aims, and military operations defines the strategic context in which we find ourselves. We cannot have the slightest understanding of the likely consequences of proposed changes in our war policy without relating them to the strategic context. Here are the four major realities that define that context:

1. Confusion about war aims and US interests. The president stated three war aims clearly and repeatedly:

* the destruction of Iraqi WMD;
* the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and
* the creation of a liberal democratic Iraq.

The first war aim is moot because Iraq had no WMD. The second was achieved by late Spring 2003. Today, people are waking up to what was obvious before the war -- the third aim has no real prospects of being achieved even in ten or twenty years, much less in the short time anticipated by the war planners.

Implicit in that aim was the belief that a pro-American, post-Saddam regime could be established. This too, it should now be clear, is most unlikely. Finally, is it in the US interest to have launched a war in pursuit of any of these aims? And is it in the US interest to continue pursuing the third? Or is it time to redefine our aims? And, concomitantly, to redefine what constitutes victory?

2. The war has served primarily the interests of Iran and al-Qaeda, not American interests.

We cannot reverse this outcome by more use of military force in Iraq. To try to do so would require siding with Sunni leaders and the Ba'athist insurgents against pro-Iranian Shi'ite groups. The Ba'athist insurgents constitute the forces most strongly opposed to Iraqi cooperation with Iran.

At the same time, our democratization policy has installed Shi'ite majorities and pro-Iranian groups in power in Baghdad, especially in the ministries of interior and defense.

Moreover, our counterinsurgency operations are, as unintended (but easily foreseeable) consequences, first, greater Shi'ite openness to Iranian influence and second, al-Qaeda's entry into Iraq and rooting itself in some elements of Iraqi society.

3. On the international level, the war has effectively paralyzed the United States militarily and strategically, denying it any prospect of revising its strategy toward an attainable goal.


https://apjjf.org/-William-E.-Odom/2335/article.html