911 cover up

Has anyone else noticed there never was any 911 footage showing the airliner crashing into the pentagon?

It seems very odd that the crash was not caught on multiple cameras, given the high profile nature of the building. I've seen one video on the net that shows a missile flying into the pentagon which was not in line with the story fed to the american people.

I feel like this whole war is based on lies and possibly our own government had their hand in the 911 destruction.

Originally Posted by: barakapossibly our own government had their hand in the 911 destruction.

Hmm...well you should probably move to another country then, just to be safe.

Hating the people in office is not the same as hating the country, I ain't going nowhere.

You didn't address the actual topic here though in that the pentagon attack as of now is still a mystery. I dare you to find video proof of it on the net.
Face it man the current govt is really misleading the people it should be serving.

Although I am pretty sure you only posted because your the love it or leave it type. :p

{editor's note: Either don't name-call, or don't post!}

Now tell me if I am being too picky but I don't see a 757 sized airplane anywhere, or its wreckage.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Food for thought.

Originally Posted by: barakaAlthough I am pretty sure you only posted because your the love it or leave it type. :p

Incorrect. I only posted because your thought that any administration in the United States would attack itself to stir the **** is completely unfounded and ludicrous. I've seen these silly conspiracy theories refuted many times, and I really don't care to re-state arguments I've heard/seen/made before. I see PonyOne is taking care of refuting such delusions, so more power (and patience) to him.

The reason I posted what I did was I don't much care for that great a lack of faith in the governmental system. Do you have any IDEA how incredibly difficult it would be to cover up an operation like that? This isn't Orwell's 1984. Big Brother is not out to control our very thoughts.

I understand where you are coming from because I love america too. But my offer still stands. Being an american is about questioning, not about submitting to your gov't. That is why our ansestors left europe.

This is the pentagon we are talking about, its an important building, probably the most important. Does the film presented here really represent the best the gov't can offer, 3 pixalated frames. I dont think they would scrimp on cameras at the pentagon. There is also a lack of any footage of the plane flying over Arlington cemetary. Coming in as low as they did they would have been scraping trees.

Originally Posted by: barakaBut my offer still stands. Being an american is about questioning, not about submitting to your gov't.

I'm not talking about submission, I'm talking about ignoring unfounded paranoia.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneactually most of the spooky crap of consequence really goes on at the CIA headquarters,

Well, let's not forget that the REALLY spooky crap happens at the NSA.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneactually we're both wrong... it's at the NTSB. and the NTSC. and the IRS.

Hahaha, perhaps. After all, the sleazy places are often the spooky ones.

I've heard someone say that out of the several possible excuses for war, WMD's were the most sellable.
Say, would you call George a WMD? I would. Seriously. What else would you call him, in view of the cost (personnel and money) of the war, coupled with the fact it was a big ****ing lie?
These dudes are arrogant too. You mean to tell me the entire CIA NS whatever machinery couldn't have planted some semblance of incriminating evidence to at least try and tell the world, "see? we told y'all"? I think they could have at least tried. A baby nuke hear, some vial of poison gas there, that sort of thing. But they didn't bother.
ARROGANT BASTARDS! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Originally Posted by: CW14I don't think the government organised it, but knew it was going to happen and did nothing. I also think that the Iraq war was based on lies and that the WOMD were a load of &*$@.

Thats my opinion and I can't be bothered debating over it.

It's hard to believe that the concept of WMDs was a lie. I think it was more the fault of bad intelligence. They might've been there and we just couldn't manage to find them.

And btw, the war in Iraq doesn't really have to do with 9/11. It had to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein (and his two sons) was a dictator who was killing his own people. Sure, maybe it had something to do with Bush Sr. not getting the job done the first time, but either way, Saddam had to go.

Now dont get me wrong, I'm by no means a Bush supporter, and for the record, I didn't vote for bush this past election. I do think Saddam and his sons needed to be taken care of, but the administration did a crappy job of planning.

Originally Posted by: PonyOnei remember there was a guy on here a few years back who claimed to have videos on his hard drive of Israeli soldiers executing Palestinian women and children and he never sent me those either... see seriously, if stuff like this exists, i want to see it so i can see that my opinions are wrong. i don't like being wrong.

Wow, he lied about something like that and didn't even back it up when you asked him for evidence? That's pretty low.

(Although it does sound a bit like someone I might vote into office ;) )

Originally Posted by: PonyOneFTR i am actually completely and totally anti-bush, anti-republican, and yes, this entire war was founded on lies...

That simply isn't a fair way to assess the reality of the situation.

Did Saddam have WMDs? Probably not, but there is still no conclusive proof that he didn't (only that we're not likely to find any). However, outside the propogandic context of looking good, that's irrellivent. He was still maintaining chemical weapons plants, he kept his weapons scientists on staff, he made them hide plans for weapons in their homes, allowed or asked Russian special forces to remove incriminating evidence from the country, he smuggled banned rocket motors for his missle program out from under the noses of UN inspectors, all while negotiating with North Korea to buy a missle system and support facillities.

So the stragetic truth is that Saddam's regime never once abandoned their long term goals in regards to WMDs; he only shifted strategies from indefinately stonewalling the UN to making it look like he was trying to play nice so he could get them and the embargo off his back. Accordingly, it is better to fight him now when he's weak than a strong Uday and/or Qusay in ten to fifteen years.


Was Saddam directly linked to al Quida? No, but he was by no means an enemy of terrorism and made several terrorist figures with links to al Quida guests of state.


Another anti-war argument that simply holds no water is the Iraqi lives lost to the war -- far, far more (a minimum of 400,000) would have starved to death waiting for UN inspections to wrap up.


It's not that I feel that there's no legitimate disagreements with the war; I think the case that our forces are being spread too thin can be made and also that "pre-emptive" war is a dangerous precident.

However, logical anti-war arguments seem to be being drowned out by the "I watched F 9/11" crowd.



As to the conspiracy theories, here are two very good links which quite effectively demolish most of them: Popular Mechanics and the CBC.

I've never once looked into a 9/11 conspiracy without finding some serious fundamental flaws in it in very short order. Both of those articles do a good job of condensing a lot of the searching and the Popular Mechanics one at least has a full list of sources.

Originally Posted by: PonyOneit's hypocritical for the leaders of a nation who claim to try to spread democracy to every corner of the world and who claim to think that democracy is their path to break from that, give the finger to the world, and go in to do things their way. further attempts at exemption from Geneva human rights laws don't exactly paint the situation amid rampant claims of excessive brutality in any better light.

the Arab world seems to be prone to claims of abuse and humiliation, and denying that it has happened in this war is stupid as it has, but, at the same time i know that the majority of the American soldiers there have no desire to hurt anyone they don't have to. unfortunately, incidents like Abu Gharib only lend creedence to the voices of anti-american sentiment in the middle east and europe and asia, further adding to what can only be adequately described as a big freakin' mess.

Is anyone denying that there was prisoner abuse? I know that some people like Rumsfeld weren't taking responsibility, but should someone as high up as Rumsfeld take responsibility for the actions of prison guards at Abu Gharib? Of course not, it's the entire reasoning behind a beaurocracy.

Now, I'm certainly not condoning the actions taken by those guards, it is horrible and they should be (and I believe already were?) punished, along with anyone else committing such acts. However, American hostages have been burned alive, beheaded, dragged through the streets, surely such atrocities dwarf anything American troops have done.

Originally Posted by: PonyOnemeanwhile, North Korea is now testing real nukes, not just theoretical ones... and... we're all tied up politically and militarily in a place we shouldn't be tied up in, at least not in the way we are.

North Korea's (or rather, Kim Jong Il's) #1 priorety is and has been self preservation for a number of decades. North Korea has not a snowball's chance in Hell of winning a war with the US, especially with China being so eager to keep North Korea's power limited and to keep its business with the US and the rest of the world. They can't feed their peole and they can't mobilize their army without fuel from China.

So, if we hurt them, they can hurt us back, but if they pre-emptively attack us, we can end them. They know this. There is no reasonable impetus to choose war over diplomacy with North Korea now or ever so long as North Korea's policy remains concerned with nothing more than 1. staying in power and 2. maybe getting some food aide.


However, Saddam's agenda was totally different. He was concerned with offensive technology with which to to unite the Arab word via a pan-arabic war.

And this puts us in a pickle.

Either we're to be internationalists and therefore we must honor our treaties with other nations (including our promises to help defend Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait, Turkey and a multitude of other nations in the region) or we're to again embrace the failed policy of Isolationism.


So, while I don't think Bush was outright lying when he said he thought Iraq had WMDs; lord knows that analysts within the CIA agreed with this (as was once confirmed by Hillary Clinton in a comment to the media), but it wouldn't surprise me if his administration fudged the immediacy of the threat in order to fight the war at a time when we could win it with less lives lost.

I don't neccessarily agree with it, but I also recognize that as a nation, we save an average of less than 10% of our annual income; it is not at all reasonable to expect Americans to think in the long-term.