The Sin of War

link me a link on that, I never heard that.

 

Hey old buddy, is this the one you are looking for:

This one is even better than the one you keep talking about.

 

Worked in the Pentagon as a civilian installing filing equipment. That building was designed by the same person in charge of the Manhattan project. Comparing the World Trade Center with the Pentagon, building wise, (can't spell arcatectual) is like comparing apples and oranges, they are two different things. The Pentagon was designed rugged just like the American soldier. I should add that walking around inside is a tour of our history. By that I mean there is a lot of history displayed inside.
Any chance of getting spell check here?

 

The guy who less than 2 1/2 months before had been my best man was in a bus in the Pentagon parking lot when the Pentagon was attacked. My best man remembers commenting with several people on that bus that "that plane seems awfully low ..."

architectural

 

Obviously to the most casual observer! To a jet airplane the Pentagon would have appeared as a very low target. Everything has to be taken into perspecitive.

 

Ok, with all that security why is the only video tape 5 or 6 blurry frames. I'd think they would have cameras everywhere.

 

link me a link on that (I am interested in this subject, I would LOVE to be proven wrong).

 

Danr,

I think there is about a 99% chance that the official explanation is the correct one. But I agree that the government did a very poor job on the investigation and presentation of evidence to the people. A likely explanation for this is that the whole episode was such a massive security failure that they don't want our enemies and potential enemies to know what we knew, when we knew it, exactly what happened, and which systems failed. It is better for us if they just believe, as you do, that the whole thing was permitted to happen by design or never really happened at all. I have no doubt that there are very clear and detailed films of the entire event, but the public won't see them for decades, if ever.

 

take a peek at this
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...26&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

It looks a lot like the programs on the History Channel that present a lot of documentation and evidence that "proves" the existence of UFOs and bigfoot. If this sort of carefully choreographed presentation cut and pasted from bits and pieces of planning documents is convincing to you, then you are probably capable of believing anything. Just keep in mind that the folks who assembled it did so with a preconceived result in mind. This is entertainment, not research.

 

He's a personal friend. He told me this story by phone the first time on 9/12/2001. He doesn't have it posted on the web. He doesn't even maintain a website.

 

did you watch it?

 

I watched part of it but it was such an incredibly one-sided waste of time that I sure wasn't going to watch it all. If you are easily pursuaded by watching things that fit your preconceived ideas about how you want the world to be, then just check your brain at the door and have a good time. If you are interested in living in the world of reality, a good place to start is with the information I've given you.

 

Give up Cloudy! You are talking logic and reason, and apparently neither of which Danr is endowed. You may as well be talking to a fence post.:headbang:

 

I feel the same way. I have presented some very compelling evidence of a coveruo here, and it falls on deaf ears. Take an hour and a half and watch that video.

 

I already know and have read the "evidence" regarding 911 from both sides, and I've already stated that I agree that the government botched the investigation and publication of the results, perhaps intentionally. But what you have latched onto are the fairly professional looking anti-government presentations masquerading as investigation where the outcome was predetermined before the first foot of film was shot. You want to believe, so anyone who tells you what you want to believe has credibility, and anyone who tells you otherwise does not. I agree there is a "coverup" of the security failure and response in order to make it more difficult for an enemy to successfully repeat the act. If you had lived through World War II, I'm sure you would have demanded that the military make public their plans and troop deployments after every engagement with the enemy, and you would have cried about a coverup when the information was not released. Those of us who live in the world of reality know why this is so, and you apparently will never come close to figuring it out.

 

I think that is the first time I have heard Cloud say something that resembled common sense! Congratulations Cloud. I will leave the ass part off of your name for now when referring to you.

And not only that, you actually tried to persuade Danr that he needs to stop researching links that are severely one sided.

I think there may be some hope after all.