Aaron russo on the 9-11 inside job

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Look at the format you are posting it. It should look like this:

Link to video.

 

[Commodore]

Also the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, not a commercial airliner-

You do realize that "footage" of a "cruise missile" hitting the Pentagon has been proven to be fake, right?

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4354

Myth #1: The security video shows a missile hitting the building.

Of the 85 video tapes seized by the FBI that may have shown the plane strike the building, only one actually shows the impact of an object with the building. This is a Pentagon security camera pointed at a traffic gate along an access driveway. In the background is a white streak, visible in only a single frame, which is far too small and of low quality to make out any useful details. Missile theorists believe the depicted object is too small to be a 757, and is more consistent with a cruise missile.

So far as the object in the video appearing to be too small for a 757, that's correct, it is. But this is to be expected, since the lens of the security camera is ultra wide angle. The camera was intended to see as much of the vehicle driveway where it was positioned as possible, side to side. Thus it did not produce a rectilinear image with straight lines; the lines on the Pentagon building are clearly curved in the video. Yet, missile theorists have superimposed straight lines of perspective onto this image, in an effort to show that the height of the incoming object was too small for a 757. Because of the lens used, the plane does in fact appear far smaller than it would with a normal lens, consistent with what we'd expect of an ultra wide angle lens and a full-sized airliner.

And if the Pentagon wasn't hit by a commercial airliner, then why are there numerous photographs, taken just moments after the attack, that show pieces of an airliner all over the Pentagon lawn?

From the same source listed above:

Myth #3: There was no debris from an airplane at the site.

Thus there was no plane, thus it must have been a missile (even though that in itself is fallacious logic). Even after so many years have gone by, I still hear this assertion being made, in blatant defiance of virtually every photograph taken that day. Debris from the plane was everywhere, including easily identified mechanical parts from the landing gear and engines and lots of twisted aluminum painted in Boeing BAC452 Green Epoxy Primer. It's trivial to do a Google image search for "flight 77 debris" to see exactly what was reported by dozens of Pentagon employees, rescue personnel, and reporters, and observed live worldwide by millions of television viewers.

It's also easy to read the transcript from air traffic controllers who communicated with the plane, and to see the graphs from the flight data recorder, including the plane's altitude as it plummeted toward the Pentagon. Both are among the information available from the National Transportation and Safety Board. But I should be clear that pointing out such evidence, especially in the case of official documents, is not persuasive to a conspiracy theorist. In their theory, evidence consistent with the "official story" is simply part of the conspiracy, and is therefore unreliable and should be dismissed.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

@ Commodore what do you say about Bush lying how these attacks couldnt be anticipated or that he saw the plane hitting first tower on TV hours before it was released to media?

 

[Commodore]

@ Commodore what do you say about Bush lying how these attacks couldnt be anticipated or that he saw the plane hitting first tower on TV hours before it was released to media?

1. It wasn't a lie. I assume you are referring to the supposed documents warning of an imminent attack on the US? If so, those documents only spoke of this threat in a general way, and did not give specifics of when or what methodology or weapons would be used. So no, with the intelligence at the time, the attack couldn't have been anticipated.

2. Bush has been know to misspeak quite frequently. My guess is he was talking about seeing the second plane hit and misspoke about it being the first plane. Basically, you are reading too much into what he is saying because you want to interpret his comments in a way that supports your narrative that 9/11 was an inside job. It's called confirmation bias. In fact, here's the definition of confirmation bias:

confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Sounds to me like that's exactly what you are doing. Face it, there is no 9/11 conspiracy. All the evidence that exists points to the official story as being the real story of what happened that day. But I'm sure you are just going to tell me all the evidence can't be believed because as the article I linked to in my previous post says:

pointing out such evidence, especially in the case of official documents, is not persuasive to a conspiracy theorist. In their theory, evidence consistent with the "official story" is simply part of the conspiracy, and is therefore unreliable and should be dismissed.

Basically, you are too irrational to see just how wrong you are on the matter.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

You do realize that "footage" of a "cruise missile" hitting the Pentagon has been proven to be fake, right?

Actually I dont know whether its fake or not but would like to find an objective analysis, not a suspicious polemic like "Skeptoid". However I do know for a fact that the official narrative is a bald-faced lie. The claim that an amateur B757 pilot executed a tight turn and flew 500mph at ground level into the target is a physical impossiblity-

G FORCES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtlzCyKbw5Q

And if the Pentagon wasn't hit by a commercial airliner, then why are there numerous photographs, taken just moments after the attack, that show pieces of an airliner all over the Pentagon lawn?

False. There were no photos of actual commercial airliner debris at the scene. There was no tail section, wing debris, fuselage remnants or even passenger bodies. There was what seemed the remnants of what appears to be a camoflaged cruise missile of which Rumsfeld made these suspicious statements-

INTERVIEW WITH FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD AT GROUND ZERO

BOB SCHIEFFER: On that day, 40 were killed in a thwarted attack in Shanksville, PA and 184 were killed when another plane plowed into the Pentagon. Donald Rumsfeld was sitting at his desk at the Pentagon when the plane struck…

DONALD RUMSFELD…..the building shook at the Pentagon. And– and it– we had been hit and I didn't know if it was a bomb or an airplane or what. So I went out of my office and ran down the hall until the smoke was so bad that you couldn't get any farther and– and went downstairs and outside and there on the apron outside the Pentagon were the– were just thousands of pieces of metal. Small pieces. Not big chunks of an airplane.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean– I– if I remember, you actually helped– some of the first responders to get people on the gurneys and–

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, at that point the first responders hadn't gotten there. These were just people from the Pentagon who came out and started helping and bringing people out of the burning building. And the flames were leaping up and the smoke. And– and at that moment I just gave somebody a hand and– and then when the first responders did come in I went back to my office and got about my business.

BOB SCHIEFFER: I thought one of the more interesting things is you did not close down the Pentagon that day. Why was that?

DONALD RUMSFELD: It was clear they had hit the seat of economic power in New York and the seat of military power of the United States in Washington. And another plane of course was probably gonna try to hit the seat of political power in the White House or the Congress. And I just made a decision that when the fire Marshall said evacuate the building, I said, "No, get the non-essential personnel out of there and– and– we'll leave it open." I didn't wanna– I don't want the world to think that a group of terrorists could shut down the U.S. Department of Defense.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

1. It wasn't a lie. I assume you are referring to the supposed documents warning of an imminent attack on the US? If so, those documents only spoke of this threat in a general way, and did not give specifics of when or what methodology or weapons would be used. So no, with the intelligence at the time, the attack couldn't have been anticipated.

2. Bush has been know to misspeak quite frequently. My guess is he was talking about seeing the second plane hit and misspoke about it being the first plane. Basically, you are reading too much into what he is saying because you want to interpret his comments in a way that supports your narrative that 9/11 was an inside job. It's called confirmation bias. In fact, here's the definition of confirmation bias:

Ludicrous. There was even a drill by the military executed two days before the attacks depicting hijacked commercial airliners used to deliver attacks on civilian targets-

https://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009...-simulated-suicide-hijack-targeting-new-york/

 

[Aea]

Can't reason somebody out of an viewpoint they didn't reason themselves into.

 

[illram]

Can't reason somebody out of an viewpoint they didn't reason themselves into.

Ha. I like that. Gonna file that one away in the memorybanks.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

So what are we supposed to accept? Witches weigh the same as ducks & therefore shes a witch?

Donald Rumsfeld Says No Plane Wreckage at Pentagon 9/11/11

Link to video.

Shes a witch!

Link to video.

 

[PhroX]

By all means be skeptical of the official line. But for God's sake apply the same level of skepticism to the alternatives. I love how you think a conspiracy capable of both launching and hiding their involvement in 9/11 is possible, but someone misspeaking isn't...

 

[SLAAKMAN]

I love how you think a conspiracy...

I dont consider the attack to be a "conspiracy". I consider it to be a Covert Military Operation. God only knows whether Rumsfeld merely "mispoke" or not. Fact is I cant tell for sure since perjury in the bureaucracy is so endemic that its hard to believe anything they say.

 

[sophie]

I dont consider the attack to be a "conspiracy". I consider it to be a Covert Military Operation. God only knows whether Rumsfeld merely "mispoke" or not. Fact is I cant tell for sure since perjury in the bureaucracy is so endemic that its hard to believe anything they say.

You do know what conspiracy means, right?

 

[SLAAKMAN]

You do know what conspiracy means, right?

I know what the calumniators at CIA claim is means-

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...heorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.

The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.

The dispatch states:

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.



***



The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.



3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:



a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.



b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.



***



4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:



a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.



***



b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …



***



c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.



***



d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.



***



f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.



g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….



5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

 

[sophie]

I know what the calumniators at CIA claim is means-

That wasn't the question I asked.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Its a reasonable reference.

 

[sophie]

Its a reasonable reference.

No, it's not. I asked a very simple question: do you know what the word conspiracy means. You responded with a deflection and a quotation from an article that has absolutely no relevance to the question.

So I ask again: do you know what the word conspiracy means?

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Oh I know what you think it means but since its actual implication has been changed, Ive decided to suspend the words application & useage until further notice. This is a public service announcement.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

You responded with a deflection and a quotation from an article that has absolutely no relevance to the question.

Its utterly relevant since the bureaucrats changed its meaning as a method to deceive the public.

 

[warpus]

I think you'd be a bit more credible if you at least could figure out how to post videos properly.

As such I'm going to have to assume that you're just a CIA agent trying to muddy the waters.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

It is very peculiar I admit. I highlight the url & click the button but it only posts a dark blank. Why does it do that Is the Illuminati squelching me?