Why the US invaded Iraq
Why the US invaded Iraq
By Noam Chomsky January 2005
Let’s just imagine what the policies might be of an independent Iraq, independent, sovereign Iraq, let’s say more or less democratic, what are the policies likely to be?
Well there’s going to be a Shiite majority, so they’ll have some significant influence over policy. The first thing they’ll do is reestablish relations with Iran. Now they don’t particularly like Iran, but they don’t want to go to war with them so they’ll move toward what was happening already even under Saddam, that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with Iran.
That’s the last thing the United States wants. It has worked very hard to try to isolate Iran. The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare—a Shiite region which controls most of the world’s oil and is independent. Furthermore, it is very likely that an independent, sovereign Iraq would try to take its natural place as a leading state in the Arab world, maybe the leading state. And you know that’s something that goes back to biblical times.
What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They’re going to have to rearm to confront Israel—which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here’s the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington—and probably 10 Downing street in London—that here you might get a substantial Shiite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the U.S. outposts that are there to try to make sure that the U.S. controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That’s kind of next to inconceivable.
What I’ve just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: “Uh well, okay, we’ll let them have a government, but we’re not going to pay any attention to what they say.” In fact the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we’re keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.
http://www.irc-online.org/content/chomsky/2005chomsky-iraq.php
Comment: And I want to add, why did the Israeli work so hard to help the Bush crime family to put out disinformation about Iraq's WMD and I suspect ... in helping take out the Twin Towers on 9-11. "Poisoning the Well" is a long established tradition with any intelligence agency, in which provably bogus disinformation is interjected with real evidence or theories, for the express purpose of raising doubts of validity of ALL evidence provided by an individual. see below evidence.
Twin Towers/WTC/9-11
Comment: The evidence of a very complex conspiracy are unfolding. This includes even attempt to plant false information to discredit conspiracy researcher.
Take for example an eye witness's statement that the FBI show up "within minutes" This quick action by the FBI just doesn't happen. It takes time for the FBI to organize a crime scene and task individual agents.
Velasquez slammed down the receiver and raced outside when he felt the gas station he supervises suddenly begin to tremble from a too-close airplane. "It was like an earthquake," the Costa Rican native said last week. What Velasquez felt above him almost within touching distance was American Airlines Flight 77 just seconds before impact. ..Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."
One thing an intelligence analysis does is to learn unusual facts, plant them his/her mind and when a pattern comes up, this rings a bell in his/her mind. What rang my bell is the fact that a similar thing happen in the crash of Sen.Wellstones airplane wherein he was killed. That is, the "FBI" arrived at the crash sight in a very unusually short period of time if not impossibly short period of time.
Now this doesn't happen unless the incident was planned. And who is to say these were real FBI agents?
Flight 77- Pentagon
American Airlines Flight 77 was a Boeing 757-223 flying from Dulles Airport outside Washington to Los Angeles with 11,489 gallons of fuel, 58 passengers, 4 flight attendants and 2 pilots.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
assertion: I have seen tons of evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, including a documentary that went through step by step how the damage was caused and interviewed eyewitnesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never made the argument that something other than a jet plane hit the Pentagon.
In fact, I think this missile theory is totally bunk, and may in fact be a classic "poisoning the well" scenario. "Poisoning the Well" is a long established tradition with any intelligence agency, in which provably bogus disinformation is interjected with real evidence or theories, for the express purpose of raising doubts of validity of ALL evidence provided by an individual.
In this case, if people are discussing a "missile" theory, and they can be proved wrong, then all their other analysis is equally suspicious.
The well is poisoned...
There are many who debate purely on the single axis of "Flight 77 vs. Missile",
and overlooking all the evidence that suggests something else entirely: a smaller plane with American Airlines markings hitting the Pentagon on Sept 11th, 2001.
I know this is lengthy, but here's my reasoning...
Eyewitness Accounts:
I'd recommend taking a look at the eyewitness accounts again. I've seen this page and others with numerous eyewitness accounts. Many who actually refer to the size of the jet actually call it a "small or medium sized jet", or a commuter jet with American Airlines markings.
Of course, others talk about a "very very big jet".
Often, these are people who were either almost or directly under the path of the plane.
The majority of eyewitnesses that imply a larger plane are those who refer to it as "Flight 77" or a 757, which, to me, is evidence that they are injecting 3rd party knowledge from media reports into their own accounts.
There are also numerous accounts of a second plane, often identified as a C-130 cargo plane, although according to the "official story" there was no military plane there. Almost every eyewitness who mentions the "C-130" says it was almost directly above and behind the impact plane.
Another interesting point about eyewitness accounts is that more than one person specifically mentions the smell of the explosive cordite.
In an informal look at the eyewitness accounts, when the eyewitness location at the time of impact is known, it appears that those futher away from the direct path of the plane describe it as something smaller than a 757.
They are much more likely to have seen the C-130 than those directly or almost directly under the plane.
Based on eyewitness accounts alone, the most likely scenario is that a small plane
being closely tailed by a C-130 impacted the Pentagon.
Video Evidence
There were at least 4 video sources (but probably more) that, barring equipment malfunction, captured the Pentagon crash.
1) The gas station camera which was situated across the highway, and pointed at the impact point. This tape was confiscated within moments.
2) The hotel security tape, which also recorded the impact, as hotel employees were viewing it when it was also confiscated. Since then, said employees have not said (AFAIK) what exactly happened.
3) More than on traffic camera would have caught the approach and impact at the Pentagon. Confiscated
4) Finally, the only footage ever "released" is five frames from a security booth.
These images were used in the NIST report on the Pentagon crash, so regardless of being accurate, they are "official".
I'll tackle the "security footage" first.
IF this is legit untampered footage, then it clearly suggests a plane smaller than a Boeing 757.
by Bionic Antboy, Jan 4 2005
http://0911.site.voila.fr/BionicAntboy.htm
Air traffic controller recalls event and Precise Maneuvering
At the Dulles tower, O'Brien saw the TV pictures from New York and headed back to her post to help other planes quickly land. "We started moving the planes as quickly as we could," she says. "Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed ... I had literally a blip and nothing more." O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too. "I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House,'" recalls Howell. "I was yelling .. 'We've got a target headed right for the White House!'" At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west ... Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west." Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building. "And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien. But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver. "We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited. And we waited. And your heart is just beating out of your chest waiting to hear what's happened," says O'Brien. "And then the Washington National [Airport] controllers came over our speakers in our room and said, 'Dulles, hold all of our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit.'"
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html)
eye-witness:
Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said. "At first I thought 'Oh my God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon ... I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. It was like Oh my God, what's next?" He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html
Ms. Ladner said the Phoenix staff never suspected that Mr. Hanjour was a hijacker but feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner.
Ultimately, administrators at the school told Mr. Hanjour that he would not qualify for the advanced certificate. But the ex-employee said Mr. Hanjour continued to pay to train on a simulator for Boeing 737 jets. "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course," the ex-employee said.
Comment: Could it possibly be that Mr Hanjour never really planned to fly a 737, but he was just part of a deception story to plant this fact in the minds investigators and news reporters?. The story that he flew a 757 into the Pentagon, is a load of crap......... just like the story that Oswald shot Kennedy. Why is this important? Well, unless you have flown an airplane or shot a rifle, you wouldn't know that some people just can't learn to do these task. Oswald was a very bad shot with a rifle in the Marine corps
Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot."I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/national/04ARIZ.html
But The debris is an eloquent witness to the but not the crash of a Boeing 757.
· The original Pentagon press conferences said there was no significant sized debris from an airliner.
· There is insufficient debris on the lawn of the Pentagon for it to have been the crash of a Boeing 757.
· The upright cable spools are independent proof in their own right that a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon on 9/11.
· The debris is inconsistent with the crash of a Boeing 757.
· The debris is consistent with the crash of a small jet aircraft, or possibly an unmanned AV if it were capable of launching a "bunker-buster" missile.
· At first glance, in the ruble photographed at the exit hole, there is no debris reminiscent of an airliner - just office debris.
· The sole piece of crash debris purporting to be from a Boeing 757 was probably planted as it comes from the wrong side of the plane.
· Some pieces of the wreckage was carried away by Air Force personnel.
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttack.shtml,
Also worrying is that some of the photos of the debris removal work at the Pentagon long after the attack indicate that they are taking against contamination, perhaps because of the presence of http://911revieworg/Wiki/DepletedUranium.shtml. Depleted uranium is sometimes used in commercial aircraft (but apparently not in the Boeing 757)
Threading a Plane through the Eye of a Needle..
result < 30m vs 38m (757) wingspan. the hole is too small & perfect symmetry around the impact, 4m left & 4m right are missing for a 757 wingspan (impact angle taken into account ) as the plane approaches, the left engine would be already duggen meters in the ground, in the greens *,
This composite image shows the extent of damage to the Pentagon facade before it collapsed, and the proportional size of the Boeing as it approached. How is it possible that the jetliner could have passed through that tiny hole? (Source: http://0911.site.voila.fr/index2.htm ).
One point that ALL the skeptics are missing, the left engine but there is definitely no trace in the lawn..
http://www.geocities.com/pentalawn2000/
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. MY NEWSLETTER has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is MY NEWSLETTER endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsViewsnolose
By Noam Chomsky January 2005
Let’s just imagine what the policies might be of an independent Iraq, independent, sovereign Iraq, let’s say more or less democratic, what are the policies likely to be?
Well there’s going to be a Shiite majority, so they’ll have some significant influence over policy. The first thing they’ll do is reestablish relations with Iran. Now they don’t particularly like Iran, but they don’t want to go to war with them so they’ll move toward what was happening already even under Saddam, that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with Iran.
That’s the last thing the United States wants. It has worked very hard to try to isolate Iran. The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare—a Shiite region which controls most of the world’s oil and is independent. Furthermore, it is very likely that an independent, sovereign Iraq would try to take its natural place as a leading state in the Arab world, maybe the leading state. And you know that’s something that goes back to biblical times.
What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They’re going to have to rearm to confront Israel—which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here’s the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington—and probably 10 Downing street in London—that here you might get a substantial Shiite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the U.S. outposts that are there to try to make sure that the U.S. controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That’s kind of next to inconceivable.
What I’ve just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: “Uh well, okay, we’ll let them have a government, but we’re not going to pay any attention to what they say.” In fact the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we’re keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.
http://www.irc-online.org/content/chomsky/2005chomsky-iraq.php
Comment: And I want to add, why did the Israeli work so hard to help the Bush crime family to put out disinformation about Iraq's WMD and I suspect ... in helping take out the Twin Towers on 9-11. "Poisoning the Well" is a long established tradition with any intelligence agency, in which provably bogus disinformation is interjected with real evidence or theories, for the express purpose of raising doubts of validity of ALL evidence provided by an individual. see below evidence.
Twin Towers/WTC/9-11
Comment: The evidence of a very complex conspiracy are unfolding. This includes even attempt to plant false information to discredit conspiracy researcher.
Take for example an eye witness's statement that the FBI show up "within minutes" This quick action by the FBI just doesn't happen. It takes time for the FBI to organize a crime scene and task individual agents.
Velasquez slammed down the receiver and raced outside when he felt the gas station he supervises suddenly begin to tremble from a too-close airplane. "It was like an earthquake," the Costa Rican native said last week. What Velasquez felt above him almost within touching distance was American Airlines Flight 77 just seconds before impact. ..Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."
One thing an intelligence analysis does is to learn unusual facts, plant them his/her mind and when a pattern comes up, this rings a bell in his/her mind. What rang my bell is the fact that a similar thing happen in the crash of Sen.Wellstones airplane wherein he was killed. That is, the "FBI" arrived at the crash sight in a very unusually short period of time if not impossibly short period of time.
Now this doesn't happen unless the incident was planned. And who is to say these were real FBI agents?
Flight 77- Pentagon
American Airlines Flight 77 was a Boeing 757-223 flying from Dulles Airport outside Washington to Los Angeles with 11,489 gallons of fuel, 58 passengers, 4 flight attendants and 2 pilots.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
assertion: I have seen tons of evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, including a documentary that went through step by step how the damage was caused and interviewed eyewitnesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never made the argument that something other than a jet plane hit the Pentagon.
In fact, I think this missile theory is totally bunk, and may in fact be a classic "poisoning the well" scenario. "Poisoning the Well" is a long established tradition with any intelligence agency, in which provably bogus disinformation is interjected with real evidence or theories, for the express purpose of raising doubts of validity of ALL evidence provided by an individual.
In this case, if people are discussing a "missile" theory, and they can be proved wrong, then all their other analysis is equally suspicious.
The well is poisoned...
There are many who debate purely on the single axis of "Flight 77 vs. Missile",
and overlooking all the evidence that suggests something else entirely: a smaller plane with American Airlines markings hitting the Pentagon on Sept 11th, 2001.
I know this is lengthy, but here's my reasoning...
Eyewitness Accounts:
I'd recommend taking a look at the eyewitness accounts again. I've seen this page and others with numerous eyewitness accounts. Many who actually refer to the size of the jet actually call it a "small or medium sized jet", or a commuter jet with American Airlines markings.
Of course, others talk about a "very very big jet".
Often, these are people who were either almost or directly under the path of the plane.
The majority of eyewitnesses that imply a larger plane are those who refer to it as "Flight 77" or a 757, which, to me, is evidence that they are injecting 3rd party knowledge from media reports into their own accounts.
There are also numerous accounts of a second plane, often identified as a C-130 cargo plane, although according to the "official story" there was no military plane there. Almost every eyewitness who mentions the "C-130" says it was almost directly above and behind the impact plane.
Another interesting point about eyewitness accounts is that more than one person specifically mentions the smell of the explosive cordite.
In an informal look at the eyewitness accounts, when the eyewitness location at the time of impact is known, it appears that those futher away from the direct path of the plane describe it as something smaller than a 757.
They are much more likely to have seen the C-130 than those directly or almost directly under the plane.
Based on eyewitness accounts alone, the most likely scenario is that a small plane
being closely tailed by a C-130 impacted the Pentagon.
Video Evidence
There were at least 4 video sources (but probably more) that, barring equipment malfunction, captured the Pentagon crash.
1) The gas station camera which was situated across the highway, and pointed at the impact point. This tape was confiscated within moments.
2) The hotel security tape, which also recorded the impact, as hotel employees were viewing it when it was also confiscated. Since then, said employees have not said (AFAIK) what exactly happened.
3) More than on traffic camera would have caught the approach and impact at the Pentagon. Confiscated
4) Finally, the only footage ever "released" is five frames from a security booth.
These images were used in the NIST report on the Pentagon crash, so regardless of being accurate, they are "official".
I'll tackle the "security footage" first.
IF this is legit untampered footage, then it clearly suggests a plane smaller than a Boeing 757.
by Bionic Antboy, Jan 4 2005
http://0911.site.voila.fr/BionicAntboy.htm
Air traffic controller recalls event and Precise Maneuvering
At the Dulles tower, O'Brien saw the TV pictures from New York and headed back to her post to help other planes quickly land. "We started moving the planes as quickly as we could," she says. "Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed ... I had literally a blip and nothing more." O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too. "I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House,'" recalls Howell. "I was yelling .. 'We've got a target headed right for the White House!'" At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west ... Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west." Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building. "And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien. But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver. "We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited. And we waited. And your heart is just beating out of your chest waiting to hear what's happened," says O'Brien. "And then the Washington National [Airport] controllers came over our speakers in our room and said, 'Dulles, hold all of our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit.'"
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html)
eye-witness:
Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said. "At first I thought 'Oh my God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon ... I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. It was like Oh my God, what's next?" He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html
Ms. Ladner said the Phoenix staff never suspected that Mr. Hanjour was a hijacker but feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner.
Ultimately, administrators at the school told Mr. Hanjour that he would not qualify for the advanced certificate. But the ex-employee said Mr. Hanjour continued to pay to train on a simulator for Boeing 737 jets. "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course," the ex-employee said.
Comment: Could it possibly be that Mr Hanjour never really planned to fly a 737, but he was just part of a deception story to plant this fact in the minds investigators and news reporters?. The story that he flew a 757 into the Pentagon, is a load of crap......... just like the story that Oswald shot Kennedy. Why is this important? Well, unless you have flown an airplane or shot a rifle, you wouldn't know that some people just can't learn to do these task. Oswald was a very bad shot with a rifle in the Marine corps
Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot."I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/national/04ARIZ.html
But The debris is an eloquent witness to the but not the crash of a Boeing 757.
· The original Pentagon press conferences said there was no significant sized debris from an airliner.
· There is insufficient debris on the lawn of the Pentagon for it to have been the crash of a Boeing 757.
· The upright cable spools are independent proof in their own right that a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon on 9/11.
· The debris is inconsistent with the crash of a Boeing 757.
· The debris is consistent with the crash of a small jet aircraft, or possibly an unmanned AV if it were capable of launching a "bunker-buster" missile.
· At first glance, in the ruble photographed at the exit hole, there is no debris reminiscent of an airliner - just office debris.
· The sole piece of crash debris purporting to be from a Boeing 757 was probably planted as it comes from the wrong side of the plane.
· Some pieces of the wreckage was carried away by Air Force personnel.
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttack.shtml,
Also worrying is that some of the photos of the debris removal work at the Pentagon long after the attack indicate that they are taking against contamination, perhaps because of the presence of http://911revieworg/Wiki/DepletedUranium.shtml. Depleted uranium is sometimes used in commercial aircraft (but apparently not in the Boeing 757)
Threading a Plane through the Eye of a Needle..
result < 30m vs 38m (757) wingspan. the hole is too small & perfect symmetry around the impact, 4m left & 4m right are missing for a 757 wingspan (impact angle taken into account ) as the plane approaches, the left engine would be already duggen meters in the ground, in the greens *,
This composite image shows the extent of damage to the Pentagon facade before it collapsed, and the proportional size of the Boeing as it approached. How is it possible that the jetliner could have passed through that tiny hole? (Source: http://0911.site.voila.fr/index2.htm ).
One point that ALL the skeptics are missing, the left engine but there is definitely no trace in the lawn..
http://www.geocities.com/pentalawn2000/
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. MY NEWSLETTER has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is MY NEWSLETTER endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsViewsnolose
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 7:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home