Here's the story.
Frankly, I've never understood why some nuts believe no plane flew into the Pentagon. Barbara Olsen is still dead. She was riding in that plane-American Airlines Flight 77- and on the phone saying goodbye to her husband, solicitor general Ted Olsen.
"What do I tell the pilot to do? * Here's the story with the video but I'm afraid it will only fuel more conspiracy theories and speculation because the video stinks. Popular Mechanics Mythbusters here.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Pentagon tape from 9/11 released
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I don't expect this to stop the conspiracy nutcases. I do expect to hear it was manipulated or manufactured or otherwise false.
Early on there were some still pictures released that showed the tail of the Boeing plane briefly. Additionally you have over 100 eye witnesses who all saw a plane crash into the building. There was also wreckage of the plane found both inside and outside the building.
Still, none of that stopped those that desperately wish to make others believe that the evil, diabolical yet incompetent George Bush did all this to start a war.
Like I said, conspiracy nutcases.
Well, that didn't take long. As I predicted, conspiracist moonbats are already denouncing this new video.
New Tape Stirs Up 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Pentagon Video Officially Released
May 16, 2006 — - The minute the Pentagon released images of the Sept. 11 attack on its building, the message boards at ABCNEWS.com lit up with conspiracy theories.
"It doesn't clarify anything -- I don't see a plane in that image," said Michael Berger, spokesman for 911Truth.org. "In fact, I thought that was underwhelming."
ABCNews
lew,
Popular Mechanics ran an article last year debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. To read it just go to popularmechanics.com and search for 9/11.
Thanks Kodiak, I'll link that.
Kodiak, there are lots of sights debunking this conspiracy myth about the Pentagon. Popular Mechanics was a good one.
But, like I said, why ruin a good conspiracy? Nothing will ever satisfy the moonbats.
Isn't it funny they were so silent duing the Clinton era and just accepted what they were told to think?
lew,
Sad but true.
Lew, you have a short memory.
Moonbats with conspiracies on TWA 800, Oklahoma City, Vince Foster, etc were plentiful and pretty noisy.
What happened to all the black helicopters?
loyalingrate,
Look up!
Fizzi, nice try, but no seegar, son.
I don't see massive books and websites set up questioning the events you mentioned.
There is a difference between moonbat conspiracists and sincere questioning.
In fact there are websites still in existence for each of the three I mentioned. You can Google as well as I can. Also books galore. Go to Amazon. It's easy to prove Lew wrong again.
Fizzi, only in your imagination. Like I said, sincere questioning is far different than full blown moonbat conspiracists.
A major difference is that questions have never been answered from the Clinton era. September 11 moonbats ignore clear and relevant evidence and continue to manufacture conspiracys.
Time and time again this ridiculous claim of no aircraft hitting either the Pentagon nor the WTC has been shot down with ample evidence. Hell, hundreds even witnessed it. Still, morons like Charlie Sheen go on National Media and make the claim that the planes he saw hit the WTC were like no commercial jets he has ever flown.
According to the bogus claim of no wreckage found at the Pentagon United Flight 93 also did not happen as there was no wreckage there, either.
Once adequately debunked conspiracy's are dead, or should be. That hasn't stopped the far left moonbats from keeping igniting their pet bovine scatology in futile attempts to paint Bush as the bumbling, clever, diabolical, ineffective, uneducated, evily intelligent President ya'll have been trying to claim he is.
Show me where any questions asked about the Clinton era have been asnwered or debunked.
lew, you're right. But not for the reasons you are trying to toss at us. You are trying to compare events that pale in comparison to the enormous tragedy and horror of 911. Had the same attack happened with Clinton in office, the same stuff would be making it's rounds.
That said, I gotta say, I'm so sick of Clinton being the argument for everything, good or bad. Has anyone noticed he hasn't been President for almost 7 years?!!!!!
Backwards, it's difficult to absolve Clinton of any responsibility when many of the things he initiated while in office led to this attack.
Islamo-terrorism got a good start while Jimmy Carter was in office, at least the level we have arrived at today. True there were terrorist acts prior, but not on the scale of Iranian Hostage crisis and invasion of a sovereign embassy by them.
Bush was in office 7 months when the attacks occurred. Clinton was in office the previous 8 years and several terrorist attacks, including the first WTC bombing, happened here and abroad. Intelligence capability was decimated when it was decided just who intelligence could be gathered from. A wall of separation was erected between agencies that might have led to discovery of what was about to happen. Clinton mistakenly treated acts of war like simple crimes. Clinton had troops run when confronted with early Al Qaeda confrontations, emboldening Bin Ladin and his minions.
So you see, he has to accept his share of the responsibility for what happened. His hands aren't clean in any of this.
Democrats hating Bush for defeating Gore and sKerry don't help dispel these wild conspiracies, some of which originate overseas in Europe, by remaining silent when they know better. Their silence, presumably to distract Bush and continually embarrass him, implies belief and personally, I don't think they believe them either.
We all are Americans and we all were attacked. 9-11 touched all of us in some way. Taking the battle back to the terrorists, even in the battle of Iraq (it's not a separate war any more than Iwo Jima was during WW2) is only right and long overdue. We all need to get behind our troops and help them win this war, regardless of how long.
Fueling wild and untrue conspiracies is counter-productive to keeping our freedoms and way of life.
Clinton was in office less than 2 months when the WTC occurred. By your reasoning we should blame Bush 1.
What did George W. Bush do as followup to the Cole attack?
The Clinton administration warned George W. about Osama.
Peleliu is more apt than Iwo Jima
Fizzi, I do not absolve either Bush 1 or Reagan for their own failures leading up to 9-11, there were several warning signs by the way of Islamofascist terrorist attacks against US interests abroad.
While both did do more than either Clinton or Carter, both still fell way short of what should have been done.
Uh, the USS Cole happened under Clinton's watch. Bush inherited the ineffective measures set in motion by Clinton.
Maybe Bush was "warned" in a general manner about Usama, but it was Clinton, by his own spoken words, that did not accept custody of him when Sudan offered. That "warning" does not absolve the Clintons of their decimating the Military and setting up the wall of separation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies that were tracking suspected terrorists.
After the first WTC bombing, had Clinton initiated appropriate Military measures to seek and neutralize terrorists, he would have had my full support. Prosecuting and imprisoning a blind sheik did nothing to protect America.
Peleliu, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Leyte, whichever one you wish, the point is that a war isn't fought on a single front. Iraq is but a battle in the overall War on Terror, not a separate war onto itself.
I know the Cole attack happened in October of 2000, my point is what if anything did Bush do three months later.
If you know your WWII history you would know that Peleliu was a screwup.
The perpetrator of the Cole attack is in a 'secret' prison. The D's want him to face our tough court system. The President wants to keep him where he is for the time being.
Fizzi, why would responsibilty for the USS Cole fall on Bush on January 21 and Clinton be expected to just let it lay for the 3 months between the attack and Bush's inauguration? Do you seriously expect everything to instantly change the instant a new President is sworn in?
From a December 16, 2000 telecast of CNN (hardly pro-Bush);
RICHARD CLARKE, WHITE HOUSE COUNTERTERRORISM COORDINATOR: Then there are governments like Afghanistan, which are engaged in the smuggling of heroin and the harboring of terrorists, and governments such as Afghanistan, I think, have to be considered criminal organizations.
DAVID ENSOR: Next week, at the United Nations, the Security Council is expected to pass a US and Russian sponsored resolution imposing an arms embargo and other restrictions on the Taliban. Administration officials say they believe the incoming Bush administration will also favor tightening the screws on the Taliban until they give up bin Laden.
Therein lies the problem. The Clinton administration looked upon terrorist attacks as a "criminal" matter. It was treated as a criminal problem when in fact, it was another act of war!
As for WW2 battles, Peleliu was hardly the only blunder. No battle plan survives contact with the enemy. It takes ordinary people committing extraordinary actions to carry out and win battles. One of the bigger examples would be the Normandy Inavsion. General Bradley seriously considered retreating early in the morning due to it not going so well. It took the courage of those trapped on the beaches to break out and stop being killed on the beach.
Post a Comment