FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Pentagon - Overview
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But if it's that deep, then we can trust nothing at all, and we may as well go home right now.


Good point.

The 'pricks' know that the human psyche freaks out over uncertainty, and will maintain a bottom line of 'rational belief' to preserve sanity - in fact, they anticipate our psychological reaction to preserve 'reality'.

That's why they get so much mileage out of nudging that bottom line a yard or two, especially when the same forces helped condition it's initial location.

IMO, psyop is more than just doing sneaky shit and lying about it - our reactions, both emotional and rational, are the real target, the actual goal, for therein lies the power of social control. The events themselves, IMO, are constructed with this in mind - manipulating people through their reactions to events. The psyop isn't the 'coverup. The psyop is how this nagging, yet subconsciously debilitating doubt conditions our behavior in the future.

So, I'm willing to willing to challenge even the 'obvious', cause then at least I know the only one fooling me is me.

That's why I'm all geeking out on this 'critical thinking' stuff, cause it uses words like math, completely without emotion, prejudice, or belief. It's laborious, and sometimes you have to begin by proving the sky is blue, and most people don't have the patience or interest.

The 'if-then' sentence construction makes you sound all Plato and shit, and it accessorizes perfectly with tinfoil in the 911 program for total social isolation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
The 'if-then' sentence construction makes you sound all Plato and shit, and it accessorizes perfectly with tinfoil in the 911 program for total social isolation.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46228

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rump wrote:
That's another psy-op in regards to the Pentagon investigation. "Not Flight 77 = No Plane." The shills do that - anyone who denies the official version is a "no planer." I'm as tired of reading it as we are of typing it.


Agreed. The fakes strongly frame the debate as 'Official Story' versus 'No Plane'. Frustrating. That is why I spend time thinking of confusing shit like this:

I wrote:
If a 'plane-like' decoy hit the pentagon, then the evidence could be both consistent and inconsistent at the same time when used to support either of the false premises. Unfortunately, consistent enough for the official story, but not enough for you, me, or Thierry.


So, I think we should try to name and define the theories, and what is particular to each, and what may be common to all as a starting point.

So, to define the 'no-plane' crowd, I was using the HTB shorthand. No plane is admittedly and intentionally confusing. Also the 'no plane' theory does include something hitting the pentagon, like global hawk or missle. No plane really means only no flight 77. So let's remove the identity of the thing, and just try to discuss the possibility of what thing. So how bout this:

THEORIES

A OFFICIAL - An American Airlines 767 hit the pentagon.
B HTB - A global hawk or missle hit the building.
C DECOY - Something 'plane-like' hit the building that could be mistaken for a 767 visually, but wouldn't yield crash site evidence supporting that claim.

Now, if C were the case, and that 'plane like' footage exists, it makes strategic sense to focus the argument between A and B, then produce 'visual' evidence that makes the B people look like lunatics.

Anyway, you see what I'm sayin....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of Theirry What'sHisName.... what's the deal with the fact that the first two bits of odd evidence that I, at least, was exposed to in regards to 9/11 - "Hunt the Boeing" and the video of Tower 1 being hit - both originated from the French?

Coincidence, or some sort of subtle psy-op? My only guess is - since the conservatards were always into their "France sucks" mode, did it prevent many of them accidentally buying into the Pentagon thing too soon? Or, did the fact that the instantly accepted Naudett Bros. video removed some anti-French prejudice, clearing the way for the Hunt the Boeing issue?

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A pretty decent, and convincing, 3D simulation of flight 77 (or some other similar plane), and the damage it created before, and as it hit the Pentagon. (by Mike J. Wilson):

YouTube video >>

Download here>>

"It looked like a giant cruise missile with wings and a tail section.... Shocked "
"Dah, dude, that's a plane you're describing... :roll: "

At least some kind of plane... Wink

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
allheart



Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:49 pm    Post subject: Dov Zakheim and the Pentagon Reply with quote

Was Dov Zakheim (Pentagon comptroller in 9/11/2001) involved in the Pentagon attack in 9-11? Take a look at this:
http://judicial-inc.biz/Dov_Zakheim_Fl_77.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:57 am    Post subject: Part 1: "Framed!" Reply with quote

DOD Crash video, frames 1 and 2:

This is the video from the Pentagon parking lot kiosk, from which the Military has graced us with a total of 5 frames (initially, then another stopframe after a FOIA request from Judicial Watch).

Note the differences between the 2 frames:



The first, most obvious difference is the smoke trail. In frame 1, it is a relaxed, curling, thick white smoke trail, that appears to not be coming from a very fast-moving object. In order to justify the plane's speed, the NTSB said it was traveling 530 MPH, which is roughly the speed it would take for a 60-ton aircraft to penetrate into the 3rd ring, crashing through 9 feet of steel-reinforced concrete, at 30g of deceleration. (Assuming an aluminum framed nose cone could even possibly do that.)

Later, black box data was said to have reported that the speed was actually 345MPH, which trashes the NTSB's "reverse engineered" flight speed, so that was never brought up again, and luckily, no one seriously questioned it's disappearance.

At any rate, neither speed would seem to be slow enough to produce this curly-q'd smoke trail (then add in the fact that jets do not leave smoke trails at this low of an altitude on a clear, dry Autumn day in the first place, and we're now dealing with very bizarre general circumstances.)

In Frame 2, this thick white smoke trail has flattened out and has almost disappeared into nothing, at the moment the 'thing' strikes the building.

Thirdly, note that - quite oddly, indeed - the surrounding dome of the camera's glass window has changed fairly drastically. The metal ring of the window is bent outward, protruding into the picture. Someone commented a while ago that perhaps the blast wave affected the window - but common sense would tell you that the window would move inward, not outward from the camera, if affected by a blast wave. (Also, given the fact that between these 2 frames, the jet has traveled about 1/4 the distance, at over 300 MPH, then even in the lowest estimate, the blast wave would have to travel - in order to reach the camera windwo in the same amount of time - at roughly 1200 MPH, or Mach 2, which is impossible for all but a very massive HE detonation, one that would create a much larger display of destruction. And this is supposed to be a simple jet plane crash. But I welcome dismissals of the "window theory" by any govt apologists who wish to pursue HE involvement here.) Wink

Anyway, the camera window should be bending inward, out of the frame, if it is moving at all. Personally, I don't think it should change at all, because changing perspective would demand a change in the distance between camera lens and window, which would imply that the camera and window are not in any way attached, via the kiosk building itself, and I find that nearly impossible to reconcile.

Not only that, but more importantly, the picture point of reference moves, slighty to the right and lower, from frame 1 to frame 2, suggesting that not only has the window distance changed, but so has the camera angle, ever so slightly.

My conclusions: regarding the 2 anomalies - (a) the changing shape of the camera window (and accompanying lens movement), and (b) the oddly thick, curling smoke, with it's immediately flattening, I am left with only one scenario that could account for these anomalies. The first frame is from a different moment (or perhaps day), when the camera angle was slightly askew, for whatever reason, and the "smoke" trail in Frame 1 was graphically added to the picture (along with the darkened tail silhouette) in order to fudge the appearance of a quasi-airplane in the frame. The time stamp was copied to the same moment, because at high speed, there would not be a full second elapsing between these 2 events. (More on the airplane tail silhouette in Part3 of my increasing boring series on this subject. Stay stewed.)

Therefore, also - Mike Wilson's 3D crash presentation was "reverse engineered" to fit Frame 1 of this video. Which I shall show in my next post, Part 2. (I'll bet you all can't wait.) Laughing

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well - I'm looking forwards to it, anyway - I don't know what that says about *me* - prolly best if I don't know.... Wink

Anyhoo - I can't see anyone saying that somehow the blast-wave somehow affected the camera, firstly coz, as you pointed out it would have to be travelling *really, really* fast, and secondly - wouldn't those traffic cones have been affected first/more, becasuse they're closer, and have a bigger surface area to whack?

Just a thought...

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Correct about the cones, they would have blown over from any shock wave strong enough to move a kiosk window. Good point.

I generally don't buy the shock wave thing, even though it would demand evidence of this not being a simple plane crash, but an HE detontation.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Part 2: The 3D Video Recreation
According to the preliminary results of a new study I've undertaken, Mike Wilson's 3D recreation of the Pentagon crash is incorrect in the least, and a deliberate scam in the extreme. Notice (if you watch it again) how he does NOT keep the aircraft model in the shot as he zooms from it to the inside of the parking lot kiosk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

A truly impartial, questioning investigator would have swung his viewpoint so that the onlooker was inline with the kiosk's camera hole, the pylon in front of it, and the airplane in the distance, which would have immediately shown the size relationships prefectly (similar to my alignment below). He does not do this, I believe, for a good technical reason - as he zooms inside the kiosk to show the fish-eye lens view of the plane hiding behind the pylon, I believe his 3D rendering program is shrinking the plane to fit behind the pylon.

(NOTE: the image of the 757 is for length comparison only. The attitude of the plane is from due port, not the cocked angle it would appear in it's trajectory on approach.)

Here's how I have deduced this, from a new diagram (oh no!) I just started this week:



This is a rough draft, and I was even generous with the size of the pylon, so as not to be accused of shinking it to deliberately make the hidden area smaller. This hidden arc is roughly 90 feet across, or about 65' short of being able to hide all but the nose of Flight 77 (a Boeing 757-200).

A criticism I would like to dismiss in advance is the "fish eye lens effect of this kiosk camera creating the changing plane size." Yes, objects around the circular perimeter of a fish eye lens will shrink somewhat in size. However, a fish eye lens simply balloons the inner portion while shrinking the outer circumference. It does not bend light around objects - therefore, what cannot be seen behind an obstruction still cannot be seen. It cannot possibly detract from the accuracy of the layout in the diagram - the sections of a 757-200 that would protrude beyond the edges of the pylon will still protrude, whether seen through a fish eye or normal lense.

Deflection 2: the location of the kiosk camera. There is no way to determine, solely from Pentagon photographs, the exact location of the kiosk camera, other than it's vertical position, which is roughly even with top of the pylon, since it looks flatly across the top of this object. Therefore, I have chosen to use Mike Wilson's location, slighty to the right of the kiosk center - but shifting this left or right would yield basically the same coverage, in relation to the pylon and aircraft. I will also show, eventually, that in order for the pylon to successfully cover up a 155' long airplane, the camera lense would have to be located roughly in the middle of the driving lane, about 4-5' in front of the kiosk. Which obviously, it is not.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:27 pm    Post subject: Citgo video released Reply with quote

The Pentagon has released the Citgo gas station video, and it shoes essentially nothing.

It's a four-way split creen, and only the top right section shows outside the gas station. And, to add mystery to it, the top area of that section is, of course... blurred out. Which I find not suspicious at all. Laughing

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Longsought_911_videotape_didnt_capture_attack_0915.html

Now we can argue about whether or not that is significant for another 5 years.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You've gotta be shitting me! How the fuck did Judicial Watch *know* to ask for the FOIA relase of quite possibly THE SHITTIEST PIECE OF 'VIDEO EVIDENCE' ON BOG'S EARTH?!?

Now, it's not my specialist field, but I did used to work for a place that manufactured hi-res CCTV systems, colour, B&W, infra-red etc - the type that're used in large commercial locations, and also used by the local government. (You should see just *how many* CCTV cameras we have over here in the UK...!)

I would have thought that a facility that close to an institution like the Pentagon would have been made to have, not only a state-of-the-art CCTV/recording system, but also would have been tought/made to use it properly.

This CITGO tape appears to me to have been (re)recorded onto VCR tape that looks like it has been re-used quite possibly since the crucifixon of Christ. The guidelines for actually using VCR tape (most post-2000-ish, certainly if they were installed around that time use digital means, like internal hard-drives, not shitty analogue VCR tape to record the frames, anyway) is that you should use Chrome or Metal VCR tape, and that it should *not* , preferably, be re-used at all. If you insist upon re-using a VCR tape that contains nothing of consequence, you should not re-use it more than once, or maybe twice, to prevent the kind of pathetic, grainy, unanalysable image that we're seeing in the CITGO tape.

Suspicious, moi?!? Nah, surely not... :roll:

Also, there's the matter of the timestamp (now, where have we seen *that* before?) - it shows 01-01-93. WTF?!? I realise that still some ppl do not know how to set a VCR, and put up with the famous 'blinking 12.00', but *this* is ridiculous!

I'm *no* lawyer, but I would have strongly thought that having the *wrong* date/time-stamp on any CCTV footage would render it useless to be used in any court proceedings etc., that's if you *could* make out anything on it at all of evidentiary value - which you can't....

This is bullshit! This is the PENTAGON'S GAS STATION we're talking about here!

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 3 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.