Anti-Neocons

vid saving rightnow

_________________
This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-deathcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else.
My Twitter
"It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman

Google version of War by Deception (Magic Bunnies)
Pass HR 1207 and S604 audit the Fed



ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you

They were combing the lawn for documents regarding the 2.3trillion dollar audit that was going on that week? In the offices that got hit.....

_________________
By way of information, thou shalt do war.

I will put aside all of the evident points that Ventura made regarding whether a plane, missile, or bomb(s) made the holes punched in the side of the Pentagon. The biggest question I have is: Why did the FBI confiscate all the video camera tapes that would show what actually hit the Pentagon?

In my opinion, a person with a Physics 101 course can conclude that:

1) a 757 commercial jetliner did not hit the Pentagon. However, we shall require the film from the many closed circuit video cameras in the vicinity of the Pentagon, in order to conclude what caused the penetrating holes.

There are many passenger (fighter) jets that can fly in close proximity to ground level at speeds above 500mph, but this list doesn't include a 757 commercial jetliner. See short film at
http://www.break.com/index/concreteplane.html

2) the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Center 7 did not fall in their footprints due to kerosene/benzene jet fuel melting the building steel. We have seen enough evident film footage from NYC to conclude that planes DID hit the Twin Towers, but we cannot prove that these were the alleged hijacked passenger jets, unless the black boxes were recovered... but allegedly the indestructible boxes were never found.

Ry,

I watched your youtube video. You are probably correct regarding the real issues that we are being distracted from, which would primarily be the Federal Reserve. Perhaps, rather than debunking and discerning the 911 truth/liar movements, you should just state that we need to focus on the more important issues, such as the FED’s business/bank bail-outs. You are expending to much energy bitch slapping 911 no-plane/pod people, when you should instead be directing people's attention to ‘Ending the Fed’.

You appear to be self-educated in the realm of detecting cyberspace disinformation, in that you have already correctly pegged Alex Jones to be the Rothschild boot licker that he is. You have also categorized Jesse Ventura to be unconsciously mesmerized by AJ's bullhorn (or possibly intentionally working in concert with AJ?). What have you researched about Ron Paul? Does this congressman have a clandestine agenda, or is he possibly just another unwitting, duped shill?

I'm hoping someone can come up with a explanation about what happened at the Pentagon that both makes logical sense and satisfies the laws of physics, but I haven't been able to do so.

The plane makes logical sense (too many witnesses, if nothing else), but a plane doesn't satisfy the laws of physics (planes are designed to punch through air, not 6 stone or concrete walls [each ring of the Pentagon is a free-standing building, hole punched through 3 rings = 6 walls]). I'm sure you've seen this Boeing whistle-blower video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0&feature (I hope that's how to make a link), anyway, the pertinent material for this discussion is a segment on how planes are constructed: a series of concentric rings attached to a flat steel deck and the whole thing is covered by a thin skin. What ever hit the Pentagon could not have been a plane because there is nothing in the structure of a plane that could make round holes in 6 consecutive walls - a flat slice through all from the steel deck, maybe, but I doubt it. Since the plane theory already defies the laws of physics, I'll just mention that it also defies the laws of aerodynamics.

A missile makes no logical sense (launched from where and how, the timing would have had to be perfect - which points me in the direction of not a US government false flag, too incompetent), but it may meet the demands of physics; although, I don't know if a missile can poke round holes in 6 walls, either, what with the whole 'for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction' thing. For me right now, a missile seems the most reasonable, but certainly not conclusive, explanation, but with the combination of my lack of knowledge regarding what missiles are capable of, the logistics of substituting a missile for a plane while everyone is watching, and AJ and others pushing the missile theory, I have to accept that the missile theory sure looks like a straw man.

I so hope you can solve the Pentagon problem; it's the one thing left about 9-11 that seems to defy both logic and the laws of physics. I know you accept the plane theory and plan to explain it in full detail, but I assure you, promise you, that the plane theory defies the laws of physics. The missile theory defies the laws of logic, as you already understand. Please, don't make your video about how it had to be a plane until you watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0&feature, starting at about 7:20, and see how planes are built and understand that no plane ever was built to be able to punch through 3 rings, equaling 6 stone or concrete block walls, of the Pentagon or any other building.

I don't have a clue what the answer is, but it wasn't a plane and probably wasn't a missile. So, that leaves only one thing: Something else happened at the Pentagon on 9-11. Figuring that out could be the key to unraveling the entire bs story.

Well the fact that they never released proper footage of the plan hitting the pentagon suggests that there is something to hide. However, the plane must have hit because of all the eyewitnesses who saw a plane.

I'm sure Ry has said himself that the reason for covering up the footage was that there may have been secondary explosions like there was at the WTCs. So it is probable that a plane and explosives were used, and the explosives were used to make sure the target was destroyed. However, I can't personally recall any evidence of secondary explosions at the pentagon, like any eyewitness accounts. I guess the main evidence is the extent of the damage.

_________________
our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

From what I got from the show was the plane went over the top and it was something else that did the damage. The plane people saw was to the north of the gas station, the light-poles are to the south. I should be able to re-find that vid, hopefully you have already watched it.

Without this being a distraction is flight 93 considered to have impacted as 'reported'? If not then the fate of the physical plane is 'unknown'.

Here are a couple of good pages exposing the fallacy of the ridiculous 'No Planes' BS...

'Pentagon Missile Hoax Discredits and Distracts From REAL Evidence':

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

'The Pod People and the Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon':

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ppfinal.html

_________________
"Let God arise and let His enemies be scattered."

†IC XC†
†NI KA†