Flight 77 ?

[joemailman]

And so......Is there an answer to the qusetion raised by the films Loose Change and In Plane Site.... Where are the remains of Flight 77 ? Where are they in the films and where are they being kept?

[MortFurd]

Check here for answers. (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html)

Created by Gravy.

[defaultdotxbe]

i give you flight 77

http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/757-americanlogo.jpg

http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/rim1.jpg
wheel

http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/landinggear002.jpg
landing gear strut

http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/trou1moyenne.jpg
inner hole, with another wheel visible to the right of the rescue worker

http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/your-own-evidence.jpg
assorted wreckage sporting boeing primer colors

http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/planeparts-1.jpg
turbofan wheel

http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/Damage9.jpg
engine casing

http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/Shoring8.jpg
another engine part (bottom right)




as far as the films go, i doubt any of them show much, a camera woul dneed a high framerate and be pointed (and focused) on just the right spot to catch the plane

[stateofgrace]

And so......Is there an answer to the qusetion raised by the films Loose Change and In Plane Site.... Where are the remains of Flight 77 ? Where are they in the films and where are they being kept?

This is the entire point and the questions the CTers refuse to answer.

I simply take this right back to the bare bones facts.

Fact: Flight 77 as disappeared off the face of the earth.
Fact: On the very same day a large fixed wing aircraft slammed into the side of the Pentagon.

Do you or does anybody need the US Government, the aircraft investigators, the forensic scientists and goodness knows who else was involved in this dreadful event to tell you that the two above facts are interlaced?

There is more than enough evidence to support the fact that the two above facts are part of the same terrible event. This evidence has been presented here on this very forum and on many other websites.

[Longfellow]

Where are they in the films and where are they being kept?

That is something I've never understood about the Deniers' claims about the unreleased surveillance camera footage. Why would the owner of an establishment go through the expense of installing/maintaining surveillance cameras and then point them at the Pentagon? Wouldn't it make more sense to point them at...oh...the establisments?

[mamapajamas]

That is something I've never understood about the Deniers' claims about the unreleased surveillance camera footage. Why would the owner of an establishment go through the expense of installing/maintaining surveillance cameras and then point them at the Pentagon? Wouldn't it make more sense to point them at...oh...the establisments?

The camera may well have been pointed at their parking lot.

But why is surveillance camera footage necessary at all, except to back up the statements of witnesses? If the Pentagon had been somewhere isolated in the woods, I could see the reason why some people might be skeptical, but the fact is that it is on a major highway, the plane flew extremely low and fast over several major city traffic arteries, and hundreds of drivers on those streets saw Flight 77 buzz low overhead and/or hit the Pentagon. They couldn't help noticing it... the plane was so low they thought it was going to come down on them. CNN and Fox were out there in minutes talking to those stunned people, and they told the world about the huge plane that nearly crashed on them.

What's the problem? Eyewitness accounts, especially those taken minutes after an event, used to actually mean something. I work nights and was sitting in my living room watching events as they unfolded. I saw the witnesses being interviewed at the actual time it happened, in real time, not on later nightly news broadcasts.

Or are there people out there who actually believe that the Great Conspirators managing to get "fake witnesses" out onto the streets before the crash and blocking off all other traffic except CNN and Fox to keep the news people from talking to "real" witnesses without anyone in the Arlington/DC area noticing (whew!)-- OR managing to create an illusion of a massive plane buzzing the streets-- is a more reasonable explanation than a plane crashing into the building?

WHY is it so hard to believe that terrorists hijacked four planes and crashed three of them into buildings and one in the fields of Pennsylvania when OBL declared war on the US in 1998?

Occam's razor. Not only is the terrorist angle the simplest explanation, it is the ONLY explanation that actually makes any sense.

[-=Vagrant=-]

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/16-nov-2005.html

What about the missing arab bodies?

[kc440_]

The thing that bothered me about 9-11 is being told that people on the planes "vaporized." Especially the Pennsylvania plane.

I believe 9-11 was a dastardly hoax perpetrated by Bush and his associates, Tony Blair and Guiliani, in order to make Americans mad and frightened enough to attack the Arabs. The purpose was to gain control of those countries and have a new world order, where the US and England rule the rest of the planet.

There's a photo in existence that shows W's father, conferring with men in front of the Texas School Book Depository that day, shortly after the Assassination. President Kennedy is the key, because after the very rich and powerful oil families slaughtered him, they made sure that no other President had a vision for America, except their vision: one world govt.

Someone told me -- and I can't verify the accuracy -- that when President Clinton took office he asked Army Intelligence (I think) 2 things. He wanted to know who killed President Kennedy and what was the truth about UFOs and the Roswell Incident. And what were they doing at Area 51. He was told he didn't have high enough clearance. I wish I could find this somewhere. If I do, I'll post it. It came out in conversation.

kc440

[WildCat]

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/16-nov-2005.html

What about the missing arab bodies?
What "missing Arab bodies"?

[Pardalis]

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/16-nov-2005.html

What about the missing arab bodies?

http://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf#search=%22terrorist%20DNA%209%2F11%22

Some remains for each of the terrorists were recovered, as evidenced by five unique postmortem profiles that did not match any antemortem material provided by victims’ families.

[WildCat]

The thing that bothered me about 9-11 is being told that people on the planes "vaporized."
Slow down little buckaroo. What official site claims that the bodies vaporized?

[Pardalis]

Someone told me -- and I can't verify the accuracy

I think this sums up your entire post.

[T.A.M.]

The thing that bothered me about 9-11 is being told that people on the planes "vaporized." Especially the Pennsylvania plane.


I have a problem with that statement being used as a STRAWMAN argument by every CTer who I run into. If you polled every Debunker on this board, I doubt you would find one that would say that Flight 77 was COMPLETELY VAPORIZED or EVAPORATED or ATOMIZED or DISINTIGRATED (I have heard them all spued).

Up above are many pictures provided for you to see that this is not the case.

I believe 9-11 was a dastardly hoax perpetrated by Bush and his associates, Tony Blair and Guiliani, in order to make Americans mad and frightened enough to attack the Arabs. The purpose was to gain control of those countries and have a new world order, where the US and England rule the rest of the planet.

That statement sounds great as intro to a good Tom Clancy Novel, but in the real world it is unsubstantiated opinion, with little to no FACTS to back it up.

There's a photo in existence that shows W's father, conferring with men in front of the Texas School Book Depository that day, shortly after the Assassination. President Kennedy is the key, because after the very rich and powerful oil families slaughtered him, they made sure that no other President had a vision for America, except their vision: one world govt.

ah yes, so Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, both just patsies for the GOP, who allowed the DEMs to win, just to make it "look good" right?

There are pictures of world leaders and businessmen in all sorts of places, talking to all sorts of people.

If people with your standards for EVIDENCE are allowed to rule the world, than I hope you are never in the wrong place at the wrong time, and someone snaps a photo...it will be 20 years to life for you my friend.

Someone told me -- and I can't verify the accuracy -- that when President Clinton took office he asked Army Intelligence (I think) 2 things. He wanted to know who killed President Kennedy and what was the truth about UFOs and the Roswell Incident. And what were they doing at Area 51. He was told he didn't have high enough clearance. I wish I could find this somewhere. If I do, I'll post it. It came out in conversation.

I do not know where it came from, and I can barely see the relivance, but if I had to guess, I would say it came out of a CT book written by William Cooper, or some other nut, with little if any evidence to back it up. Just a guess.

kc440, if you are here because you are on the fence about 9/11, which from your last post I doubt, than start looking around at all the REAL, FACTUAL EVIDENCE that people have posted here that flies in the face of almost all of LOOSE CHANGE and all the other 9/11 CT bunk.

If you are here to flame, or to argue the CT view point, than argue away, but be prepared for a hellish onslaught of material and dialogue to the contrary.

TAM

[apathoid]

.....kc440

^^ They're soooo cute at this age....

[Checkmite]

...when President Clinton took office he asked Army Intelligence (I think) 2 things. He wanted to know who killed President Kennedy and what was the truth about UFOs and the Roswell Incident. And what were they doing at Area 51.

...three things. President Clinton asked Army Intelligence three things...

[Lisa Simpson]

1. What are the best cigars?
2. How to get stains out of a dress?

and...

?

[Checkmite]

Grrrr.

Amongst the things President Clinton aske....amongst the questions asked of Army Intelligence by Pres...I'll come in again.

[Loss Leader]

Someone told me -- and I can't verify the accuracy -- that when President Clinton took office he asked Army Intelligence (I think) 2 things. He wanted to know who killed President Kennedy and what was the truth about UFOs and the Roswell Incident. And what were they doing at Area 51. He was told he didn't have high enough clearance. I wish I could find this somewhere. If I do, I'll post it. It came out in conversation.

kc440

Considering that Clinton was the first president ever to publicly acknowledge the existence of the Groom Lake testing facilities, I doubt that he was part of a continuing alien cover-up.

As for who killed JFK, my sources have uncovered a photo of this man (http://www.glynn.k12.ga.us/~pwilliam/BHS/academics/junior/mitts/jamesa21737/OSWALD.JPG).

[Checkmite]

Supporting Link (http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/020100-presidential-letter-to-congress-on-groom-lake.htm)

[Gravy]

Welcome joemailman. It looks like you found a good source of info about flight 77. I'll add a few things here (this is from a recent email I sent: the comments aren't directed to you!) Someone linked to my Loose Change Viewer Guide above. I'll have a new version out in a few days with much more information.

First, an important message from someone who was at the Pentagon on 9/11. Please take it to heart.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1849603&postcount=1

How about the dozens of eyewitnesses accounts of the crash? For your claim to be true, all of theirs must be false. Please provide your evidence that all these people are lying.
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud.../witnesses.htm

Notice that many of those witnesses specifically mention seeing a huge American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon.

Just released was the flight 77 Flight path analysis, which contains detailed information. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf)

And the Air Traffic Control transcripts were also released: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc06.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc06.pdf)

Summary of Flight 77 depicting the identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and seats from which telephone calls were made:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html

More on the phone calls, from the 9/11 Commission Report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Of course, for anyone interested in the damage to the Pentagon, the ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report is essential reading: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf From page 35: "The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20).

A single 16-foot hole? That is completely wrong. The hole extends along the wing line left, and especially, right, of the fuselage hole. It is not a cookie-cutter hole: that simply cannot happen with a reinforced concrete building. Note in the following picture the total destruction of masonry and the reinforced columns broken and bent in the direction of impact (the plane came in from the right of the picture): http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg

No debris on the lawn? That couldn't be less true. Why don't CTs show these photos?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e5acd97bcc7.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e5acd9b75a6.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e5acd9e4fea.jpg[
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e5ad1fb1eb4.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e5add2ebf1b.jpg

Many debris photos at 911myths.com http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

How about the account of the C-130 pilot who saw both the flight 77 attack and the aftermath of flight 93? Lying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVRkAkC8n4&search=Shanksville

Photos from witness Steve Riskus, seconds after the crash (he gives his contact info, but be nice: he gets a lot of email): http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror.html

Next, you need to remember that the remains of every flight 77 victim but one (a two-year-old) was recovered and positively identified by forensics experts. Personal effects of many survived the crash and fires and were returned to the victims' families. Articles on Pentagon disaster morgue operations and victim identification:
http://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf and http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6_48/national_news/12279-1.html

As for the question, "Where are all those Pentagon video cameras?" the answer is that the Pentagon uses live security – human beings – for its perimeter security. Here's a post on the BAUT forum from a Pentagon employee who was there on 9/11. http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=746514&postcount=173 An excerpt:"Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be suprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment."

A brief look at the ridiculous "A missile hit the Pentagon" theory:
1) No missile was seen or heard by anyone. All eyewitnesses report a passenger jet crash.
2) No missile debris was found
3) Missiles do not carry thousands of gallons of jet fuel
4) Missiles do not carry the remains of flight 77 passengers
5) Missiles do not carry tons of 757 debris
6) In the photo below, the yellow dots indicate the broken light poles. The red line indicates the path a missile would have to take in order to knock them over. Or, the missile would have to have a wingspan of over 100 feet. http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044caa801aabf4.jpg

An examination of numerous Pentagon/flight 77 questions at 9/11myths.com http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

A detailed examination of the Jet engine pieces found at the Pentagon http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

And how about the hundreds of first responders and investigators who were on the scene the first day? All lying? Your position is deeply disrespectful of their service. Have you attempted to contact any of the 8,000 people who were on the scene after the crash? If you still have doubts, please do so. Here are a few suggestions for contacts:

the Pentagon 3-person Crash Response Team
the Arlington County Fire Department
the Arlington County Sheriff's Department
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
the Arlington, VA Police Department
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue
Alexandria, VA Fire & Rescue
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
the Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
the Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
the Fort Myer Fire Department
the Arlington County SWAT Team
the Virginia State Police,
the FBI's Evidence Recovery Teams
the National Transportation Safety Board Investigators
American Airlines representatives
the HHS National Medical Response Team
the Pentagon security staff,
the DOD Honor Guard
the Pentagon Medical Unit
the Pentagon Defense Protective Service,
Four U.S. Army Chaplains
One Catholic Priest (Stephen McGraw)
the FBI Hazmat Team
the EPA Hazmat Team
the FEMA Incident Support Team
the FEMA Emergency Response Team
the FEMA Disaster Field Office
the FEMA Virginia-1, Virginia-2, Maryland-1 and Tennessee-1 Task Forces
the US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach, Fairfax County and Montgomery County
the National Naval Medical Center CCRF
Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
the U.S. Army 54th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
the U.S. Army 311th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
the American Red Cross,
the United States Secret Service,
the C-130H crew

A good forum post: "Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon" http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single.php?post=816414

[Loss Leader]

Just released was the flight 77 Flight path analysis, which contains detailed information. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

Gravy,

How come the flight path of AA77 doesn't account for the light poles? AA77 was too high in the last seconds of flight to hit the light poles and the reconstructed flightpath proves it. Just a little detail the NWO neocons forgot about, I say.

Just kidding. Great work burying this guy with evidence. I hope Monday goes grate and the October debate comes off.

[joemailman]

You guys are really something! If anybody questions convention or the "party" line he or she is suddenly on the other side of the fence. I can't understand how it is that you are so defensive. I don't trust this government anymore than I did 40 years ago. Of course there are conspiracies but there need not be total acceptance from the likes of the warren commission or from the 9/11 commission. You can buy their word and their judgement but I for one don't trust these politicians. The world is not black and white.

[Pardalis]

You guys are really something! If anybody questions convention or the "party" line he or she is suddenly on the other side of the fence. I can't understand how it is that you are so defensive. I don't trust this government anymore than I did 40 years ago. Of course there are conspiracies but there need not be total acceptance from the likes of the warren commission or from the 9/11 commission. You can buy their word and their judgement but I for one don't trust these politicians. The world is not black and white.

Who said anything about politics?

We only care about facts. There are facts, and there are lies. Where do you draw the line?

[DavidJames]

You guys are really something! If anybody questions convention or the "party" line he or she is suddenly on the other side of the fence. I can't understand how it is that you are so defensive. I don't trust this government anymore than I did 40 years ago. Of course there are conspiracies but there need not be total acceptance from the likes of the warren commission or from the 9/11 commission. You can buy their word and their judgement but I for one don't trust these politicians. The world is not black and white.You asked some questions and were given of plenty answers and things to look at, any comments about the answers to your questions.

[Checkmite]

Of course, for anyone interested in the damage to the Pentagon, the ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report is essential reading: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf [/URL]

Awexome link!

The NTSB's ATC transcript, for some odd reason, saddens me more than any other photos or text related to 9-11 that I've seen thus far.

[gumboot]

You guys are really something! If anybody questions convention or the "party" line he or she is suddenly on the other side of the fence. I can't understand how it is that you are so defensive. I don't trust this government anymore than I did 40 years ago.



I think openly admitting you distrust the government and have done so for 4 decades (never mind it's not the same government) puts you pretty thoroughly on the "other side of the fence". By the way, the fence is not a political fence, it's the demarkation line between reality and Looser-ville.

By the way, until you made this comment, people were simply asking your questions. You wanted to know where AA77 was. We have told you and shown you. It hit The Pentagon at 0837 EDT, September 11, 2001.

-Andrew

[Checkmite]

You guys are really something! If anybody questions convention or the "party" line he or she is suddenly on the other side of the fence. I can't understand how it is that you are so defensive. I don't trust this government anymore than I did 40 years ago. Of course there are conspiracies but there need not be total acceptance from the likes of the warren commission or from the 9/11 commission. You can buy their word and their judgement but I for one don't trust these politicians. The world is not black and white.


Why don't you just forget about the politicians and pay attention to the photos, eyewitness accounts, engineering analyses, and scientific findings which clearly indicate that, just this one time, maybe "the government" happens to be right about something?

[twinstead]

Why don't you just forget about the politicians and pay attention to the photos, eyewitness accounts, engineering analyses, and scientific findings which clearly indicate that, just this one time, maybe "the government" happens to be right about something?

For all that is holy I second that. FORGET politics. Deal with this evidence!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You guys are really something! If anybody questions convention or the "party" line he or she is suddenly on the other side of the fence. I can't understand how it is that you are so defensive. I don't trust this government anymore than I did 40 years ago. Of course there are conspiracies but there need not be total acceptance from the likes of the warren commission or from the 9/11 commission. You can buy their word and their judgement but I for one don't trust these politicians. The world is not black and white.

I think you'll find (if you're willing to trudge through the reams of threads around here) that we are perfectly willing to deal with just the facts. It seems clear, especially after the Vanity Fair(e?) article, that some effort was made to cover-up the screw-ups on 9/11. You'll find a fair number of people that are anti-Bush on the forum (and those that are pro-Bush). You'll find no hestitation in acknowledging that the initial report on WTC 7 is flawed in its gross underestimation of the damage to the building.

The strong reaction you see is that this forum (which is based upon critical thinking, scientific methodology, and facts) has been dealing with these issues for 10's of thousands of posts and we keep seeing the same damn arguments brought up over, and over, and over again.

[Obviousman]

You guys are really something! If anybody questions convention or the "party" line he or she is suddenly on the other side of the fence. I can't understand how it is that you are so defensive. I don't trust this government anymore than I did 40 years ago. Of course there are conspiracies but there need not be total acceptance from the likes of the warren commission or from the 9/11 commission. You can buy their word and their judgement but I for one don't trust these politicians. The world is not black and white.

What I trust is the science. When I see herds of reputable scientists raising questions about various aspects of 9/11, I'll pay very close attention. Hell, I pay close attention to what the CTists say - just on the off chance that someone does uncover some aspect which indicates (i.e. proves) complicity.

What I don't trust are lone "experts" speaking outside their fields. What I don't trust are self-obsessed egomanics like johndoeX. Even if his claims of experience are true (and I doubt that more every day), he has demonstrated a fragile and incomplete grasp of many aspects of aviation. Various examples of his so-called knowledge have been proven wrong or flawed.

He's an internet poser.

[gfunkusarelius]

You guys are really something! If anybody questions convention or the "party" line he or she is suddenly on the other side of the fence. I can't understand how it is that you are so defensive. I don't trust this government anymore than I did 40 years ago. Of course there are conspiracies but there need not be total acceptance from the likes of the warren commission or from the 9/11 commission. You can buy their word and their judgement but I for one don't trust these politicians. The world is not black and white.

the implication that people here who posted very clear and documented evidence are blindly trusting politicians indicated to me that you havent even looked at what was presented... there might have been some people who came off defensively (due to weariness from trolls, most likely) but it sounds like you are upset by anyone who provided evidence that supports claims from the government (which, by the way, almost all the info provided in this thread regarding flight 77 was from independent sources, not the US government).
the world is certainly not black and white, but i have no idea what that has to do with this discussion. you asked a question, people provided a lot of conclusive evidence for what happened to the plane.

[mamapajamas]

I believe 9-11 was a dastardly hoax perpetrated by Bush and his associates, Tony Blair and Guiliani, in order to make Americans mad and frightened enough to attack the Arabs. The purpose was to gain control of those countries and have a new world order, where the US and England rule the rest of the planet.

And here is where you are tipping your hand. You hate the President more than you love your country. The very notion that anyone can believe that our government could pull off something like this when they can't even keep top secret information out of the New York Times is beyond comprehension. I do NOT understand where this kind of paranoia comes from.

There's a photo in existence that shows W's father, conferring with men in front of the Texas School Book Depository that day, shortly after the Assassination. President Kennedy is the key, because after the very rich and powerful oil families slaughtered him, they made sure that no other President had a vision for America, except their vision: one world govt.

Ah, the oil companies again. That explains everything. Riiiiiight...

...shortly after the Assassination...

Uh... Bush Sr. was a part of the government at the time, and as such, if he was in Dallas that day, the Texas School Book Depository would, to say the very least, be a site of extreme concern to anyone trying to find out what happened. I see nothing suspicious about this allegation. If he had been photographed there BEFORE the assassination, you might have something that looks a bit suspicious.

Here's something you MUST understand about the Kennedy Administration. At the time I was rather young, but old enough to get caught up in the illusion of "Camelot". And what I remember about it is that it was JACKIE who was the Absolute Monarch of "Camelot", not JFK. I remember when JFK went on tour, the AP wire put out breathless article after breathless article with one or two paragraphs about what JFK was doing wherever he traveled, and two or three columns about what Jackie wore, where she went, and what she said and did. Princess Diana was Jackie II. When they toured Europe, JFK told a delighted Paris audience, "I'm the guy who came to town with Jackie."

These conspiracy theories about who shot JFK are assigning WAY too much power to JFK. They are all contengent upon an idea that this group or that group were afraid of his "power". However, at the time he was in office, he was one of the most unpopular presidents in our history. It was JACKIE who was popular. JFK himself just did NOT have the influence that is credited to him in myopic hindsight. He has been canonized by those who remember "Camelot" and have forgotten who the REAL monarch of "Camelot" was.

[gfunkusarelius]

good point (altho OT i suppose) about the JFK presidency. my parents were adults during his presidency and i remember being shocked when i was asking questions about him, probably learning about him in school, and my parents were like "em, he was a pretty good president." i was baffled, i thought he was some sort of god, but later in life i realized that when you live through something like that and see it first hand, you see the good and the bad, but history was presenting something warped by the tragedy of his death.

[kookbreaker]

Someone told me -- and I can't verify the accuracy -- that when President Clinton took office he asked Army Intelligence (I think) 2 things. He wanted to know who killed President Kennedy and what was the truth about UFOs and the Roswell Incident. And what were they doing at Area 51. He was told he didn't have high enough clearance. I wish I could find this somewhere. If I do, I'll post it. It came out in conversation.


A very similar story was told of Jimmy Carter when he took office. Roswell wasn't popular yet so another UFO tale was substituted.

[kookbreaker]

I believe 9-11 was a dastardly hoax perpetrated by Bush and his associates, Tony Blair and Guiliani,

I've made my opinions about the absurdity of Rudy being involved in any plot quite clear. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1676100&postcount=1087)

The idea that the man would attack his own city goes beyond Bukkake of stupid

[Triterope]

Why don't you just forget about the politicians and pay attention to the photos, eyewitness accounts, engineering analyses, and scientific findings which clearly indicate that, just this one time, maybe "the government" happens to be right about something?

Thirded. This isn't about one's opinion of the GW Bush administration. It's about whether or not the evidence supports government complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

[Brainache]

I've made my opinions about the absurdity of Rudy being involved in any plot quite clear. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1676100&postcount=1087)

The idea that the man would attack his own city goes beyond Bukkake of stupid

Possibly Sheizer porn of stupid?

[LashL]

Thirded. This isn't about one's opinion of the GW Bush administration. It's about whether or not the evidence supports government complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Fourthed.