Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reporter On CNN Said Plane "Hitting No Where Near The Pentagon""

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:28 PM
Original message
Reporter On CNN Said Plane "Hitting No Where Near The Pentagon""
then HE explains that what he meant that the plane "didn't hit near the Pentagon!"

WHAT?? What the hell kind of explanation is that?? Hey, I've never posted ANYTHING about conspiracy theories regarding Pentagon, but does this explanation .... uh, fly??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. Another CNN reporter says he saw and photographed
"Big chunks" and the fuselage and tail section of the wrecked airliner.

It's bullshit propaganda day on CNN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. Look how long it took them to put together this really "informative" film.
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. First He's shown Making the Statment From Back Then....
then he explains what he meant! Am I the only one who saw this???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is a major distration ... what's coming up? What BIG is coming? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chimichurri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. Rove indictment? NSA giving them agida?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. The plane hit the lawn in front of the Pentagon...
And slid into the building...probably his lame way of explaining that fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Don't disappoint the MIHOPs
This is their BIG moment

:party: :toast: :party:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. But Someone Said The Pilot Did A Hell Of A Job Keeping
the plane so low to the ground. Hey I think a plane hit the Pentagon, or I always thought one did... what's going on??

What am I missing here?? The still pictures don't show much, I can't say yes or no... I just don't understand the EXPLANATION! The guy said on the day of the crash... the plane hitting nowhere near the Pentagon. Why is he changing the story??

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Actually, the ground was perfectly intact at the Pentagon
Edited on Tue May-16-06 04:40 PM by Rockholm
There are photos showing that after whatever it was that hit the Pentagon, the lawn was intact and there was no debris to speak of. Tell me, of all the plane crashes that have been shown on TV, how many did not show a tail section, a wing, fuselage? All of them. This thing that hit the Pentagon.....nothing.

On Edit: Interesting link added.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. No doubt about it
can't every one see that's Flight 77?

:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. The Hole In That Building Was Pretty SMALL....
for a big plane! I swear this is the very first time I've even questioned anything about this.

It was the way that reporter EXPLAINED what he said he was saying. It sounded UNBELIEVABLE! I wasn't even watching TV at the time, had my head down but when I HEARD what he said I just said "WHAT??"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. The wings would have been ripped off first....
Alos, the Pentagon walls are extremely thick. What you see is the ho;e made by the core of the fuselage...that hole is plenty big enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. Where did the wings go then?
And why did they Pentagon release the tape with frames missing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. It's a surveillance camer...not a video camera...
They operate at a much slower speed as their purpose is not to capture high quality images but to identify potential threats (re: people), which is why it was at a security post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. Yes, it was plane, however, MUCH smaller one.
757 is HUGE and you can't fucking miss it. If it was 757, where the fuck is all the passenger seats? Seats would had been scattered... like 150 seats!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I'm Not Disputing It... It Was The Statement That Was Strange!
However, how do you know these pictures where these pictures came from??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Take a look at the link...
Many other photo's taken with clearly defined landmarks included.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Skipped? That's a new one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TX-RAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Your just confusing the Mihoppers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
28. That looks like
a rim off my '58 Chevy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
29. rense?
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Well, What They Just Showed On CNN Looks The Same
but they are pointing to the far right screen saying that was the plane. But the Pentagon is blowing up at the same time the plane is out there!

Now I'm getting really pissed! WHAT IS GOING ON???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. The plane was moving at a very fast speed...
The distance from the right to left part of the frames is not much. The plane to impact is one frame. Remember also, this is a surveillance camera, not a video camera...the record at a very slow speed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. Well Elmer... I'm Trying To Be Fair Here...
It could be, but I still can't get over the journalist and HIS explanation!

It was such a STUPID remark. You say something like that years ago and come back TODAY and say "what I REALLY MEANT WAS...!" This is where they LOST ME!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TX-RAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
25. It didn't hit the lawn, as I recall (from the photos), and that is one of
the reasons for suspicion--the kind of highly difficult flying maneuvers required to make the turns and slide in toward the Pentagon withOUT hitting the ground. Requires a highly skilled pilot--and, as I recall, the supposed perps had very minimal flight training, and some even flunked that.

The high skill required to fly into the Pentagon that way remains true, even if it WAS a commercial jet, as reported. How was it handled with such consummate skill? Remote control? Someone other than the reported perps? Dunno. But this IS one of the 9/11 anomalies (jet or no jet; missile or no missile).

The biggest weirdness I know about has to do with our purported Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and his failure to defend our nation's capitol. Six months before 9/11, Rumsfeld drew all NORAD decision-making power into his own hands. On 9/11, Rumsfeld had nearly an hour to mount some kind of defense of the capital. He did nothing. There were also standard procedures that were not followed--procedures that NEVER failed before, but which failed in four instances, on that one day--for instance, the immediate, automatic scrambling of fighter jets the moment any private plane is known to be off course. Four airplanes off course; no jets in the air, to contact them in the air (step one of the SOP). Where was Rumsfeld? He later said he was "in a meeting." Right. The WTC collapsing into dust, after two airplane hits, and he's "in a meeting," for 30-50 minutes, and does not know what's going on, while one of the remaining off-course planes takes a U-turn and heads back for DC?

Something very, VERY wrong in this story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. Since the lawn was virtually undisturbed, you can forget the line
about the plane hitting the ground. Nothing hit the ground. Certainly not a 767 traveling 400-500 mph.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. Then where are the marks in the lawn in the after-hit pics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peekaloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. but Rummy keeps a souvenir piece in his office.
ah, yes I'll bet it ricocheted.

Something big must be about to break......OH LOOK BUBBLES! SHINY THINGS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Space Ships!! Invaders!!! Oh Yes, The Little Green PEOPLE!
I think I even hear them! By golly, we're just NOT paying attention!

Wait for the knock at your door.... it's gonna happen, any second.... gotta go, door bell!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
23. Here kitty kitty
he helps me to sort things out.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neoblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
30. Somehow, we need to be able to reach the public...
Some Thoughts, Some Ideas, Some Facts and Some Wishful Thinking

We need to be able to takeover the networks and major print publications--so as to actually reach the "other half" (or more) of the public. At least briefly, and deliver a hard-hitting exposé with a title that communicates: (Other than this one exception) The Media Lies To You Every Day, In Every Way! It's true, see here, and here and here. This and this and that. Blatant, unadulterated lies. Lies and more lies. Lies with a capital "L". You CANNOT be informed and CANNOT know the TRUTH if you rely on Television/Cable, Radio, or most Newspapers and Magazines. Here are the general exceptions: (some list of honest, liberal/progressive publications, sites, radio stations or network, such as: The Nation, Mother Jones, The American Prospect, TruthOut, Air America...(exactly which ones would be determined by people more clever than myself and might possibly involve more moderate or less partisan choices)).

It might be long or short, but should include some clear examples of media duplicity, lies/deceptions, ommissions and misleading reporting.

Simply put, a significant chunk (though smaller now than ever before) still believes what the see, hear or read. While some of them hold suspicions about the media (and often believe the utterly ridiculous and opposite from the truth idea that the media has a "liberal" bias), there are some kinds of lies that they would not believe the MSM would publish/present. For example, if they quoted Al Gore as saying "I invented the internet", and it was repeated in print articles, on radio and TV and was explicit--they would not believe that Al Gore did not say it. They would assume that something as clear as the words spoken by a famous person, words that could be checked up on and verified such as words from a speech that was recorded in some way, would never be mis-reported. They'd think the MSM would be afraid someone would step forward with the proof they goofed. Little do the people know that since all the branches of the MSM are working together to spread the lie, even if a dozen people--even well known people presented the truth, we'd never hear a word of it. It's amazing really, that they would be so bold as to lie that way... presenting an altered quote and simultaneously taking even that so far out of context that it's really a second lie. Likewise, people have a hard time believing the MSM/Press actually engages in lies of omission. Even if a couple of reports of something important were presented (so they could say "but we DID cover that"), it doesn't count if it's on page 26 of 28, in small print and worded in a way that minimizes the content. The examples here are probably legion, but "The Downing Report" is one good one. Also, the false treatment of Stephen Colbert's incisive, ironic penetration of the Bush scam. Ignoring it and, upon seeing the interest, trying to claim it just wasn't funny (maybe not in their eyes, but they should let the people decide for themselves). Anyway...

People, even those who are already suspicious, must understand that literally every word or image the see or hear in the media stream--has been designed and/or passed through filters to ensure it's consistent with an "agenda". There is no honest, unmolested reporting of anything anymore. We are being manipulated and controlled by having all the information we get from 98% (or some such percent) of our traditional/common media sources. Were it not for the Internet (which is under powerful, perhaps overwhelming attack) and Air America (which doesn't reach everywhere, and the volume of 'commercials' is such that it takes some getting used to to even listen to it), we'd be lost. In a sense, we'd be in a "Truth Vacuum" and unable to find out about anything much.

Of course, I couldn't even guess how we could gain control over the MSM, even for a day; such thinking is pure fantasy. Nevertheless, we do need some way to reach these people to at least put that one thought in their heads--that they need to take a chance and make the effort to actually compare their MSM-based sense of things with reality. The best way to do that is to actually read some liberal/progressive or "Alternate News" sources on the Internet. Perhaps we need a website/portal that provides toned-down, carefully presented rebuttals, facts and news designed specifically for Right-wingers (con-servatives/neo-cons/republi-cons** etc). Presented in terms they might be able to accept.

When we finally achieve sufficient power in the Congress; and if we can either negotiate with a Thuglican President or vastly better yet, have a Democratic President... we need to go about dismantling the media industry's oligopoly. Just like taking Bell Telephone apart... actually, do a better job than that and make sure there are sufficient and difficult to remove safeguards to prevent the rise of new mega-media companies that manage to "appear" competitive (just as we see having risen in the Telecom industry). Alas, the truth which no Republican could tolerate is that the ultimate evolution of the Free Market is, inarguably Corporate oligopolies. Competition is quashed, and if the market subset is urgently necessary to our continued Free Speech and even the functioning of our Democracy, we cannot allow this outcome.

Still, back to the present. We must first resolve to take the necessary action to ensure fair and honest elections. Concurrent, but only as it doesn't interfere with efforts to achieve verifiable election results, we can do such things as seek to open Republican's minds to the Truth (and one of the big ones is that the government is nothing more than the Corporation's tool while the media serves as the Propaganda Arm (Ministry) of both). Still, we must make eliminating election fraud priority one. Election Fraud must be prevented! Without that there is no future.


**Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: con
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): conned; con·ning
1 : SWINDLE
2 : MANIPULATE 2b
3 : PERSUADE, CAJOLE


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Good Post... Today On Democracy Now Brian Ross Was Talking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THE SUBJECT: Freedom of the Press! (below)
Amy asked him if they were going to have to revert back to a pocket full of quarters at a pay phone, and he said it might come to that. To find out more, www.DemocracyNow.org. It was a good interview, even talked about journalists having to start pounding the pavement with shoe leather. One other interesting comment... when asked if they KNEW they were being tapped, he said they didn't know and couldn't find out for a year!! This is VERY VERY bad folks!! There will be more information on Friday from USA Today, I think that's the one. But it's in the interview to make sure.

Freedom of the Press Under Attack: Government Begins Tracking Phone Calls of Journalists

ABC News reported on Monday that a senior federal law enforcement had revealed that the government is now tracking phone calls made by journalists from the New York Times, Washington Post and ABC News. We speak with Brian Ross, chief investigative reporter at ABC News.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC