portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

9.11 investigation

911 THE NEW PEARL HARBOR THE ENTIRE BOOK FOR DOWNLOAD.

A must-read for all who want to get past the conspiracy of silence and mystification that surrounds 911.
911 THE NEW PEARL HARBOR
THE ENTIRE BOOK FOR DOWNLOAD.

A must-read for all who want to get past the conspiracy of silence and mystification that surrounds 9/11.

A very interesting book.

However, David Ray Griffin buys into the "Pentagon was hit by a missile theory," which has been advanced by the 911 false opposition. That a missile did not hit the Pentagon is obvious. For,

1) if the missile had detonated upon hitting the outside, brick-fill wall of the Pentagon, then the explosion would have likely leveled a large section of this wall. This did not happen. In any case, it would not produce the 120 foot wide, by 10-20 foot high, plane shaped hole, that was observed. Also, there would be nothing left of the missile, but small pieces of shrapnel, each without enough momentum to penetrate much further into the building, let alone penetrate a couple of hundred feet further (through E-ring, D-ring and C-ring) and punch a 12 foot wide circular hole in the far wall of C-ring.

2) if it did not detonate on hitting the wall, then it would have left a small, near circular hole, some 2 foot wide. This did not happen either.

I think it is clear that an aircraft did hit the Pentagon, however, for some strange reason, that aircraft was not a Boeing 757. Why not just use a Boeing 757? Answering this question could quite possibly break 911 wide open.

Download your copy (prepublication edition) from

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

Read it, then go out a purchase the book.

From globalresearch.ca.myforums.net
Spot the spin... 14.Dec.2004 07:10

Tony Blair's dog

"However, David Ray Griffin buys into the "Pentagon was hit by a missile theory," which has been advanced by the 911 false opposition."

"false opposition"?

That statement implies that there is a "true opposition".
An opposition that knows exactly what happened.
Who are they at the moment?

"That a missile did not hit the Pentagon is obvious. For,
1) if the missile had detonated upon hitting the outside, brick-fill wall of the Pentagon, then the explosion would have likely leveled a large section of this wall."

Nice strawman.

Most of todays big missiles are not created to explode on the surface.
What good would that be?
They are built to penetrate armor and explode inside buildings/vehicles
since you want to maim and/or kill the persons inside.

"This did not happen."

Indeed.

"In any case, it would not produce the 120 foot wide, by 10-20 foot high, plane shaped hole, that was observed."

Really?

Where was that kind of hole observed?

The hole created in the Pentagon outer wall was pretty much as wide as it was high.

Watch the photos taken before the wall was razed.

"Also, there would be nothing left of the missile, but small pieces of shrapnel, each without enough momentum to penetrate much further into the building, let alone penetrate a couple of hundred feet further (through E-ring, D-ring and C-ring) and punch a 12 foot wide circular hole in the far wall of C-ring."

Nice spin on your first strawman.

Again, todays big missiles can penetrate quite far. Even through solid rock to get
to hidden bunkers far down in the ground. That's where the name "bunker buster" comes from.

"2) if it did not detonate on hitting the wall, then it would have left a small, near circular hole, some 2 foot wide. This did not happen either."

Oh, and what type of missile were you refering to here?
Again, look at the photos of the wall before it was razed aprox. 20 minutes
after the impact.

"I think it is clear that an aircraft did hit the Pentagon..."

So far nothing has been presented that show exactly what hit the Pentagon.

Missile or aircraft, or both?


"however, for some strange reason, that ... was not a Boeing 757."

This is the only thing I can agree with.

Maybe 14.Dec.2004 20:25

just been wondering for a while now...

Leaving aside which particular conspiracy theory or whatever is right...

Maybe they wanted you to know the thing was fake for two reasons:
a) to show you their power
b) to make the evidence so obvious that it just sounds like silly coincidences to most people

Do you really think that exposing the truth will help?

Do you think that spending the next 20 years staring at videos of buildings and planes is a good use of your time?

Just asking.

Maybe... 15.Dec.2004 09:02

Tony Blair's dog

the scumbags will find themselves in jail for the rest of their life sooner than later.

If you do the crime, you gotta do the time.

Something tells me everyone involved will get what they deserve,
one way or the other ;-)

Karma you know.