To viktige Pentagon-spørsmål
Posted by Anders den mai 13, 2008
“A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or ‘dangle’ that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association”
–- Michael Ruppert
. . . to create a honeypot to easily blow us out of the water when it becomes necessary with one fell swoop — just play the video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon all over the news stations over and over and over, and combine it with clips of notable members claiming a plane never could have hit there. . . .
– Victronix
Mange liker mentalgym av det spekulative slaget. Hvilket ikke bare er unyttig. Faktisk er spekulasjon avgjørende for å komme frem til en teori. Man spekulerer frem en teori på basis av (alle) tilgjengelige empiriske data. Passer alle data teorien, er den god. Passer de ikke, er den dårlig. Spekulativ.
Teorier om hva som traff - eller ikke traff - Pentagon er i stor grad basert på spekulasjon. Av det unødvendige slaget. Og nesten bare det. Har man ikke forstått det nå - i 2008 - kan et par runder i de indre topplokkgemakker være en fin ting.
Synsinger rundt angrepet har en tendens til å drukne (minst) to viktige spørsmål.
- Hvordan kunne noe i det hele tatt treffe Pentagon? Verdens heftigste militærmakt kan ikke forsvare sitt eget hovedkvarter? Grunnet tilfeldighet eller inkompetanse??
- Hvorfor vil Bush-administrasjonen at vi skal tro at de skjuler noe? Hvorfor kan de ikke frigi video som viser AA77 treffe Pentagon? Vi vet de har film. Vil de at vi skal spekulere?
“They have spent $13 trillion tax dollars since the end of WWII on this military/intelligence complex, and it cannot protect its own headquarters?… How were they allowed to come into the most restricted air space in the world with no challenge or defense? That is the question that answers both when Bush knew in advance and begs any rational response.”
–John Judge
“…making 9/11 complicity dependent on the no-plane claim was a brilliant tactic to discredit the real evidence for people inside the Beltway (Washington DC), both for the majority who vote against Bush and the political / military elites (especially the military officers who saw the plane crash or the plane debris)”
Michael Moore: Vis oss filmene!
Psykologisk operasjon:
Planlagt operasjon hvor nøye utvalgt informasjon plantes hos spesifikke [utenlandske] mottakere med henblikk på å påvirke deres følelser, motiver, sunne fornuft, og i siste instans hvordan myndigheter, organisasjoner, grupper og individer forholder seg.
Vi trenger ikke ingen-fly-ved-Pentagon for å bevise innsidejobb. Det er bortkastet å spekulere over ting som ikke fører noensteds hen. Og som fjerner energi og fokus fra andre langt viktigere tema. For eksempel ordentlige bevis.
***
John Judge er fra Washington DC - “inside the Beltway” - og burde kjenne topografien i Pentagonområdet bedre enn folk utenfor DC. Hvorfor topografien er viktig? Vel, er det nær på paddeflatt og åpent, ville f.eks. et missil istenden for AA77 være nokså risky butikk. PentaCons overflyvningsteori også. Det er flatt og åpent i DC-området. Et menneske med fotoapparat på rett sted til rett tid, og løgnen hadde vært avslørt. Sannsynlig risiko å ta? Neppe.
Judge har også bekjente som var vitner til hendelsen.
Noen gode Judge-artikler:
- Flight of Fantasy: Flight 77 Didn’t Hit the Pentagon [http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/f77FoF.html]
- The Pentagon Attack and American Airlines Flight 77 [http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html]
- Pentagon and P-56 Preparations and Defenses and the Stand-Down on 9/11
[http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/P56A.html]
My father, John Joseph Judge was a WWII Army Air Corps veteran and had been a cryptographer assigned overseas. He worked as a civilian at the Pentagon after his return from the war until his death in 1965. My mother and my aunt both worked there as civilian employees beginning in 1943 until they retired. I grew up visiting the offices of my parents, and spending time at the Pentagon library. When the weather was nice, we would all often arrange to buy some food at the canteen and walk outside into the central courtyard area to sit and eat lunch together. When I was 10 or 11, to the best of my memory, which means 1957 or 58, I recall going outside and sitting down on a silver metal box. My father told me to get off of it. When I asked why he said it was a surface to air missile. (I could be off by 2-3 years on this recollection, but it was certainly before 1961). (Emphasis added)
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.
– Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002,
Department of Defense news briefing
