Dacia Iluministă

OC: Why would the Pentagon be the most heavily defended building on earth? Defended from whom? Are America’s neighbours, the Mexicans and the Canadians, likely to attack it any time soon? By the time the Chinese Air Force got within thousands of miles of the USA, the two nations would be in a full-scale war with each other. A hostile aircraft carrier couldn’t get anywhere near the USA. Submarine missile launch would be dealt with at the coast. It would be a complete waste of time and money to give the Pentagon special security. Besides, it’s a reinforced building and it takes a hell of a lot to do any damage to it. They have little more than the usual barriers and security checks. They were taken completely by surprise by the hijacked plane attack, and who wants to shoot down a commercial airline over central Washington DC? It made complete sense to allow the Pentagon to be struck rather than shoot down the plane – little damage was done and far fewer people died than if the plane had been shot down over the city. No country at the time viewed internal flights with any degree of suspicion. That’s what made the attack so effective.

CT: The Pentagon is the HQ of the US Armed Forces; it’s the nerve centre of the world’s second biggest war-machine. China has quietly outgrown the US in raw military force in recent years. It better be the most heavily defended building on Earth!

It’s certainly heavily defended; there will be air AA guns and SAM sites for miles around, doubtless very well concealed. Likewise, there is a huge staff and armed garrison there, and most infantrymen are trained in man-launched SAM missiles. The Pentagon of course has direct and immediate contact with the HQ of the US Air Force, not to mention the White House and the US Navy. So if they did decide to shoot down a rogue jet, they could, what with all flights being identified by radio transponder and easily distinguishable, even considering heavy air traffic.

So why didn’t they shoot down the plane? It could be that the PR issues relating to shooting down a civilian plane, even a hijacked one, outweighed the other costs of just letting it hit; fair point, although I don’t think that anyone who might have seen it that way (are there many PR media gurus wandering around the Pentagon?) would have been near enough to the Big Red Phone to call of the airstrike in time. Plus, the official story was that the entire US Air Force was on manoeuvres (what, ALL of them?) and the AA guns, SAM sites and rocket-troopers where left unmentioned. I simply do not believe that there wasn’t even a single semper-fi-do-or-die wannabe Rambo Yankee meathead marine with a rocket launcher to try and shoot down the plane on the Pentagon lawn. And the lawn is a case in itself, having survived an alleged air-crash completely unscorched and without a scrap of debris visible; unchanged before, during and after. Just an observation. I could get really paranoid and ask where the wings of the plane went. Disintegrated. Allegedly.

OC: This is the Pentagon’s “defence force”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Protective_Service

The Pentagon is really just an office block full of bureaucrats. Everything in it is duplicated elsewhere, especially in huge underground nuclear bunkers under mountains. Do you think the President would hide in the Pentagon during an emergency? Not a chance!!! In the Cold War, it was expected the Pentagon would be destroyed in a Soviet nuclear strike, so it already has inbuilt redundancy. We have the internet now and excellent mobile communications. No one needs the Pentagon!!

No one in their right mind would blow up a plane over a city. Thousands would die, fires would erupt everywhere, a whole zone of the city would be totalled. You shoot it down over farmland – not over a city. Unless you were in a war, no sane person would be deploying SAM missiles in city environments. You wouldn’t even contemplate having them around in case they fell into the wrong hands!

And who’s going to pay for all this alleged security? Even the Pentagon has a budget.

Yes, of course the wings disintegrated. How robust is a wing compared with incredibly thick reinforced concrete? It would be miraculous if they did anything other than disintegrate.

Debris was visible and there was minor scorching. Anyway, even if someone fired a missile into the Pentagon, as some people claimed, where’s the scorched grass that followed the explosion? You can’t have it both ways. No one disagrees there was an explosion, so why didn’t the heat and fire scorch the grass much more visibly? Who knows? But this certainly isn’t a point in favour of the Truthers. Or have the Pentagon come up with new non-scorching explosives, or non-scorching grass?

CT: Good counter evidence, but “an office building”?

There are two stories behind why it’s called “The Pentagon”; the first is that it was designed, like so many other famous American buildings, by Satanists. I give that idea as much credit as you do, which is to say none.

The second story goes that the design is based on Roman principles of defence; it’s a five sided building (so that it’s hard to attack one face of the building head-on without coming under fire from one of the other angled overlooking walls), and each face consists of five reinforced concrete and steel walls, staggered through the building in concentric pentagons to resist HEAP missiles. Allegedly the ‘plane’ (whose wings totally disintegrated, remember), drove straight through three of those layers of concrete and steel like an arrow, drilling a tunnel deep inside before exploding. I’m not saying it was a High Explosive Armour Piercing Missile, just that the damage is not consistent with a plane.

It’s a fortress. The notion that it only has a garrison since 9/11… sure, ok. Official records tell us that there is no garrison, no infantry, no air defences at the Pentagon. Sure, I’ll buy that.

Remember when the British govt denied the existence of the SAS and MI6? The US still denies the existence of Delta Force (they’re the elite presidential guard; they wear raybans as part of the uniform, no joke). Military personnel at the Pentagon? What a strange idea.

The argument about shooting planes down over cities and the PR effect is a good one; the idea that Pentagon is less well defended than any army base of equivalent size though… no, I can’t credit that. On SAM sites; they’re either buried in minibunkers on wooded hills, or the man-launched missiles are kept in the armoury. Standard design for an armoury (at least for British military) is a buried concrete room, a solid steel cell door, and a steel cage inside the room bracing the walls; they’re very secure, what with the armed guards and alarms and all.

The question I’d raise on shooting down the plane or not; why didn’t they shoot down the Camp David plane? Besides the obvious fact that it crashed when passengers stormed the cockpit. Note that I’m not for a moment denying the planes or the incident; what I’m saying is that the orders came from within the US govt. No, obviously most of the people involved wouldn’t have known, or the truth really would be out there already. But governments have performed false flag attacks before (Hitler, Reichstag), and as I said at the outset, I don’t believe that the Taliban have either the ability or indeed the motivation to attack the US. They arrived in Afghanistan as US mercenaries, for one, having been hired off the Saudis.

OC: The physical construction of the Pentagon demonstrates the symbolic power of the American military, but it is nevertheless just a glorified office, full of paper shufflers and people getting home by five to pick up their kids etc.

What’s so great about conspiracy theorists is that they all seem to be experts in plane design, building design, civil engineering, architecture, explosive effects, physics, chemistry, metallurgy etc.

Weren’t we just saying just the other day that most people don’t have a clue what gravity is? So how come we’re all experts on the precise effects of unprecedented explosions in places and situations that have never been tested before? Most people have no idea what a plane does when it hits a building like the Pentagon – what makes any uninformed person think they know? Since when have we had any empirical data? A computer simulation of what happened looked perfectly plausible…one of the first things that happened was that the wings started disintegrating and folding into the fuselage.

The Pentagon isn’t a functional military site – it’s not on the frontline of anything. It’s a building in the capital of the USA where bureaucrats go. It has minimal defences because there are minimal threats to it. Until not so long ago, you could walk up to the front door of Downing Street or the White House. Does Langley have Sam missiles all around it? FBI HQ? Capitol Hill? The White House?

Naval headquarters? Air Fleet HQ? Delta Force HQ? Marines HQ? Submarine HQ? Do the Americans have unlimited budgets for once in a century events? Imagine being the Pentagon’s SAM missile operator from 1960 to 2001? I bet he wrote very long novels!

Remember Pearl Harbour? That happened while America was profoundly alarmed about Japanese intentions and a full-scale war was raging in Europe, yet still they were caught sleeping. So much for security.

9/11 was an “under-the-radar” low-tech attack that took a superpower by surprise. America was always a target for Muslims because of its absurd support of Israel. It was logical it would be targeted.

CT: I don’t actually have the Pentagon blueprints to hand; I’m going on a documentary I saw and what seems like common sense in defending the US Military HQ, e.g. SAM sites and a garrison. Naval headquarters, Air Force HQ, Delta Force HQ? Marines HQ, Submarine HQ… yes, they would have SAM sites. The White House might, the others probably don’t. Downing Street doesn’t, but there are several garrisons of infantry within rapid response range, who would have access to LAW Rockets, which are standard issue to the British Army Infantryman.

OC: No one said the Pentagon was undefended. The point was that until 9/11 it had little more than police-level perimeter security. You couldn’t walk in without authorization, obviously. But it would be a complete waste of tax dollars to heavily defend installations that are unlikely ever to come under a concerted attack by a major hostile force unless an actual war were in progress. Seriously, do you think every possible target should be heavily defended at all times egardless of the likelihood of an attack? Part of the CT analysis is hat everyone has unlimited budgets and resources. They don’t. Look at the MI5 and MI6 HQs. There’s no sign of heavy security. They have nothing more than a few security men hanging around. Who would want their taxes spent on loads of guys who never have to do anything?!

So, why did the US government attack the Pentagon then? What was the point? Why not leave it as just the Twin Towers if they wanted to perform a false flag attack?

The White House/Capitol Hill, the Pentagon and the Twin Towers are exactly what I would attack if I were a Muslim fanatic. I would do the Twin Towers on their own if I were a false flagger conspirator. The more targets, the bigger the operation has to be, and the higher the chances of it being compromised. There was simply no sensible point in attacking the Pentagon as well.

CT: Good point, not every military or government building is a ‘hard-target’; but HQs, such as the Pentagon or MI6 will be very secure. Even the normal level of defence at a police station is extreme; most large UK police stations have armouries and ALL American ones do, alongside all their riot gear. So even minimal police-force security is a pretty tough nut to crack; even turning down the security level at the Pentagon way below what I think is feasible, we’re still talking Military Police, which means that their men are soldiers and their riot gear includes rocket launchers.

And I know that for a fact. Even for prestige value, the Pentagon would warrant top-notch security, certainly enough to mobilise a response. The most effective argument you’ve come up with, and that I am considering, is that strategically it would be better to take the hit and then retaliate with full public support.

OC: Imagine it’s August, 2001. An unknown number of hijacked aircraft are in London airspace. Air traffic control have been ordered to ground every plane. No one’s sure who the hijackers are, where they’re going, what they want or what they’re going to do. No clear instructions are coming from Downing Street. Confusion reigns.

There are rumours flying everywhere. An aircraft is detected heading straight towards Parliament. You’re seriously telling me that you think some soldier/cop/security guard is going to pop out of a guardroom in Parliament with a rocket launcher and, without any orders from the highest possible level, shoot down a commercial jet with hundreds of people in it? That’s just madness. It would never happen. NEVER.

That kind of decision is way beyond any soldier’s pay grade. Imagine if he called it wrong?!! The scenario you envisage is impossible on every level. No one at the Pentagon on 9/11 would ever have done what you suggest.

No soldier would have contemplated firing missiles at a civilian plane. Would YOU shoot down a plane without direct orders?! The plane came in really fast, at ground level. There was virtually no time to react. No one knew for sure what was going on.

An order to shoot down a commercial plane would have to come from Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld – and they were all getting rushed to safe zones while the Pentagon attack was going down. Our idiot western leaders are so inept and indecisive that they didn’t know what to do. Remember Michael Moore’s famous footage of Bush sitting in the classroom? That’s what a clown way out of his depth looks like – and his entire administration were every bit as inept.

PR had nothing to do with it – it was just sheer confusion and incompetence …headless chickens running around.

Of course governments are wicked and are conspiring against the people – just common sense as you say…but they can’t manage anything sophisticated. Their conspiracies are mostly about feathering their own nests…not blowing up their own citizens (though they would if they absolutely had to!).

The first Twin Towers attack by a Muslim nut proves that the Muslims were very interested in bringing down the Twin Towers. That was their dry run.

And think of this – the British police are so inept that they shot dead a completely innocent man in Stockwell underground station. Every part of the Stockwell operation demonstrated staggering ineptitude. And you think people like that, and their American counterparts, can manage elaborate conspiracies? This is fantasy land. Anyone who was part of a conspiracy would spill the beans in a best-selling book and be on Oprah Winfrey. You can’t keep a conspiracy as huge as that secret. Hundreds of people would have known about it. Someone would have talked.
__________

Tower 5:

OC: So, what about Tower 5?

Tower 5 was not hit by a plane, and, unlike Tower 7, it didn’t collapse (but was demolished later). Clearly (in videos of the building), a huge and intense fire is raging. The enormous fireballs that erupted from the twin towers obviously set fire to buildings all around. Why wouldn’t they?

You can’t argue that all skyscraper fires are the same. How do you know if the materials used were the same, or the heights of the skyscrapers, or the base areas, or the tolerances, or any special design features? There are loads of factors involved. The fact that no one fought the fire is another huge point. Also, the collapse of the twotowers must have sent massive shockwaves through the whole site. It would have been the equivalent of a strong localized earthquake. The foundations of all the towers in the area would have received a devastating shock. How do you know what such a shock would do to a building already with strong fires blazing in its core?

No one on earth would know in advance what effects the 9/11 circumstances would have. These are things that need to be studied by engineers, architects, scientists, demolition experts – not by a bunch of paranoid CTers with no technical qualifications but very fertile minds. This CT stuff makes a complete mockery of the scientific method.

Science progresses by experts carefully collecting data, forming hypotheses, testing them and verifying them, refining where necessary. It doesn’t involve non-experts with an axe to grind trying to look at anomalous photos and videos and saying – “Look, that can’t be right!” That’s more like how religions work – people who can see the face of Jesus in a slice of toast etc!!

It’s surprising that you didn’t mention that the CIA/FBI or some such other organization had offices in Tower 7.

CT: I don’t know about Tower 5, but it looks like enough fire damage to warrant demolishing afterwards. And engineers have come forward, a good number of them, to testify that skyscrapers don’t fall down from fire or earthquakes; they’re built to resist both. Notice no one questions that the tower withstood impacts from planes; that didn’t bring them down, but apparently burning jet fuel did. Again; jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.
__________

Tower 7:

CT: Tower 7 wasn’t hit by a plane. It wasn’t even on fire. What’s far fetched is that it collapsed at all. Somehow, the tax records for the Enron scandal happened to disintegrate in the freak collapse, which just happened, completely coincidentally, at the same time as the, ahem, terrorist attack.

OC: What is far-fetched about this account of Tower 7?…

“On August 21, 2008, NIST released its draft report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, beginning a period for public comments. In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events. NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers. But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fuelled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.”
__________

In Summary:

There is no smoking gun. There is no hard evidence. The logic of the alleged false flag conspiracy theory is absurd. None of it makes sense. The official version is much more plausible. Occam’s Razor supports the official version. To be opposed to the Old World Order does not mean that you should accuse them of everything under the sun. They are vile, dangerous, greedy, evil people, but that doesn’t mean that they carried out 9/11. The OWO knew 9/11 was coming and did nothing about it.

That was their crime, and it is an extremely serious one for which they should be held to account. Instead, they have been let off the hook by all the ridiculous claims of the “Truth Movement”. There is every reason to believe that the CIA started the “Truth Movement” as a means to distract people from asking the serious question: why was a red carpet laid out for terrorists? There were many opportunities to stop 9/11 and none were taken. Why not? Because the government wanted a pretext to launch a Middle East war. That is the true scandal.

******

We are often asked about 9/11. Was the American government involved, or not?
__________

Acts of Omission:

If we were to say that the American government took no explicit part in any conspiracy to kill its own citizens, would that indicate that the American government had no culpability? There are several ways to skin a cat. Governments often choose to use the tactic of omission rather than commission. In other words, rather than do something themselves, they wait for their enemy to do it, and deliberately omit to take the steps necessary to prevent it. They know it is about to happen, but they choose not to stop it because it is, in fact, precisely what they want.

If one asks the most important question of all in any conspiracy scenario – cui bono? (to whose benefit?) – one can see that numerous American neocon foreign policy and economic objectives were satisfied in the aftermath of 9/11.

Acts of omission are almost impossible to prove. Incompetence and negligence are always cited rather than conscious intent on the part of a government to allow the slaughter of its own citizens to take place Therefore, governments frequently employ this tactic. It permits “plausible deniability”.

No one should forget that the CIA had extensive contacts with the mujahedeen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and provided them with arms and intelligence. It is inconceivable that they did not come into contact with such a prominent figure as Osama bin Laden, and many of the future leaders of the Taliban. Either the CIA are one of the most inept organisations on earth, (they aren’t!) or they were well aware of what was happening in Afghanistan. In which case, why did they do nothing?

During WWII, the British broke German secret codes. Several times, they permitted disastrous events to happen, with thousands of their own people dying, even though they could have stopped any of those disasters. But to stop them would have alerted the Germans that their codes had been cracked. The ‘greater good’ dictated that it was preferable for innocent citizens to be killed than for the enemy to learn that its secret codes had been compromised. Be in no doubt – governments are always prepared to sacrifice their own citizens if they think it is in the greater interest of their policy aims. No one is protecting you. Your lives are dispensable.
__________

4/9