Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Pentagon Thread (merged)

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: Pentagon publication calls for "Manhattan Project&a

Unread postby Zardoz » Mon 06 Mar 2006, 19:51:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', 'I')t seems to me that some of the best thinking on energy is coming from the military/intelligence community.


They know what's at stake...
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: Pentagon publication calls for "Manhattan Project&a

Unread postby rogerhb » Mon 06 Mar 2006, 20:36:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bart', 'I')t seems to me that some of the best thinking on energy is coming from the military/intelligence community.


They know what's at stake...


... and are reading Kunstler ....
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
User avatar
rogerhb
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Smalltown New Zealand

Re: Pentagon publication calls for "Manhattan Project&a

Unread postby backstop » Mon 06 Mar 2006, 21:34:21

Bart-

The sheer gullibility of environmental NGO staffers I find amusing - and also __cking tragic.

Here's a link to an article from '99 by Woolsey & Senator Lugar.

http://lugar.senate.gov/new_petroleum.html

What it doesn't say, but is worth considering, is just who will own the process for cellulosic ethanol,
of which this pair aimed to establish IIIW production capacity.

Personally, I don't have a spoon long enough to sup with the likes of a Woolsey. - 8)

Regards,

Backstop
"The best of conservation . . . is written not with a pen but with an axe."
(from "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold, 1948.
backstop
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Varies

New Pentagon Information Site

Unread postby Carlhole » Fri 17 Mar 2006, 19:53:00

Looks pretty good. Straightforward presentation. I just started reading it. Lots there.

Pentagon Research

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PentagonResearch.com', 'W')hy investigate 9/11? The simple answer is because the current administration has failed to do so. The official investigation has been handled poorly by any standards. I understand that lives have been changed by these events and intend nothing but respect for the passengers and crew of Flight 77, the Pentagon workers and their families.

It is my goal to present as much observational information as possible to assist in the process of determining what happened that day. Realize that the Pentagon could release 60 seconds of video from the videos the FBI now admits to having, but refuses to release, and put this all to rest. They have showed us footage from the first WTC bombing, Madrid, London, and the WTC Towers. In other words, from every other event except the pentagon......why?



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pentagonresearch.com', 'T')he aircraft had on board approximately 36,200 lb (5,300 gal) of fuel at the time of impact.

8:20 AM Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport.

8:50 AM the last radio contact is made with Flight 77.

8:54 AM Flight 77 veers off course toward the southwest.

8:56 AM Flight 77's transponder is turned off.

9:00 AM Flight 77 is reported missing and a search is initiated. The Pentagon increased its alert status. A flight attendant called her mother via cell phone and reported a hijacking.

9:10 AM Washington control notices an incoming plane on radar with no radio contact and no transponder.

9:24 AM the FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 77 may be headed towards Washington. There was no attempt to evacuate the Pentagon.

9:25 AM Barbara Olson reportedly made a phone call to her husband. There are varying accounts of this call but it is where the information about box cutters and knives allegedly came from.

9:27 AM VP Cheney and National Security Advisor Rice are notified in the safety of their security bunker that a plane is headed to Washington.

9:30 AM Flight 77 is tracked on radar 30 miles from Washington.

9:35 Flight 77 is reported at 7000 feet flying more than 400 mph. The plane makes a high-speed descending turn to the right dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

9:37 Flight 77 disappears from radar 6 miles from Washington.

9:38 AM Flight 77 is reported to have crashed into the Pentagon.

In summary, Flight 77 was airborne for 78 minutes, 48 of them without radio contact, 42 without a transponder signal, 38 minutes officially reported missing, 28 minutes seen on radar, and 14 minutes with knowledge that it was headed towards Washington. Keep in mind that during this whole time-frame the attacks were taking place at the WTC and being reported on every news channel. Also consider that military intercept aircraft sat 10 minutes away from the Pentagon without being dispatched until it was too late.
Carlhole
 
Top

Pentagon battles high fuel costs

Unread postby UncoveringTruths » Mon 20 Mar 2006, 13:41:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')EW YORK (Reuters) -- Tens of thousands of U.S. military vehicles, ships and aircraft are guzzling fuel every day around the world and with the bill rising the Pentagon is trying harder to conserve.

The U.S. military consumed 144.8 million barrels of fuel in 2004, spending $6.7 billion, according to the Defense Energy Support Center.

Last year, it consumed only 128.3 million barrels, but spent $8.8 billion, as the average price per barrel rose by almost 50 percent to more than $68.


Pentagon battles high fuel costs
It's a cold cold world when a man has to pawn his shoes.
User avatar
UncoveringTruths
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu 04 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Pentagon investigates... itself... again.

Unread postby uNkNowN ElEmEnt » Tue 28 Mar 2006, 12:30:05

The White House that Cried Wolf

The Pentagon has once again investigated itself! And—have a seat, get the smelling salts, hold all hats—the Pentagon has once again concluded the Pentagon did absolutely nothing wrong and will continue to do so.

In this particularly fascinating case, the Pentagon investigated its own habit of paying people to make up lies about how well the war in Iraq is going, and then paying other people to put those lies in the Iraqi media, thus fooling the Iraqis into thinking everything in their country is tickety-boo. Well, if we can’t fool them, whom can we fool?

The case revolves around a contract worth several million dollars given by the U.S. military command in Baghdad to the Lincoln Group, a public relations outfit started by two young entrepreneurs, one British, one American, in 2003 in Iraq. Articles were written by American military personnel from the American point of view about the war, to wit, it’s going well. Lincoln Group in turn paid Iraqi journalists, some “on retainer,” to print the articles without revealing the source.

Amusingly enough, through other programs, the U.S. government is also spending money trying to teach Iraqis about the importance of a free press in a democracy. According to the Pentagon’s investigation of itself, none of the Lincoln Group’s actions violate military policies because the Pentagon is just trying to counter the vast amount of anti-American propaganda carried in Middle Eastern papers.

While I think this is the best Pentagon-investigating-itself case of the week, I have to admit it’s like the Oscars—these investigations are so hard to compare to comedy and tragedy, documentary and animated shorts. Also featured this week is the case of the Abu Ghraib dog handler, a 24-year-old sergeant who was convicted for tormenting detainees. The dog was not convicted, on the theory that it was just acting on orders.

Despite the huge international outcry over torture, so far the heavy-hitters in the plot receiving real red, white and blue justice are Lynndie England, a 5-foot-tall, 23-year-old woman with learning disabilities and other non-commissioned officers. They were clearly the mastermind behind the entire international stink fest, from Gitmo to Afghanistan. England was put in prison for three years. Her baby boy will be walking and talking by the time Ms. England finishes doing her time, but no one in the upper ranks is responsible for anything that’s happened.

In the unfortunate case of the Black Room reported in The New York Times, we taxpayers seem to have been charged with the cost of refurbishing one of Saddam Hussein’s military bases into “a top secret detention center.” One former torture chamber is now an “interrogation cell” used by Special Operations forces. “In the windowless, jet-black garage-sized room, some soldiers beat prisoners with rifle butts, yelled and spit in their faces and, in a nearby area, used detainees for target practice in a game of jailer paintball.” I say, this time, let’s indict the dogs.

Of course, there is always the same depressing coda to new accounts of torture and mistreatment of prisoners by American troops—no useful information was acquired.

With all these horrifying details surfacing ("No Blood, No Foul” was the slogan at the Special Operations forces’ Camp Nama), you may wonder why I return to the case of the chipper newspaper articles. I find them deeply symbolic, certainly paradigmatic and possibly even plangent, a word that’s hard to work into a newspaper column. Quite some time after we had invaded Iraq, our government informed us we had done so in order to bring democracy to their nation. Originally, we were told we had to invade their country because there were tons of weapons of mass destruction therein, but they turned out not to be there. So, through a process of masterly media manipulation, we went from Saddam’s nuclear program to democracy. It seems to me this is how George W. Bush and Co. govern, period. It’s a Karl Rove thing. When reality is unsatisfactory, just manipulate the media.

You can’t deny that the process has excellent results. It wins elections, for one thing. It confuses our critics and turns debate away from what we might loosely call “the truth” and into pointless fistfights about whether Iraq has descended, is descending or might descend into civil war.

"HOW DARE YOU CALL IT A CIVIL WAR—YOU’RE JUST LENDING COMFORT TO OUR ENEMIES.”
“LOOKS LIKE A CIVIL WAR TO ME.”
“DOES NOT—WHERE’S LEE, WHERE’S GRANT?”
“DOES SO!"
This is not helpful dialogue—remember the fight over whether there was an “insurgency” in Iraq or the Mission was still Accomplished, it was just “remnant Baathists and foreign terrorists”? That was a mirror of the arguments we had at home over whether President Bush could be described as a “friend” of Ken Lay’s or whether he is “close” to Tom DeLay or “knows” Jack Abramoff. Likewise, entire policy discussions would get subsumed by furious debate over whether Bush’s proposals meant “privatization” of Social Security or were merely “personal accounts.”

Grabbing reality by the throat and forcing it into a form you find more pleasing than reality itself is not only a great election strategy, it works for a lot of people on a lot of levels in life—denial is a good game while it lasts.

But as we can all attest, if you ignore reality, sooner or later it will bite you in the ass. I suspect the “tough-minded” (they pride themselves on being tough-minded) members of the Bush administration think they are not ignoring reality, but just persuading other people to ignore it long enough to allow them to change it. This is not an original thought. Many of the great thumb-suckers of D.C. have come to the same conclusion and pondered deeply on the “fatal hubris” of this administration. Fatal jackasses are what we have.

Faced with the unappetizing reality of Iraq, Bush and Rove are relying on that grand old reliable strategy—attack the media. It doesn’t play as well as it used to. Everyone who wants an alternative reality is already watching Fox News. The rest of the country is worried.

Let me hasten to admit that I have no solution—I have tried to be constructive over the course of this war, but I’m flat out of ideas. I haven’t an earthly clue whether it would be better if we up and left or if we sat and stayed. What I am sure of is that none of us will figure that out until we stop pretending, until we take a long, cold hard look at the reality on the ground. Then someone needs to level with us about what it will cost to stay, in lives and dollars and, God help us, goodwill.

In a Washington Monthly book review, I found a suggestion that we copy Cold War tactics on terrorism and practice “containment” rather than this War of Good vs. Evil, Battlestar Galactica bull. But that requires someone who will level with the people. And the more this administration plays games with definitions of democracy and weasel wording about torture, the less they can be believed about anything. Like the boy who cried wolf, someday they’re going to tell the truth, and no one will believe them.

Meantime, let us all enjoy the game of Pentagon-investigates-itself.

Just remember, sooner or later, we’ll have to indict the dogs.
User avatar
uNkNowN ElEmEnt
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2587
Joined: Sat 04 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: perpetual state of exhaustion

Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby PolestaR » Tue 16 May 2006, 15:04:39

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentag ... index.html

Anyone got this? Kind of interesting in a way.
Bringing sexy back..... to doom
PolestaR
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby Zardoz » Tue 16 May 2006, 15:22:27

No matter what the tape shows, the conspiracy theorists will discount it as a fake. Nothing will alter their opinions.

BTW, it's fascinating to compare the way the grass lawn in front of Pentagon looks on the video (link on the CNN story) to the airbrushed fake photos posted all over the conspiracy sites. Why do you suppose the CT enthusiasts feel they needed to post altered pics?
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Tue 16 May 2006, 15:34:42

Can someone post the video or a mirror site link?
The judicialwatch.org site must be inundated right now - I can't get through to the page, much less the video.
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby PolestaR » Tue 16 May 2006, 15:44:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', 'C')an someone post the video or a mirror site link?
The judicialwatch.org site must be inundated right now - I can't get through to the page, much less the video.


CNN are now hosting the 2 videos (check carefully for the links)

The videos don't show shit, except for "the nosecone" of the plane. This video won't prove the official story, if it was fake (I think a plane did hit the pentagon) it would be easy to do, I mean they have had 5 years to add about 50 pixels to one frame.

It looks quite small to me to be a plane, but what do I know.
Bringing sexy back..... to doom
PolestaR
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Tue 16 May 2006, 16:02:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', '
')It looks quite small to me to be a plane, but what do I know.


Thanks, Polestar.

You're right - it looks far too small to be a commercial aircraft.
And, yes, I'm taking into account that the Pentagon amounts to the largest office building in the world. Even at that, it still stands at a mere 77' tall, and the plane looks a fraction of that - I'd say less than 10' tall. A 757 has a fuselage that's 12' tall, so I guess it is possible that the plane in question is a 757.

Still, the video doesn't even resemble a scaled model of the incident:

Image
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas
Top

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby CrudeAwakening » Tue 16 May 2006, 16:06:07

Like hell that's a commercial airliner...

This is nothing new, this footage has been on the net for a while.
Last edited by CrudeAwakening on Tue 16 May 2006, 16:16:12, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CrudeAwakening
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby PolestaR » Tue 16 May 2006, 16:09:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', '
')It looks quite small to me to be a plane, but what do I know.


Thanks, Polestar.

You're right - it looks far too small to be a commercial aircraft.
And, yes, I'm taking into account that the Pentagon amounts to the largest office building in the world. Even at that, it still stands at a mere 77' tall, and the plane looks a fraction of that - I'd say less than 10' tall. A 757 has a fuselage that's 12' tall, so I guess it is possible that the plane in question is a 757.

Still, the video doesn't even resemble a scaled model of the incident:

Image


Did you see how low to the ground it was? There is no way that couldn't have hit the ground prior to hitting the building. What sort of pilot can fly horizontal at 0ft for any length of time? I would have thought the plane would be sort of "flying down" into the pentagon, not level like that.
Last edited by PolestaR on Tue 16 May 2006, 17:34:51, edited 1 time in total.
Bringing sexy back..... to doom
PolestaR
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby deconstructionist » Tue 16 May 2006, 16:25:12

this same footage has been circulating the internet since 2002... and it doesn't proove anything.

the whole "no 757 hit the pentagon" theory was most likely started by the establishment as disinformation. most 9/11 truth researchers don't buy too much into the "no 757" theory.

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows. This supports the theory that it was a 757.
UNLESS
User avatar
deconstructionist
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat 25 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Salem, MA

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Tue 16 May 2006, 16:25:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'D')id you see how low to the ground it was? There is no way that couldn't have hit the ground prior to hitting the building. What sort of pilot can fly horizontal at 0ft for any length of time? I would have though the plane would be sort of "flying down" into the pentagon, not level like that.


My thoughts exactly. Moreover than that, the sheer length of the craft shown in the video in no way resembles the actual length of a 757. Perhaps half, maybe. This video raises more questions than it answers.

Any word on the release of the VaDOT, Sheraton or gas station videos?
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas
Top

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby Zardoz » Tue 16 May 2006, 16:59:59

Well, this is interesting. Jim Hoffman is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who, after a long investigation, came to the conclusion that an American 757 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon.

Google "Jim Hoffman Flight 77" and you'll get several hits. Now click on them and try to open his page:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

No luck. What the hell happened? His site has disappeared.

All that I can find now is this page by Hoffman on another site refuting a crazed fool who claims that Hoffman was "just kidding":

http://www.911review.com/wingtv/markup/hoffman.html

Thing is, in his refutation, he says things that sure don't seem to jibe with the story he posted. I recall it saying that there's no question an American 757 hit the building, but now he seems to be waffling.

Note that even the links to his original story inserted on this page no longer work. He appears to be having trouble keeping his story straight, and maybe that's why he took down his entire conspiracy site.

In any case, the "no-plane" stuff has been overwhelmingly de-bunked. It's pure bullshit. There are hundreds of eyewitnesses. Forget it.

(EDIT: Just saw that deconstructionist linked to Hoffman's page, as well, also with an error message.)

(EDIT 2: Scroll to the bottom of the CNN story and click on the "Watch Fireballs Engulf..." link. Have you seen the faked, airbrushed photos of the lawn in front of the Pentagon that have been posted on many conspiracy sites? They don't like the shredded aircraft debris that is so plainly visible, so they just removed it and cite that as "proof"! This is such a joke...)
Last edited by Zardoz on Tue 16 May 2006, 17:13:26, edited 2 times in total.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby Specop_007 » Tue 16 May 2006, 17:08:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'D')id you see how low to the ground it was? There is no way that couldn't have hit the ground prior to hitting the building. What sort of pilot can fly horizontal at 0ft for any length of time? I would have though the plane would be sort of "flying down" into the pentagon, not level like that.


My thoughts exactly. Moreover than that, the sheer length of the craft shown in the video in no way resembles the actual length of a 757. Perhaps half, maybe. This video raises more questions than it answers.

Any word on the release of the VaDOT, Sheraton or gas station videos?


Amazingly enough when vehicles travelling at hundreds of miles an hour come to a stop in about 5 feet, they tend to lose their shape.

Crazy I know.
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby pea-jay » Tue 16 May 2006, 17:11:50

Certainly doesn't look terribly much like a 757. You'd think going on five y ears the goons could doctor up something better than that to play to the masses. That's assuming the missle or predator theory is the correct one. I dont know, I wasnt there.
UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
User avatar
pea-jay
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sat 17 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: NorCal

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Tue 16 May 2006, 17:26:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'A')mazingly enough when vehicles travelling at hundreds of miles an hour come to a stop in about 5 feet, they tend to lose their shape.

Crazy I know.


Are you saying that vehicles lose shape before impact? Wow, you must know a lot more about physics than I...

:roll:
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas
Top

Re: Pentagon plane crash video released!?

Unread postby PolestaR » Tue 16 May 2006, 17:33:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'A')mazingly enough when vehicles travelling at hundreds of miles an hour come to a stop in about 5 feet, they tend to lose their shape.

Crazy I know.


Are you saying that vehicles lose shape before impact? Wow, you must know a lot more about physics than I...

:roll:


It's ok, Specop speaks for middle america. He has average intelligence and a big mouth. Seeing what he says is going to tell us what average joe thinks about these things.
Bringing sexy back..... to doom
PolestaR
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron