h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Slightly off topic, but interesting...
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Hhhhm. Well spotted Tube.

Ocellus, I find all you say, to be hideously plausible! Maybe I am too d*** naive! I have had doubts about the 'officialline' for a long time... but I am not an American, just an observer.

I had a look at the site mentioned by Tube, yesterday - a friend sent it to me in an email. (I couldn't get there from here...) It's fascinating! (The friend who sent it, had decided it was wrong, however, as the Fr site gave no verification... no links to the sites the pictures came from).

For my part, since Oct 8th (when the Americans began bombing Afghanistan) I have had serious doubts about the veracity of *any* international news we get here!

Well found, Tube. Interesting!

Hmmm. well... the lack of links disappointed me a bit, too. But do a search for video material of the Pentagon plane crash on... say Morpheus, Kazaa ... the only video/pic I found where of the somking building, while there are heaps of the WTC crash.
That's what I find a little strange...

Good point, Tube, I'll have a look...

Just had a search at CNN and Google ... no video of the crash there. Only the burning building. BTW, the lawn in front of the building looks pretty much like on the pictures... no burn marks and no bits of an aircraft ...

I wouldn't have thought that a plane running into the side of a WTC tower would have brought the whole thing down an hour or two later, but there's no need to guess at a conspiracy just because of my assumptions about how these things seem to work.

If there was a conspiracy, there would have been planted evidence somewhere connecting al-Qaeda with Iraq and Iran and Korea, long before Cheney's trip to the Mid-East. I don't think things are going smoothly enough for any US conspiracy to be plausible here.

Au contraire, Sub-Com... A guy on the radio said portentiously last night - "I think we'll see global nuclear war in our lifetimes".

Looking at Rumsfeld as Dr Strangelove and the rest of Dubya's cabinet as the Keystone Kops.. I think any US conspiracy would be as ham fisted as many other things they do

Si Subcom, Della tiendes correcto los factos. The only reason there is a lack of evidence is because of misinformation. You nor I can start spitting detailed Motis Operandi of such a group as the CIA. What I am is a simple observer of a cruel world. Whilst I have a spinning bee of a brain with an IQ of 172 the intelligence arms of the US government have access to people with thousands of little bees like me in their heads, as well as psychics (yes I said psychics) and supremely superior technologies. GW Bush "The Great" said from the very beginning that he would punish "those responsible" and "aiders of them," if he had come right out and stated that Iran, Iraq or any other nation that you might be thinking of were involved, that would raise suspitions in the US. As sick as it might be Americans are quite used to not being told the full truth, if he had come right out and gave evidence of these nations' involvement the public would have thought 'Wow why is he jumping the gun like that, somethings going on.' Blah blah blah, yackity schmackity

fft Qoud Erat Demonstradum
Ocellus

Psychics?
Back on the X-Files tip then Ocellus?

No offense, but have you thought about the sheer logistics of inventing an aircraft hitting the Pentagon? How many people would bneed to know the truth? All the staff of the Pentagon, most of the population of Washington DC. The news networks. The people at whichever airline it was who have posted the plane as missing. The crew and people on board the plane. The families and lo#ved ones of the crew and passengers, who presumably have all been given new identities. And not one of the thousands of people who know the 'truth' has come forward to tell it?
Or all of them CIA agents or otherwise in the government employ?

Forget about the logistics of inventing a plane crash. Isn't it a little heartless to pretend that three planes crashed instead of four? You can accept or ignore whatever evidence you want if it helps you to pretend that less people died. Face it-- a lot of people died, and it was sad, and we should be crying for them instead of trying to make ourselves believe part of it never happened.

Fairs do's, faking it would be a big task. But why are the 'other' two plane crashes being played down so much? I mean, there were two planes that hit the deck - both full. That should be newsworthy in itself.
They are treated with an air of embarrassment, like a couple of country cousins in comparison with the oh-so metropolitan twin towers twins.
Were they shot down then?
There's no tape of either of them in their last minutes of flight. OK, one of them was in the middle of nowhere, but are you telling me no-one in Washington D.C. had a video camera *that* morning?

"They are treated with an air of embarrassment, like a couple of country cousins in comparison with the oh-so metropolitan twin towers twins."

Where are you getting that? It may be that the WTC got more coverage because they were the first to go, the destruction of the buildings was the most spectacular (the Pentagon didn't get completely destroyed), and the most people died there. I never heard anyone on any American or Canadian news broadcast being 'embarrassed' about the DC and Pittsburgh planes. But anyone can imagine subtle emotions into something like that if they really want them to be there.

They're never spoken about - where are the endless in-depth discussions - why not? It can't for as shallow a reason as there are no spectacular pictures of them, can it?

The endless in-depth discussions have been mostly about the whole event in general. For the sake of being brief, the event is referred to as the "World Trade Center attacks", even though there were plane crashes in three cities.

There have been some in-depth discussions about the actual collapse of the towers because the buildings had been made to withstand plane crashes. The designers had had smaller planes in mind, and they didn't think about the heat that would be generated if it was a fully-fueled plane, and they didn't realise what would happen if just one storey collapsed and the upper storeys came hammering down on the lower ones. It was an effect they hadn't predicted.

There were no in-depth discussions about the other two crashes because there was no architectural mystery to be solved. In one case a plane took out part of a low flat building, and in the other a plane crashed on open ground.

Besides, let's talk about mathematical probability here... what are the odds that a plane flying over DC, if shot down deliberately, would have crash-landed smack on top of the Pentagon if it hadn't been aimed there already? It would be practically impossible for that to happen by chance, impossibly difficult to engineer, and why would the US military shoot a plane down to land on the [i]Pentagon[/i] anyways?

Granted, there's lots of room for speculation here.. but room for speculation is not the same thing as evidence. I could say that there are miniature pink elephants living in British Columbia old-growth forests, and the reason there is reluctance to stop logging there is because the government of Canada wants the elephants killed off without anyone knowing about them. Nobody would be able to disprove that, but that doesn't constitute proof that the elephants are there... it's just proof that I have a good imagination and can write a story that meshes well with real-life events.

Just about says it all really Indefatigable.
Unless of course you and I are CIA infiltrators sent to H2G2, years ahead of these events, in order to spread misinformation about them?

Oh damn, that's blown both our covers, hasn't it?

Save the Endangered British Columbian Pink Elepehant now!
Write to your MP! Write to Canada House-this wholesale slaughter cannot be allowed to continue!

The question was why are they not talked about?
I'm not suggesting conspiracy, but it seems that without the spectacular footage the people who died on those planes aren't worthy of mention. You've done it yourself, Indefatigable.

"There were no in-depth discussions about the other two crashes because there was no architectural mystery to be solved. In one case a plane took out part of a low flat building, and in the other a plane crashed on open ground"

Both were full of people, and the events merit the attention to detail that the TT endlessly recieves. They way you say it suggests that the other two planes aren't mentioned because they didn't hit anything particularly interesting.

Well I've got news for you - icebergs don't capture the popular imagination much - many in fact regard them as dull - but if a large enough chunk of iron rams into one, they can still make the headlines.