911 and 77 (21)
My title is a cut down version of...
and I am of course playing around with the well known saying:
or, if you absolutely insist:
All I have done is update it, strangle and regurgitate it and represent it in a couple of extremely thought provoking ways and I will just point out a couple of such thoughts before dealing with the theme of this article which isn't philosophical at all.
By "The pen is: " I am playing and I mean "The penis:" By concealment and repression I mean the whole western world philosophy of pretending that the penis doesn't really exist and if it does it is best to pretend that it doesn't and if we don't then we will just pretend that it is a lot less than what it is. You don't need me to go on. You either already understand my point or you refuse to see it at all (or you haven't reached puberty yet). And the result, the need and that is the absolute element, the need, is absolutely bound to arise which results in the creation of a kind of alternative penis. And what is a missile with an exploding head if it isn't a conceptual re-presentation of the penis? The whole idea that such a repressive philosophy can, must, lead to the re-presentation of that repressed idea is one which I have not really seen explained or even noticed other than scantily by some Eastern mystic - but it is real nonetheless and while this article is not proof at all it is 'shades' of it.
I have written about this years ago and I will see if I can redo it and bring it up to date because it is both a fascinating subject and deserves to be given the most serious thought.
But that is just to give some explanation for my little play with the idea of the pen being mightier than the sword.
My real objective with this article is about the Pentagon missile strike that took place on the morning of the 11th of September 2001.
A number of things have not been made clear as far as I can tell and it seems to me that it is very important that they should be, so even though more than five years have gone by since that event, it being nearly April 2007 as I write this, it is a very important issue to deal with.
I first became convinced that it was a missile that struck the Pentagon as a secondary issue, to me, a few weeks after I discovered for myself that 911 was an inside job and I made that transition from believing "the Story" in January of 2007. What sealed the fact for me was the combination of dishonesty, lies, by government about what had happened, the clear inconsistency with any plane being involved (other than in launching the missile) and the evidence for the missile itself and of these, the 'punch through' hole, the final exit of the missile together with a total lack of anything to indicate for example an aeroplane engine had done it (and if so then what had the other engine done too). The photographic evidence is clear and has not been contested so far as I am aware and Popular Mechanics spokespersons claim it was the result of the under carriage, the landing gear, which is utterly preposterous and begs the question: what of the other sets of landing gear, what damage did they do?
No more evidence is really needed to provide proof that no aeroplane but a missile struck the Pentagon. But it probably helps to mention some other things especially as other sources appear to have overlooked them. And so that is what I will now write about in this article.
Nearly all that I write concerning the 911 and 77 events is just what I have gleaned from studying and thinking about photographs and videos which anyone can also find on the internet just as I have done and I am not, not usually anyway, relying on the opinion of someone else in order to reach my conclusions. You see there is no need to rely on anyone else's opinion to understand what happened on 911 and 77 because there is abundant evidence in the form of pictures that show that the official story is a pack of lies and that other very definite things took place which can be decided upon from that evidence.
With the Pentagon missile I now want to point out that by viewing the video 'footage' of the missile strike you can see that there was no plane. You cannot see anything much at all but what you can see and what you cannot see are both important for instance the fact that you cannot see any sign of a plane can be reasoned to be proof that there was no plane and the facts of some of the things that you can see indicate that it was a missile.
Some people say that the FBI doctored the 'footage' and I call it footage for want of a more appropriate term. I don't think they did. Why do others think that? Because they conclude that frames must have been removed otherwise we would see what hit the building. Why do I think they didn't? Because they would have removed the 'bright-out flash' which is really proof of an explosion indicative of a missile and not of a plane. And I also think that they would hardly want to remove the frames showing a plane! So I am inclined to think that the video is complete.
The bright-out flash could not have been produced by an aeroplane and could only have resulted from a missile.
End of proof of missile strike (and debunking of plane lie).
However, the reason I bother to spend time with this is what it means if it was a missile not because it was a missile. After all Thierry Meyssan announced his findings to the world in 2002 so five years on why should it matter at all one way or the other whether it was a missile or a plane?
Well if it was a missile then some questions need asking. The first question that surely arises is who could have launched it? Thierry Meyssan posed and answered this in one way. I chose a different way. But we agree. He reveals information I wasn't aware of, for example that the President received a phone call from the perpetrators demanding certain things and making it clear that they had certain information and ability among these being the codes for the nuclear arsenal.
My own approach was simply to ask myself, who has the kind of position, anywhere, to perform such an act, to launch a missile and strike the Pentagon.
And my conclusion is that it must have been a faction of the US military behind the missile strike and as a supplementary observation it is very likely that this faction has been the real government of the US ever since that day.
One important point about this is that this faction is not worried or concerned or intends to behave in a proper, lawful, moral, precedural, governmental manner but is more than willing to indulge in criminal actions and commit atrocities (all of the 911 atrocities are obviously part and parcel of the same overall scheming).
That would be a tiny part of point 'a' so to speak and all of point 'b' is that it, this faction, has the keys to the nuclear weapons arsenal in the US.
Another point, 'c' I suppose, is that the president is not really a president in the full and useful meaning of the word but is more of a representative for this new military or quasi military regime in the USA.
Please understand that such a situation means that wars originating from the USA have not really been wars so much as attacks by the USA (and colluding countries like the UK) upon countries that have shown no signs of wishing to have a war. The rationality for them is simply put forward because it is easier to falsely explain than to operate under martial law and conditions.
But I don't want to focus on that aspect too much in this article but continue instead to stick with why you can be sure it was a missile not a plane that hit the Pentagon and why just this video I have been writing about is enough to prove it.
I have already made the point, which I don't think has been made elsewhere (please give me a link if you know of some other site that mentions this) of the bright-out flash and I assert that this flash is sufficient proof that it was a missile not a plane because a passenger plane as we are told it was would never be able to produce such a white flash upon impact and only a missile could.
I also think that this would be the one single frame (or however many it is in) to be removed if that video was to be doctored to remove evidence of the truth of what happened. This does not mean that it has not been doctored but my own view is that because it doesn't show a plane then there was no plane - this point is one I make in isolation, regardless of my other previous points and I will explain this next.
First let me explain some basics about video technology. In order for the smoke to be recorded, that we see in the video (which you can find simply everywhere), without any 'jerkiness' it means that at least about 30 fps, frames per second, are being recorded. That means that the scene shown is being captured for the video record at least once every one thirtieth of a second - otherwise the smoke would look 'jerky'.
A plane travelling at between 400mph and 600mph will cover roughtly seven to ten metres in one thirtieth of a second. One thirtieth of a second is the time gap between two successive video frames. That means that if there was a plane then you would see it in several frames. Since there is no visual evidence to show any such plane then the only reasonable conclusion is that there was no plane. The only other alternative, in the circumstances, is a missile.
Aeroplane launched cruise missiles begin flying faster than the planes that launch them and then they quickly accelerate under rocket propulsion. An example, intended as more than a 'How to work it out' rather than 'These are the accurate figures', if one plucked a figure of 20m, twenty metres, as the expected field of view to capture and the missile crossed that space in that time space between two frames then it travelled at least 20m per 1/30th of a second. For the plane I said 10 metres would equate to 600mph so 20 metres suggests the missile speed of 1,200mph. In other words more than twice as fast as the supposed plane but not necessarily as much as three times.
The video does show a frame with the missile, and the while whirly smoke trail, and in the next frame, the explosion is recorded, so that does tend to support my somewhat back of the envelope sketch or calculation, but I hasten to admit I have not done any double checking so I could be wrong about the speed of the missile. The plane is not shown but the missile is partly seen. The speeds seem to work out in relation to the frames of video recorded. My point is not to write a thesis or presentation for a legal court, it is intended to 'discuss' the issues and to raise aspects sufficiently to arouse curiosity, interest and your very own thinking, not to exhaustively pursue a particular fact; plenty of others are paid to do that but don't!
Another point I have seen mentioned is the white trail of 'smoke' in the video. The official explanation is that an engine of the plane hit an object and the damage to the engine caused it to produce this plume. I will leave it to turbo fan specialists to tell us if such an explanation is viable and move on to explain that you can see plumes exactly like this which are produced by missiles.
Turbo fans, as the engines on an aeroplane are called, don't generally produce such an effect. Missiles do. Let's be more specific. Cruise missiles always do in their initial rocket propelled stage.
Another point, not one I have seen elsewhere, is that for this white plume to be present it means that the rocket stage of the missile was still operational. This is quite significant because it relates to the time from launch. When a Cruise missile is launched it is fired by it's rocket engine and after this has burnt up then it detaches and the missile's turbo fan engine takes over. When the rocket engine is operating then the distinct white plume, distinct partly because it forms a spiral, is present but when the turbo fan is operating then there is no such trail any more.
That means that the missile that struck the Pentagon still had it's rocket engine operating.
That means that it had been launched, I am rough guessing here, less than a minute beforehand.
I have made it clear that in reaching such outrageous and unthinkable conclusions I have done nothing other than look at pictures that you too can see on the internet just as I have.
Another point I wish to make about the meaning of the missile strike is that every government with any kind of intelligence department must be aware of all of this and more.
So what does all of this mean? It means that every advanced government knows but chooses to keep quiet. It means that every such government goes along with the wars which are not real wars but one sided vicious attacks.
What does this mean for the future?
Nothing quite like this nor on this scale has happened before in recorded history. However the basics don't change just because the enormity of it is a precedent in history.
In my spiritual and philosophical mind as opposed to my solely reasoning mind, I see that the plan will come unstuck, that things which have been worked out by the military minds behind all of this can never see the whole picture and that at some point something totally unexpected will happen. But for now, and looking back over the past more than five years since that missile strike, I would say that the military faction that is behind all of this has calculated and predicted the outcomes accurately and that the public response is probably far better, from their point of view, than it expected as despite all the glaring evidence and proof, hardly any stirring or murmuring has taken place.
It is with such observations in mind that I reflect, personally, that phrases like "Never again" and "Vigilence is the price of peace" no longer have any value or meaning and that cunning and presentation have lulled everyone, almost everyone anyway, into a totally false sense of all is well or almost all is well or almost all is well enough for most of us so that none of us need pay any heed to anyone who tries to make us think about these things.
The great shame. One great shame of several is that all this is based on some false ideas one of which is probably Peak Oil. The truth is that Peak Oil may well be real but it is also the case that it doesn't matter! As a world we are going to have to adapt to being without oil so the sane thing to do is to start now to work on this idea. The insane idea is to destroy other cultures and countries in war attacks purely designed for that purpose just to get the last of the oil. But what then, after that is used up? All it buys is a few more decades if that.
Then there is the global domination by US military might.
Is there another goal in all of this?
Maybe, maybe not, but the two I mention just don't stand up to intelligent reasoning.
I have presented a worst case with Peak Oil, that we just adapt to being without it. But just to try and bring some sanity into this terrible state of affairs I would like to finish this article by pointing out that just as the evidence that you can find yourself proves what I have said here to be the case, so to can you find abundant information that shows that free energy is easy to exploit and so oil is just a passing phase.
I have a question for you. Is it not madness to silence those who provide real answers to the peak oil problem and choose instead to spend the first part of the 2000+ era devoted to military and other crimes of an utterly monstrous kind, all, so it appears, to grab or steal the last of the oil, oil which we don't have any real need for anyway?
The Peak Oil US and UK agenda is not based on wise intelligence. If it were then alternative energy by which I don't mean tidal, wind and solar and so on but the kind of energy which inventors have been telling the world about on and off for over twentyfive years, is available. It is obvious, if you care to look, that such inventors have been silenced one way or another. Why? Because the oil is all, oil is money, oil is energy, oil is crucial and suchlike ideas have been falsely held to be the reality.
Another incredible thing about this free energy is that combusion engines can run on it! Just think of it. Not only is there abundant energy freely available but it just so happens you can continue to use all oily engines (diesel and petrol ones at least) with this free energy. So the end of oil doesn't even mean the end of the combustion engine! Although this is only incidental information I include it because, on the face of it, Peak Oil is an insolvable global problem - it really is no such thing.
Only a state of insanity would permit such a state of affairs to prevail wherein these very simple realisations are put to one side and a policy of destruction is engineered and enacted instead.
The bottom line here is that the terrible things that are happening are totally unnecessary and can only lead to a worsening future whereas if honest, and wiser, intelligence were to be functioning at governmental level then the future of our world could actually be much closer to a state of perfection.
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
