10-07-2014, 03:45 PM
The Honegger video contained a few new bits of information for me: the not-made-of-aluminum composite bit of wreckage that a civilian witness claimed fell thru her sunroof after the Pentagon explosion, the news that GWB himself was planning on using the helipad near the Pentagon impact site later that day, and that the Pentagon building failure report claimed that the fuselage of whatever hit it was no more than 20 feet high, and in fact a 757 sitting on its jet engines is in fact more than 21 feet tall, and that in addition to the auditor's records of the missing Pentagon 3.2 trillion dollars being destroyed in the crash, the records of the Black Eagle Trust (240 billion) were destroyed in the Naval Command Center (from which there was only 1 survivor). In order to wipe out both of these offices the plane had to be travelling at that particular angle of impact.
The last fact of interest I found in her 3 hour speech was that the nation of Malaysia hosted an international 9/11 Truth Conference in 2012 in which the theory of remote control planes was discussed. It was unknown to her at the time of this speech, but it seems not at all coincidental that the next well-known potential remote control hijack situation was a Malaysian airliner.
I do feel that in talking about her perpetrators of the Pentagon attack she has veered out of the carefully researched work in much of the rest of her report. For one thing, she calls some of the American officials "reputed dual American/Israeli citizens". Who made these "reputes"? Why didn't she bother to verify these particular allegations? It seems to me that she has veered dangerously close to anti-Semitism when discussing the perpetrators. In the least, this will quite unnecessarily tend to discredit her work as a whole. She could have just stuck with the term "neo-con" and been standing on unimpeachable ground.
The last part of her assertion I find strange is that she suggests that the conspirators were inspired by Carl Schmitt, Nazi law professor. Does she seriously think that his Ubermensch view of the world would gain any traction among the Jewish people, Schmitt's intended victims? The alliance of Nazi philosophy and Zionism would indeed be a startling and historical event, which would have been noticed and commented upon by others before 2012.
The last fact of interest I found in her 3 hour speech was that the nation of Malaysia hosted an international 9/11 Truth Conference in 2012 in which the theory of remote control planes was discussed. It was unknown to her at the time of this speech, but it seems not at all coincidental that the next well-known potential remote control hijack situation was a Malaysian airliner.
I do feel that in talking about her perpetrators of the Pentagon attack she has veered out of the carefully researched work in much of the rest of her report. For one thing, she calls some of the American officials "reputed dual American/Israeli citizens". Who made these "reputes"? Why didn't she bother to verify these particular allegations? It seems to me that she has veered dangerously close to anti-Semitism when discussing the perpetrators. In the least, this will quite unnecessarily tend to discredit her work as a whole. She could have just stuck with the term "neo-con" and been standing on unimpeachable ground.
The last part of her assertion I find strange is that she suggests that the conspirators were inspired by Carl Schmitt, Nazi law professor. Does she seriously think that his Ubermensch view of the world would gain any traction among the Jewish people, Schmitt's intended victims? The alliance of Nazi philosophy and Zionism would indeed be a startling and historical event, which would have been noticed and commented upon by others before 2012.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."