[frenat]

Please show proof that the Pentagon is protected by missile batteries. Keep in mind that the airspace above the Pentagon is not restricted airspace as hundreds of planes takeoff and land over it daily. There are no pictures showing any batteries and in the times the restricted airspace in DC has been violated, missiles were not used.
Again, a good analysis of the missile myth here
http://www.911myths...._batteries.html

[Sunofone]

Quote

Please show proof that the Pentagon is protected by missile batteries. Keep in mind that the airspace above the Pentagon is not restricted airspace as hundreds of planes takeoff and land over it daily. There are no pictures showing any batteries and in the times the restricted airspace in DC has been violated, missiles were not used.
Again, a good analysis of the missile myth here
http://www.911myths...._batteries.html

i think its you who has to prove the incompetency of a prof and dean of rutgers-- look at #2

Quote

the link to the site that claims to debunk loose change is a complete farce-- i challenge anyone to raise one topic where the counter is valid-- the third and final cut will be the most damning as evidence keeps surfacing-- here is the testimony that will be in the final cut-- i here-by challenge anyone that doubts 9/11 is an inside job to explain the testimony on this link where a high level wtc security official explains what happened to him before either of the twin towers collpased --
barry jennings damning testimony
WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11



the movement is anything BUT minority or fringe--
example-- who here has the authority to doubt a phd prof and dean of rutgers???????????????? WAKE UP NOW PEOPLE!
**************************************************************************

A View on 09/11/01
R-N prof and dean, Dr. Barry R. Komisaruk brings up evidence surrounding 9/11, questioning the official account
Dr. Barry R. Komisaruk
Issue date: 9/11/07


Dr. Barry R. Komisaruk is a Professor II of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School. He is also a Rutgers Board of Govenors Distinguished Service Professor.These questions are not mere academic exercises. Rather, they challenge the entire official dogma of what happened on that fateful day. The observations are readily available and clearly evident from existing news reports, books, and photos and videos on the Internet. They have not been accounted for convincingly, or even at all, by the official U.S. government reports, and they have not even been challenged by the mass media. They raise serious doubts and questions as to what really happened on that day.

If the assumptions about the true nature of the events are erroneous, then the policies that have been justified by those assumptions must be questioned -ongoing policies that include the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and suspension of the guarantees provided by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution - against torture and against warrantless spying on U.S. citizens.

If we turn a blind eye to the truth about the events that occurred on September 11, 2001, we do so at our peril, for revealing the truth may well change profoundly the course of future events.

Based upon my reading, published evidence leads me to a terribly disturbing conclusion as to the veracity of the official government accounts. Here are some of my questions. Can you answer them?

#1: In fact, no commercial jetliner debris - no engines, tail section, luggage, bodies, are visible in photos of the Pentagon just after whatever collided with it. Why has no film of any collision with the Pentagon ever been shown to the public despite the existence of all the Pentagon's surveillance cameras? Contrast that absence with the unendingly repeated films shown of the planes hitting the twin towers.

#2: The Pentagon is protected by surface-to-air missiles. Why were they not deployed to shoot down whatever it was that hit the building?

#3: The twin towers fell at almost free-fall velocity, which means that they had no resistance as they fell. If they "pancaked" down, as the official reports claim, the resistance of the lower floors would have drastically slowed the fall. The near-free-fall speed, the concrete dust that was so finely pulverized, and the molten structural steel, are evidence that explosions, not planes, brought down the towers - a demolition process that must have been put into effect well prior to 9/11.

#4: Building 7 of the World Trade Center was reported to have been "pulled," as in a planned demolition, collapsing at free-fall velocity later the same day, never having been hit by the planes that hit the twin towers. It takes days to set explosives in a building to prepare it for demolition. Those explosives must have been placed also in that building prior to 9/11.

#5: Debris from flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, Penn., was scattered over an area of several square miles. If a plane crashes into the ground, it is impossible for its debris to bounce for miles around. That means that the plane must have been blown up in midair. Was it shot down, and if so, by whom?
emphasis mine
full article here

[badeskov]

Quote

i think its you who has to prove the incompetency of a prof and dean of rutgers-- look at #2

Your reference is a Professor of Psychology. What makes him such an outstanding reference compared to anybody else? And looking at his assertions, he should try and back them up! Just to quote the specific topic that frenat was also referring to:

Quote

#2: The Pentagon is protected by surface-to-air missiles. Why were they not deployed to shoot down whatever it was that hit the building?

That assertion is simply ludicrous. As frenat stated, the pentagon is right next to a busy airport. You'd rather not have hot weapons like that close to a busy airport. But most importantly, I would be most interested in learning was possible threat could ever justify surface-to-air missiles (SAM) at the pentagon?! What evil foe would make that necessary?

The only threat to the pentagon was one that SAMs would have no means of countering, namely that of a strategic nuclear warhead delivered by an ICBM. SAMs are theater weapons, not for strategic defense.

Best,
Badeskov

Edited for typo.

This post has been edited by badeskov: 02 October 2007 - 04:15 PM

[frenat]

One guy's assertion with no evidence to back it up. Is that the best you can do?