So the IW article has been edited, removing the RedOrbit article as the source of the "piece of the missle" claim, which is relegated to an unsourced 'Fox New interview'! I have the pre-edited article and will provide screengrabs to those interested!
It seems that prisonplanet has found the 64th "smokin gun!!!!11!" from that attack they don't ordinarily say much about... the Pentagon.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/video-surfaces-of-911-commissioner-referring-to-missile-at-pentagon.html
At prisonplanet, they have apparently "discovered" a video "from the last anniversary of 9/11" in where 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer (inadvertently?) refers to the Pentagon being "pried open by a missile" before saying "an airplane" a moment later. At least it gives them a chance to throw the "Rumsfeld told Parade Magazine it was a missile" chestnut out there again.
prisonplanet "discovered" the video because it was posted two days ago (by a user whose avatar is a logo for WAC Vancouver) as part of this clip that they link in the article:
The clip starts with the Roemer quote (from CNN American Morning, 8:12am Eastern) and goes on to feature a few of the other assorted "slip-ups", when the likes of Bush and Rumsfeld find themselves unable to lie 24/7/365 (366 in a leap year) and accidentally tell little snippets of the truth about the massive government plot to pull off 9/11... and only those highly attuned truthists can pick up the difference, at which point they string them together, set them to music and include a plug for pseudodocumentaries of a similar bend on Google video.
But what don't they tell you in this video, is how long these words have been out there, heretofore uncited (and subsequently beaten half-to-death) as "proof" that a missile hit the Pentagon. Sure, the prisonplanet article says that it originated "from the last anniversary of 9/11", in an article posted today. So that must mean it came from 9/11/2008... right? Well, if you watched American Morning on 9/11/2008 at 8:12am Eastern, and you don't remember seeing this, are you crazy?
No, you're not.
One search of youtube led me to another instance of this particular clip.
The above clip, of just that little bit with Roemer and nothing added to it, has been sitting on youtube's servers, being viewed approximately thirty-five times a day, since December 4th. 2006.
The info on the video even says it: 9/11/2006.
Not content with telling one big lie in the prisonplanet piece, Watson goes on:
To support this, they link to this Redorbit article that says the following in re this claim:
So... they're obviously not counting on someone looking at their linked citation to see that they made the part about the missile up. So honest, they are. Unless, of course, they're tossing that bit from redorbit and Rumsfeld's Parade Magazine quote into ol' Tyranny Blender 1 in the break room, mixing them together, then reconstituting them into this particular instance to say that Rumsfeld referred to the piece of the plane as a piece of the missile.
I guess this bit belongs best in this thread. Or I suppose there could be a new general discussion thread in the main CT section, for a general assemblage of outright lies and fabrications from the Alex Jones family of websites.
So you've proven that PP was a year off in when the quote was recorded and you've pointed out where PP conflates two quotes. I'm not a fan of the site, but I don't think they were suggesting that Rumsfeld called the memento part of the missile, but rather referring to how Rumsfeld had referred to 77 in the past.
Your analysis does not debunk the fact that both Roemer and Rumsfeld have previously referred to what hit the Pentagon as a missile.
Actually, your being hung up on this kind of crap shouldn't surprise me considering your stance on 'pull it'. Kind of a keystone cops kind of conspiracy, wasn't it? Three major players accidentally tipping their hand like that.
No wonder the intrepid investigooglers of the truth movement figured it all out; if what the truth movement declares is true, 911 was planned and executed by even bigger idiots then they.
So you've proven that PP was a year off in when the quote was recorded and you've pointed out where PP conflates two quotes. I'm not a fan of the site, but I don't think they were suggesting that Rumsfeld called the memento part of the missile, but rather referring to how Rumsfeld had referred to 77 in the past.
If you have a cached version of the unedited InfoWar article, you'll note the following:
"Rumsfeld also keeps a piece of the supposed flight 77 on his desk as a reminder of the attacks. He once infamously referred to the grisly souvenir as "a piece of the missile" that hit the Pentagon."
Clearly stating that Rummy 'infamously' referred to the souvenir on his desk as 'a piece of the missle' that hit the Pentagon. They are not conflating quotes, but making them up.
But the edited version says:
"Rumsfeld also keeps a piece of the supposed flight 77 on his desk as a reminder of the attacks. During a TV interview with Fox News, he once infamously referred to the grisly souvenir as "a piece of the missile" that hit the Pentagon."
So you've proven that PP was a year off in when the quote was recorded and you've pointed out where PP conflates two quotes. I'm not a fan of the site, but I don't think they were suggesting that Rumsfeld called the memento part of the missile, but rather referring to how Rumsfeld had referred to 77 in the past.
Actually, they were two years off. In a technical sense; they never specified a date. I can see why; it doesn't serve prisonplanet's own image to admit openly that their new discovery has been around since 2006. Why should I trust the word and subsequent analysis and inferred meaning of a source that's willing to fudge something as simple as a date to keep up their image of uncovering new, damning information?
Also, if prisonplanet wasn't suggesting that Rumsfeld called the memento part of the missile, why did the writer use quotes on that portion?
He once infamously referred to the grisly souvenir as “a piece of the missile” that hit the Pentagon.
The intent of that line, to me, is crystal clear; also, it is not supported by the provided cite. If they actually have proof that Rumsfeld said what he's quoted as saying, why are they holding on to it? If they don't, why are they making it appear he said it?
What's there to "debunk"? Roemer said "missile". He said it on TV; it's not like anyone's trying to say it was fabricated. In a technical sense, AA77 was used by the hijackers as a missile. Furthermore, are we supposed to take Roemer and Rumsfeld's single quotes where they said "missile" (absent any evidence to support that it actually was a missile) as ironclad admissions and discard the totality of the evidence (witnesses, plane parts, bodies) that indicates it was flight 77? Moreover, are we supposed to take Roemer at his word when he said "missile", but not when he said "airplane" a moment later? It's a lot like all the videos that spotlight people who said "bomb" or "explosion" at WTC on 9/11, or those who described the collapses as "like a demolition". It proves nothing.
What kind of missile was it then? If you're suggesting that it was and not a plane, you'd have to supply a viable candidate. Taking quotes from government officials out of context does not absolve you from having to show scientifically that no plane impacted the Pentagon.
But, just go ahead and do what everyone before you has. In the face of inability to address the science necessary to either prove your own claim or to disprove the government's, revert to taking snippets from speeches and interviews that are cherry-picked and subjective at best.
So the IW article has been edited, removing the RedOrbit article as the source of the "piece of the missle" claim, which is relegated to an unsourced 'Fox New interview'! I have the pre-edited article and will provide screengrabs to those interested!
Did they change it in cross-posting to another one of their sites? I just looked at the prisonplanet article again, and the two things I was on about remain unchanged.
Did they change it in cross-posting to another one of their sites? I just looked at the prisonplanet article again, and the two things I was on about remain unchanged.
Ah, thanks. I went looking over there last night, but couldn't find it. Granted, I didn't spend a whole lot of time over there... what a self-aggrandizing cesspool the place is.
Well, it finally happened, and the truthists that scurry about on this other site I use are jumping up and down about it. The episode of "Rescue Me" aired with Daniel Sunjata's character going on about the inside jobby job; specifically, PNAC.
(nsfw for a couple of bits of cursing)
It's a little something that has truthists all excited again, even if it's comparable in some ways to last year's pimping of Steve Alten's fictional troof opus. Think about it... they're getting all excited about a two-minute troof monologue by a fictional character (who's a truthist in real life) on a basic-cable drama show.
I have decided that when I refer to a specific twoofer or group of twoofers, I will refer to it as it rather than the noun it is known by. Would I be violating forum rules by referring to it as it? I would hate to be suspended for violating an unknown rule again.
I am happy to admit that I was 100% wrong just a year or so ago when I said that there was no way a black man was going put his hand on a bible and be sworn in as the President of the United States.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
