SaneThinking.com "What does it means if it was a missile that struck the Pentagon?"

What does it means if it was a missile that struck the Pentagon?

Off the top of my head these are a few obvious things that it means:

1. It had to have been perpetrated by a faction of the US government-military.
2. It's target was no error; it hit the intended target accurately. The target was the Pentagon, the seat of Government and some military command, more specifically, it was a sector of the Pentagon that was the target, reportedly that of navel intelligence.
3. It could hardly have been an entirely unrelated event to the other major events that same day, the most obvious being the destruction of the twin towers and a third tower nearby using a sophisticated and highly controlled set of advanced techniques all played out as a clever but unconvincing trick.
4. It means that these atrocities were not perpetrated by any foreign entity; it was done by those who instigated the missile strike.
5. The war against terrorism. Do I need to explain why is a total fabrication?
6. It means some kind of ultimatum had probably been issued earlier and this was to, at the very least, prove that it was not a bluff. The conditions in that ultimatum would probably have been satisfed later the same day giving the perpetrators even greater power.
7. It means that the President of the USA is not in any real sense the President and is instead a kind of Sales Manager or Public Relations Manager for that the US real government. This real government is secret because it has no intention of abiding by law or rightmindedness and has malign objectives; this means that the people would rise up against it and dismantle it if it were not secret.
8. This secret government will enact hidden US military and militarized police goals that are cunningly and increasing brought about. This is what we have all seen happening since 2001. Any reasoning for it will continue to be superficial but plausible, making no sense to intelligent independent thinking individuals but satisfying the information needs of the public in general.
9. The military and the police will no longer abide by principles, ideals, rules, standards and laws and that laws will be changed to make what was previously criminal behaviour have a new status as legal policy. Hidden in these new nazi principles, standards and laws will be increasing acts of terror, horror and atrocity. They will adhere to sly and ruthless militaristic and quasi-militaristic objectives that probably includes global military domination and intensified police states. All the while this will be put in place with proclamations of protecting the publice and fighting crime and so on. It will be done inch by crafty inch. Decent people will be swept up by it, confused and befuddled, they will increasingly not like it but be less and less empowered to resist it.
10. The President's control over the launching of nuclear missiles may or may not exist any more but either way this final control is also in the hands of others whose identity is not hard to figure out.

This being the case, I ask you to ask yourself this as a very private and personal question that you are not obliged to discuss with anyone else if you find the answer embarrassing:

"Do you think it matters whether it was a plane or a missile that hit the Pentagon?" Furthermore,

Is it best to assume, if we don't know 100% for sure, that it was a plane or that it was a missile? or:

As the degree of knowing, our certainty, it was a missile (and not a plane) increases, at what % of probability (or certainty) do you think it should be before deciding that the stakes are just too high to give the benefit of doubt to the "It was a plane" people? And what basic moral tenet is demonstratd in the upholding of that increasingly unlikelihood (that is was a plane)? Isn't the failure to acknowledge the obvious, that is was a missile, a refusal to face the truth because it is too terrible to contemplate? Where do you suppose that is getting any of us, as a society, as a country (UK, USA, anywhere else on this planet) and as individuals? What does it say about all the talk about democracy, talk of freedoms, talk of the right and responsibility to resist evil? Do you puzzle over my choice of domain name, Sane Thinking?

There is a cliche sentence, 'there is hope', well, maybe 'hope' needs a good kick to get it going because either it's fallen asleep or it's dying.

Paul E. Coughlin, March 2007

You may like to know that there may be other articles, similar to this one, here, in this category:
911 and 77

If no earlier date is shown above then this page began life on 11.03.2007. It was most recently updated, improved, tarted-up, sexed-up, modified, polished, or just imperceptably re-edited, due, most likely, to compulsive and unrestrained perfectionism, influenced quite possibly by a minor degree of pedantic extremism, on 06.06.2008.