Anti-missile devices protecting DICK Cheney's private home...

[Virginia Dare]

As I'm reading this innocuous little article about how Bush is cutting himself off from the press, I see this little gem embedded in there:

"The Jackson Hole News & Guide found out Cheney was there only because it spotted his plane and the radar dish that serves an anti-missile battery that protects his house when he's in town. "In the past, they've been kind of weird about it," said Thomas Dewell, the paper's co-editor. "They'd say, 'His airplane's here and the missile base is here, but we can't tell you if he's here.' " This time, he said, Cheney's office confirmed his presence when asked."

Okay, so maybe this is a post 9/11 invention, but wouldn't you think that the Pentagon would be protected by several anti-missle devices, even prior to 9/11, and if so why weren't they deployed on 9/11?

Maybe I've missed a previous discussion on this.

By the way, I'm blind pissed that we have to spend however many millions this bullshit must cost to protect Cheney's private home in Jackson Hole, and probably his home on the Eastern Shore of Maryland as well.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Supposedly Bush had this protection on 9-11

they set up defenses around the Colony resort where he was staying. You would think at the least they would have something at the WH and Pentagon on a permanent basis, even before 9-11.

[Artdyst]

2. Of course the WH & Pentagon were protected. The WH didn't get attacked,

did it? As for the Pentagon, since it too was protected, many people say that's why bombs were used & "the plane" flew OVER the building, and those two things, combined with the planted airplane parts in a few spots at the Pentagon, is how the Bush Administration (and its apologists) have and continue to sell the lies about how Hani Hanjour was able to fly a huge airliner in such a way that he was able to evade the Pentagon's sophisticated building defense systems. Didn't happen. Because of the superior resrouces that protect not only Dick Cheney and President Bush, but also the headquarters of our nation's Department of Defense.

[Sinti]

3. The plane was flying too low, and the trajectory was set too high

It may sound crazy, but it makes perfect sense. The plane literally flew "under" the radar. The missile protection was meant for missiles. It was pretty much Cold War stuff. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

[Artdyst]

4. Isn't it possible that a missile WAS fired at the Pentagon, from a nearby

site that would have allowed it to evade detection? If that's what happened, it would be still more evidence that the OCT is a fairy tale. I don't think even the most rabid OCT'ers would claim that Osama and Company could have set up a missile site near the Pentagon without being caught.

[Sinti]

5. Personally, I see no evidence of this missile

In my opinion it wouldn't make sense to have a missile.

1. If you commit a crime, and have a cover story, you want reality to be as close to the cover story as possible.

2. The ghosted plane and the passengers and all that is a big fat mess. Why not fly the plane into the building - you gotta get rid of it anyway. Then you don't have to cover so many bases.

3. The missile story makes a great cover - by cover I mean, you get some of your disinfo people say no plane and another set of your disinfo people can jump right on that with ridicule, and use it to discredit all the other parts of the story that are Very Very real. If things get really bad, you can let the video actually showing the plane out - then ridicule and discredit actual facts to your heart's content. It's an ace in the hole, if you will.

The no plane theory just smells like disinfo to my nose.

This is, of course, just my personal and relatively uneducated opinion :)

[Virginia Dare]

8. What's to prevent that from happening to Cheney's house?

Sorry, it still doesn't make any sense to me.

Why the hell do we still have these things if they've already been proven moot? Not directed at you, just a rhetorical question there.

[Sinti]

9. I'm pretty sure Cheney's stuff is set differently, or has a variable

trajectory set up. I'm not trying to let them off the hook at all - I believe they did it, MIHOP - but the Pentagon thing, well, this makes sense to me. It's just like the guys at NORAD - they didn't have to give a stand down order, they baffled them with BS - inputs on their screens and confusion. It's easier to work with the flaws in the system than to get good people to do evil. :shrug:

[Virginia Dare]

10. I agree with you on that....

all of these various "coincidences" and other serendipitous incidents that were going on that day are just too much to believe.

[democraticinsurgent]

12. No offense, but I recommend getting educated on this subject

Good to see your thoughts. Please let me recommend the following if you really want to get educated on 9/11:

Books:

Paul Thompson's The Terror Timeline
David Ray Griffin's Omissions and Distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report
Webster Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror
Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon

Videos:

Who Killed John O'Neill www.wkjo.com
9/11 Eyewitness: Hoboken

There are plenty of other videos and books, but if you read the four above books and see these two movies, you will see things through a different prism.

By the way I totally understand the Pentagon conundrum. To me it's the big sticking point which inhibits a cohesive 9/11 alternative explanation. I don't think there's anyway that AA 77 hit the Pentagon, but if it didn't, what happened to that plane is a big mystery still. Best to focus on the more easily debunked pieces of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

[Sinti]

13. I've read/watched those thanks - some good stuff, some BS

in nearly all except the time line. That time line, from everything I've seen, is a goldmine. Not done with Synthetic Terror yet, but I've already seen some questionable stuff in it (not all of it, just small things).

Pentagon IMO = total red herring. I truly believe there are lots and lots of things that look funny on purpose. If I was to run this black op I'd have dozens of wild theories planted out there, I'd create dozens of dead ends, that look damn funny but mean nothing, as I went along. I'd also have my faithful disinfo ops pick up on those tidbits as people tried to uncover the truth and blow them up larger than life, ridicule, disprove the whole theory with a single poisoned pill.

Even if a missile did hit the Pentagon, can you prove it? Can you get your neighbor to listen to you about it? I can easily explain that anomaly therefore I cast it aside.

There are dozens of outright lies in the OCT. Provable lies. I, personally, would focus on those first.

[democraticinsurgent]

14. well then you are not so uneducated imho ;-)

I don't disagree with much of anything you say this time.

The Pentagon still puzzles me though because it's the one thing that can't yet be explained, easily or otherwise. Something happened, but not what OCT says.

So pursuit of that is still worthwhile, yet you are absolutely correct to focus on what's easiest to disprove.

Cheers!

[mirandapriestly]

6. It is an outrage

that he is protected on our dime, but no one was on 9-11. Especially when it is THEIR ACTIONS that cause the current level of danger, at least the degree of danger that is not fabricated.

[Grateful for Hope]

7. How about

how people were taken care of during Katrina?

They say that "what goes around comes around".

I am looking forward to that "comes around".

[savemefromdumbya]

11. Yes indded, how come they didn't have them at the Pentagon on 9/11?

smell a rat?