9-11 PENTAGON INCIDENT REAL

[SaintLucifer]

I have just seen our Canadian news which showed footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon. Where is that MENTALCASE who claimed it was faked? The footage clearly shows a passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon. MENTALIST you fucking MORON. I told you that you were full of shit you stupid cunt.

 

[The Question]

I've seen footage of a 400m starship crashing into the surface of a planet and uprooting a massive swath of forest. "Seeing is believing" still sounds good -- but in the age of CGI footage, that adage just isn't the truism it once was.

 

[SaintLucifer]

I've seen footage of a 400m starship crashing into the surface of a planet and uprooting a massive swath of forest. "Seeing is believing" still sounds good -- but in the age of CGI footage, that adage just isn't the truism it once was.

Yes yes. That is right. Now run along. You do understand why the tape was not revealed before?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Read that and learn bitch.

 

[The Question]

^^Because it took time to create the CGI footage and then composite it into the preexisting footage of the explosion?

 

[Mentalist]

​

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | May 16 2006​

Grainy video stills showing what is claimed to be the nose cone of Flight 77 will only result in an increased circus of debate around the issue of what happened at the Pentagon in preparation for a future release of clear video footage that 'debunks' people who question the official version of 9/11.

​

For over four years we have remained neutral on the subject, agreeing that unanswered questions need to be explored but warning against the Pentagon issue becoming the core focus of the 9/11 truth movement.

​

The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11.

​

At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected.

​

The government is steam valving this issue so as to garner as much interest as possible before blowing the entire matter out of the water. We know for a fact that the FBI seized the gas station camera footage and footage from hotels across the highway which would show the entire sequence of events and prove exactly what happened at the Pentagon.

​

The fact that they have again chosen to release grainy and foggy images which only lead to more speculation tell us two things.

​

​

1) The government truly is frightened to death of releasing any images which accurately depict what happened at the Pentagon because it doesn't jive with the official version of 9/11.

​

2) Or the government knows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and has clear footage of the incident, but is deliberately releasing these speculative images in order to stoke the debate so it can later release the high quality video and use it to debunk the entire 9/11 truth movement.

​

The media obsession with this one facet of an entire smorgasbord of 9/11 questions, and their refusal to address more hardcore 9/11 evidence, leads us to fear the latter explanation is the case.​

​

Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein?​

Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen.​

Why no discussion of the NORAD stand down?​

Because none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.​

While intelligent questions need to be asked about what really happened at the Pentagon we feel that research in this context should come with the proviso that a potential trap is being laid to discredit all 9/11 research at a later date, and that today's story is part of that process.​

Watch the video. I allready had five frames of this and this release shows nothing close to conclusive evidence. As the article points out, why have they not released the gas station footage and the hotel footage that are both situated in far better spots? Why release a few more jittered frames of this?

 

[Mentalist]

Release Of Pentagon Images Direct Assault On 9/11 Truth Movement

Politically timed release also coincides with Bush record low approval and surveillance furore, but video stills show little

​

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | May 16 2006​

Related: Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/160506giantpsyop.htm​

The release of new video images of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is both a direct assault against a 9/11 truth movement that has flourished in recent months and an attempt to reinforce the attendant propaganda of 9/11 in light of Bush's 29% approval rating.

​

Before the release of the new frames news networks immediately went on the attack, saying that the images finally put to rest "conspiracy theories" and questions about the official story. In addition, Fox News commentators related with pensive looks and pursed lips that this footage answers the furore over secret NSA wiretaps and surveillance by 'reminding Americans why it was being done'.

​

Fox anchors also attacked Charlie Sheen's 'ridiculous assertions' after the actor went public with his 9/11 doubts in late March. News networks hyped the video as some kind of hot tip yet when it was played the anchors looked disappointed because it barely shows anything we haven't already seen, a grainy shot spoiled by sun glare of a blurry object and then a fireball (see below). Go to Fox News to view the video images.

​

​

Alex Jones and this website have always approached the Pentagon subject with caution because we were wary that it was a potential honey pot that would be used to distract and later discredit the 9/11 truth movement.​

We asked why mainstream hit pieces always seemed to obsess over the Pentagon issue while ignoring other far weightier facets of the 9/11 inside job evidence.

​

The tactic has always been to create a straw man argument that can be set up and knocked down at a convenient time. The image below shows the supposed nose cone of the object.

​

​

This is also a political boon for President Bush. The timing is precise and has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Moussaoui trial has ended. Bush's approval ratings are at 29% and his administration is being battered from pillar to post over the NSA spying scandal. What better time to replay the horror of 9/11 and attempt to reinforce fealty to the government's lauded efforts to keep us all safe from terrorists by taking our rights away?

​

The release of these images comes at a time when the 9/11 truth movement is at its most prominent. This is a targeted assault intended to quash questions about 9/11 and discredit the movement. TV news anchors are already uniform in their talking points in using the video images to attack 9/11 skeptics.

​

What remains clear is the fact that news networks are steadfast to ask questions about the real issues surrounding 9/11, such as the implosion of Building 7, the NORAD stand down and the fact that all the evidence points towards the hijackers being US government agents.​

I have just seen our Canadian news which showed footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon. Where is that MENTALCASE who claimed it was faked? The footage clearly shows a passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon. MENTALIST you fucking MORON. I told you that you were full of shit you stupid cunt.

I've never made claims. I've only asked questions. You have no ability to discuss issues as an adult. You are nout but a foul mouthed child with a god-complex. And I tire of you quickly. Now, why don't yo post a big block of yellow text again so myself and everyone else can ignore it.

 

[Panda]

but it doesn't conclusively prove that something other than the plane hit it either.

it only furthers the speculation.

how do the 'missile' conspiracy theorists explain what happened to flight 77 and all the people on board - did they disappear over the bermuda triangle?

 

[jack]

I'd like to hear it from the families of the passengers. That would be a start.

 

[Tyrant]

I don't believe the missile theory.

The pictures released obviously do not show a wrecked plane. But what exactly would be left of an aluminum can designed to fly after crashing into reinforced concrete?

The object, as I shall refer to it, took down stoplights in keeping with its presumed trajectory.

Is this landing gear from a missile?



I ask anyone who wishes to present me with arguments that something other than a plane crashed into the Pentagon read this:

The "Pod People" And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon

After reading (I'll take your word for it,) I would be more than happy to read and watch anything presented to me regarding what happened to the Pentagon that day.

 

[Tyrant]

I have just seen our Canadian news which showed footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon. Where is that MENTALCASE who claimed it was faked? The footage clearly shows a passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon. MENTALIST you fucking MORON. I told you that you were full of shit you stupid cunt.

And your first instinct was to race over here to tell him what you think? Wow. You love us.

 

[SaintLucifer]

I've never made claims. I've only asked questions. You have no ability to discuss issues as an adult. You are nout but a foul mouthed child with a god-complex. And I tire of you quickly. Now, why don't yo post a big block of yellow text again so myself and everyone else can ignore it.

Fair enough. I am not privy to the information you have as I am Canadian and therefore have not paid as much attention to the details. I shalll explain my position. There are those who claim it may have been a cruise missile, but I ask who fired it? Then there are those claims it was a Soviet-made anti-tank weapon that hit the building thus explaining away the hole in the side of the Pentagon. Who fired that? You are telling me terrorists are capable of getting that close to your most revered and heavily-guarded military building? It is because of these theories I stick with the aircraft as being the most-plausible, especially considering the fact that two planes flew into the WTC. What other way must I think? A part of me is still angry with Bush for blaming my country for 9-11, whereupon he claimed the terrorists originated from Canada. Further investigation proved him 100% incorrect. Not ONE terrorist came from Canada. Not only that but they were trained to fly commercial airliners in the USA. Florida in fact. Once Bush blamed us, I found myself laughing at the hole in the ground that was the WTC. No doubt this was my anger taking over, my nationalistic pride as a Canadian if you will. I realise this was the incorrect way to react but there it is. I do mourn for the loss of American lives in the manner in which they did. Kill all the fucking Muzzies I say!! Apparently they have now threatened my country thanks to our mission in Afghanistan.

 

[The Question]

I can't say whether what hit the Pentagrom was a plane or a missile. It makes more sense to me to conclude that Al Qaeda did indeed do what's claimed they did -- the guilt doesn't lie so much in the government manufacturing an attack for their purposes as simply allowing one that suited their needs.

 

[SaintLucifer]

I can't say whether what hit the Pentagrom was a plane or a missile. It makes more sense to me to conclude that Al Qaeda did indeed do what's claimed they did -- the guilt doesn't lie so much in the government manufacturing an attack for their purposes as simply allowing one that suited their needs.

I am asking this question as a Canadian. You honestly believe your own elected government is capable of pulling a stunt like many conspirators claim as a means of getting into IRAQ? I know mine would never do it in a million years.

 

[The Question]

It takes more effort, skill and coordination to stop an attack than to allow one. Dumbass.

 

[Blindgroping]

[quote=SaintLucifer] I am asking this question as a Canadian. You honestly believe your own elected government is capable of pulling a stunt like many conspirators claim as a means of getting into IRAQ? I know mine would never do it in a million years. [/quote]

Yes.

 

[Conchaga]

The object, as I shall refer to it, took down stoplights in keeping with its presumed trajectory.

Semantics... They were streetlamps. Five of them to be exact.

This plane was only going 30mph when it struck a lamp post while taxiing.

In Kansas, a twin engine plane struck a lamp post and several trees before it came to a halt in someone's home. It left a trail of debris in every location it struck something.

Yet, these 5 street lamps, made of steel and bolted to reenforced concrete were either torn in half or ripped from the ground by aluminum that dissintegrates upon impact with the pentagon with walls of 30 year-old brick and mortar?

Next, there's no evidence or debris that came off of the wings when they hit the light posts.

Who writes this shit?

 

[Tyrant]

I don't think the plane which purportedly hit the Pentagon was going 30mph.

Secondly, the Pentagon is a tougher nut to crack than a streetlamp.


The "Pod People" And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon

^Are there any glaring mistakes in this article?

 

[Starship Coyote]

I am asking this question as a Canadian. You honestly believe your own elected government is capable of pulling a stunt like many conspirators claim as a means of getting into IRAQ? I know mine would never do it in a million years.

Yes. Americans should fear their government. Next question.

 

[Conchaga]

I don't think the plane which purportedly hit the Pentagon was going 30mph.

The point of my argument was to show that there would be debris on the ground and showering the cars below after the first light pole was hit. Yet, this debris remains to be seen or spoken about.

You are absolutely correct. 30mph is way too slow for a jet liner in flight. Let's talk about the video, shall we? The five frames that were released to the press. In these five frames video analysts have estimated the speed of the plane to be around mach 12. A plane of that size couldn't reach mach 12 even if it were traveling at full speed in a 90 degree dive.

Go back and watch how fast that plane strikes the side of the Pentagon. Then compare it to the footage of the second plane crashing into the side of tower 1 at the WTC. The plane that struck tower 1 was flying at its max speed. Even if you take it down to the five frames before it hits the building, you can make out the entire aircraft. In the Pentagon footage all you see is a white streak on the outside edge of the first frame. Afterwards, there's no visible sign of an aircraft

Secondly, the Pentagon is a tougher nut to crack than a streetlamp.

The "Pod People" And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon

^Are there any glaring mistakes in this article?

Already been there. His conclusions are all wrong. He speaks of a "cartoonish" hole that should've been left in the side of the building. He's somewhat correct. Yet, the walls of the Pentagon would've been distressed where the wings struck. Also, he doesn't discuss the engines on those wings. They weighed enough to smash through the bricks on the side of the Pentagon. Where are the holes from those?

Next, let's discuss the fact that a 16' hole was found three rings into the Pentagon. That means that something managed to rip through those rings. The nose of an aircraft could never do that. According to physics it is impossible. Even if it did manage to rip through those three rings, there would've been more than just bricks laying between the rings. There would've been seats, metal, bodies, electronics, etc. Go back and look at the aerial photos of the Pentagon taken shortly after the crash. You won't see any debris at all. You can't even make out scorch marks.

Also, if something traveled through those three rings, leaving a hole only two feet smaller than the opening in the outside of the Pentagon, what stopped it? There's no damage to the outside wall of the fourth ring. None. Not a scratch, dent, chip, or burn mark to be seen. Not one.

Honestly, how is it that there was only an 18' hole (perfectly circular) in the side of the Pentagon with no distress to the sides of the hole? The impact was so great that a plane, made of the same material as the wings, managed to punch through three rings of the Pentagon, but the wings and engines leave absolutely no damage whatsoever?

The "pod people" report has its truths. Yet, he bases most of his evidence on eye-witness reports. In the US judicial system a person can be convicted of a crime without a single witness. Why? Because evidence, hard, factual, hierarchically-scientific evidence can prove a case. It can even disprove a witness' account. Humans are capable of only relative views on events like this.

There was a study done years ago by a criminology professor at NYU. In a lecture class of 40 or more students an armed man came in shot the professor and walked out of the lecture hall. It was all an act. Yet, when he told the students to write down what they had witnessed he got dozens of different stories. Some said the man was wearing a red flanel shirt. Others said he was wearing a red jacket. Boots vs shoes. Brown hair vs red hair. Not one account matched another. Yes, there were similarities in a majority of them; but this study shows that eye-witness accounts are fallible.

Even the code of officers investigating crimes says to pay attention to the evidence. People can lie, but evidence cannot.

 

[Conchaga]

I am asking this question as a Canadian. You honestly believe your own elected government is capable of pulling a stunt like many conspirators claim as a means of getting into IRAQ?.

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/cubasi_article.asp?ArticleID=4

Yes.