Pentagon Strike Video: Information

G

Guest

Guest
Although the video on the website is very compelling and does raise a lot of questions; none of those questions can be answered properly without the release of more evidence.

Did a 757 hit the Pentagon? Did a smaller plane hit it? Did a missile hit it? Who Knows! No one can answer those questions as long as the FBI does not disclose further evidence, which they deliberately withholding.

Think about this, the evidence that the public sees from the Pentagon site is evidence that the FBI has chosen to release. Whether deliberate or not, they have released just enough pictures and video to create such a controversy that within the 9/11 truth movement itself; that people are polarized. By polarizing those who believe that 9/11 was a coverup, the argument is mudied up and the movement is thrown back several steps.

The government and corporate media have actually used this due to their advantage in order to divide us. How do I know? Because if anyone watched the lastest news coverage on the so-called "new Pentagon video," it is obvious that all the newschannels were trying to say that this new video should be able to stop all "9/11 conspiracy theories," almost as if the Pentagon is the sole basis of why 9/11 is a coverup. The Pentagon controvery has been used to their advantage and we must not let that happen.

So what is the next thing to do? Stop talking about the Pentagon where questions can not be answered due to insufficient evidence and move on to what can be questioned and answered more readily. Let us not get too distracted by one crime scene and move on to the other two crime scenes; where there is much more evidence that can be analyzed.

BY POLARIZING THE PEOPLE, THEY POLARIZE THE MOVEMENT.
 
ToeKnee said:
Although the video on the website is very compelling and does raise a lot of questions; none of those questions can be answered properly without the release of more evidence.

Did a 757 hit the Pentagon? Did a smaller plane hit it? Did a missile hit it? Who Knows! No one can answer those questions as long as the FBI does not disclose further evidence, which they deliberately withholding.
Look, the fact that FBI is deliberately withholding these data is an evidence that tells us more than any other evidence you are talking about. It is real, it is 100% sure, everybody can check it, no one can quastion it.

And you would like us to be silent about this evidence?

And you are also wrong about necessity of everybody to concentrate on one evidence.
There is only one necessity that should become common: to demand an independent committee, with all the necessary prerogatives, to inestigate the crime of 9/11.
 
The newest video from the government shows something that looks like anything but a jumbo jet hitting the pentagon - honestly I think it looks like a missle, but perhaps it's a tiny super fast unmaned jet - who knows. I don't think they will ever tell us whatever it was that really hit the pentagon, although with the arrogance of the current administration they just might tell us that an al-queda operative with direct links to iran shot a missile at the building and then they would go onto ignore the juicy question of what happened to that plane and its passengers. Everybody that really looks objectively at the evidence will more than likely figure out the government is lying. It would be foolish in my opinion to ignore any of the crime scenes - even the ones beyond 911, for it doesn't matter if we know the actual truth or not so much as we make the point that we are watching and questioning. It seems to me that there is absolutely no way that any of these attacks could have happened without inside help - and help on the highest levels at that - what does it take to get all those people that watch the air space over the east coast to take a day off? Unfortunately I believe there is no way washington will allow for a truely independant committee, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask - there is so much to be learned as they change the story again and again, and that is certainly what will happen - they will keep telling new lies to appease the masses, provided we keep asking. Just look at the maddness in iraq and the way the stories have changed in regard to that ...
 
"Look, the fact that FBI is deliberately withholding these data is an evidence that tells us more than any other evidence you are talking about. It is real, it is 100% sure, everybody can check it, no one can quastion it. "

Wait...what? I do not understand what you are saying here. "The FBI deliberately withholding these date is an evidence that tells us more than any other evidence you are talking about."? I understand that they are deliberately withholding evidence, but at the same time, they are also deliberately releasing controversial evidence- such as the Pentagon. I never argued that the evidence is not real...it is 100% real; but it is not conclusive.

"And you would like us to be silent about this evidence?"

No, absoutely not. I never said to be silent about any evidence. My main point here is that we shouldn't get stuck arguing about evidence that is not conclusive. All the pictures and videos released by the federal government are very ambigious; did a 757 hit or not hit? With the evidence we have in our hands, it can honestly go both ways. Think about this, why would the people behind 9/11 not use a 757 to hit the Pentagon? Wouldn't that raise more questions and more doubt? If they were going to pull something this big off, wouldn't they make sure to use a 757 or something that is very similar to a 757 in order to stick to their story? It is foolish to think that the government/the people behind this, would not take the extra step to use a 757 to hit the Pentagon.

Another point is, we don't know why the FBI will not release further evidence at the Pentagon site. First off, they could either be hiding that it really wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon. Or Secondly, they could be deliberately withholding evidence to polarize the 9/11 truth movement by distracting people away from the other two crime scenes. We must consider both possibilities.

"And you are also wrong about necessity of everybody to concentrate on one evidence.
There is only one necessity that should become common: to demand an independent committee, with all the necessary prerogatives, to inestigate the crime of 9/11."

Necessity of everybody to concentrate on one evidence? I never said anything of that nature. That is probably the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying that we should not be distracted by the Pentagon because the evidence is simply not conclusive. Therefore, we should concentrate on ALL OTHER EVIDENCE where questions can actaully be answered, such as Tower 7, or demolitions, etc; and not concentrate on one evidence - the Pentagon.

I agree 100% an independent committee should investigate the crime of 9/11; but the simple fact is - that is not going to happen. The federal government has already did this with the so-called "9/11 commission." That is their justification. What has happened in the past five years though is truly amazing. The people in America and all over the world have used the internet to conduct an indepedent investigation without the government.

"The newest video from the government shows something that looks like anything but a jumbo jet hitting the pentagon - honestly I think it looks like a missle, but perhaps it's a tiny super fast unmaned jet - who knows."

That is your perspective my friend. I couldn't agree with you more, but what it comes down to is that the video is such bad quality that you really can't assume anything. There is reason why the government released such a low quality video; to continue the ongoing debate of the no-757 boeing theory. And what I am saying is that we inside the 9/11 truth movement must avoid concentrating so much effort at the Pentagon; where there is not enough evidence to conclude anything.

For a truly objective look a 9/11 anomalies, please visit this site:

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html


My main point: while there are hundreds of people fighting the good fight and trying to get the truth out about 9/11, there are about ten times the amount of people fighting against us; even within our own movement. Believe it or not, there are people within our own movement that spread disinformation in order to muddy up the argument; in order to keep 9/11 a "conspiracy theory" rather than a "conspiracy." For instance, videos such as "In Plane Sight" where the radio host shows a so-called "flash of light" that he assumes to be a "missle" or the "pod" underneath the airplane which he assumes to be something other than a part of the plane is delibate misinformation. Very questionable evidence such as this has made the 9/11 conspiracy look like a joke.
 
ToeKnee said:
No, absoutely not. I never said to be silent about any evidence. My main point here is that we shouldn't get stuck arguing about evidence that is not conclusive. All the pictures and videos released by the federal government are very ambigious; did a 757 hit or not hit? With the evidence we have in our hands, it can honestly go both ways. Think about this, why would the people behind 9/11 not use a 757 to hit the Pentagon? Wouldn't that raise more questions and more doubt? If they were going to pull something this big off, wouldn't they make sure to use a 757 or something that is very similar to a 757 in order to stick to their story? It is foolish to think that the government/the people behind this, would not take the extra step to use a 757 to hit the Pentagon.

Another point is, we don't know why the FBI will not release further evidence at the Pentagon site. First off, they could either be hiding that it really wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon. Or Secondly, they could be deliberately withholding evidence to polarize the 9/11 truth movement by distracting people away from the other two crime scenes. We must consider both possibilities.
The media gave blanket coverage to the WTC event (remember seeng the video clips of those planes hitting the towers, OVER and OVER and OVER again, for months and months??), and blanket silence to the Pentagon event, when they happened, which cancels out the second possibility.

However, it is conclusive that they are withholding vital information. This is verifyable: just try to get hold of the information, the extra security tapes etc, and you will find that you cannot. THAT is an anomaly that cannot be reconciled with the official story.

ToeKnee said:
And what I am saying is that we inside the 9/11 truth movement must avoid concentrating so much effort at the Pentagon; where there is not enough evidence to conclude anything.
I disagree with this view. there is plenty of evidence. Far more so than at the WTC, where the waters are much more muddied.
Anyway, you name call the '9-11 truth movement, but I hate to break it to you - that phrase has been devalued to the point that it has become worthless. Have you read the threads, and listened to the podcasts, about the so called '9-11 truth movement'? It is co-opted by cointelpro, to the point of being completely damaging to the cause of any kind of objective truth. COINTELPRO has to be considered at every stage, when any media event happens, related to this, or when any new spokesperson on the subject appears on the scene.

There are lots of reasons why the pentagon strike IS the achillies heel of 9-11, rather than the WTC (, eg the plausible deniability of evidence at the WTC site, etc, read the other threads, its all there), so why would you want to distract away from that?
 
ToeKnee said:
Necessity of everybody to concentrate on one evidence? I never said anything of that nature. That is probably the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying that we should not be distracted by the Pentagon because the evidence is simply not conclusive. Therefore, we should concentrate on ALL OTHER EVIDENCE where questions can actaully be answered, such as Tower 7, or demolitions, etc; and not concentrate on one evidence - the Pentagon.
"We should concentrate on ALL OTHER EVIDENCE"? Who are "we"? You mean "us", or you mean "you"? Why should some people not be dealing with the Pentagon issue? You do not like this idea? I wonder why? And why did you originally call this new thread that you have posted "Pentagon Strike: Disinformation?"
 
"The media gave blanket coverage to the WTC event (remember seeng the video clips of those planes hitting the towers, OVER and OVER and OVER again, for months and months??), and blanket silence to the Pentagon event, when they happened, which cancels out the second possibility."

Of course the media covered it all up; the media is part of this cover-up. How does this cancel out the second possibility? The FBI is not synonmous with the media.

"I disagree with this view. there is plenty of evidence. Far more so than at the WTC, where the waters are much more muddied. Anyway, you name call the '9-11 truth movement, but I hate to break it to you - that phrase has been devalued to the point that it has become worthless. Have you read the threads, and listened to the podcasts, about the so called '9-11 truth movement'? It is co-opted by cointelpro, to the point of being completely damaging to the cause of any kind of objective truth. COINTELPRO has to be considered at every stage, when any media event happens, related to this, or when any new spokesperson on the subject appears on the scene."

I do not disagree with you at all. You are actually saying exactly what I am saying. I know the 9-11 truth movement has been hijacked; and that is why I started this post. When I say the 9-11 truth movement, I am talking about everyone and anyone that is doing honest research; not the moles who have muddied up the 9-11 truth movement to make it look like a conspiracy theory, rather than a conspiracy. It is a rather ambigious term, but how else can I label it? How about 9/11 truth seekers? Whatever I label this huge movement in Universities and online will be debatable, so I apologize for the ambigious term.

If you could take the time to read this, it explains what I am talking about.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

"There are lots of reasons why the pentagon strike IS the achillies heel of 9-11, rather than the WTC (, eg the plausible deniability of evidence at the WTC site, etc, read the other threads, its all there), so why would you want to distract away from that?"

I disagree, the Pentagon is quite the opposite of the "achillies heel of 9-11," because there is no hard evidence, only eyewitness testimony and a bunch of inconclusive pictures. What is the achillies heel of 9-11? The WTC. Why? Because tower 7 was destroyed by demolition and there is proof in videos and eyewitness accounts. Even more proof is the mathematical/physical impossibility for the North and South tower, as well as building 7 to fall in almost free fall speeds without the use of demolitions. If you have taken the time to research the physics behind the towers collapsing, you would have noted that it is IMPOSSIBLE for those towers to fall simply by 757's hitting them. In the history of modern buildings, no building has ever collapsed from fire damage. There are several more eyewitness accounts at ground zero reporting hearing multiple explosives; as compared to the eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon.

Which leads to the even bigger question: How did explosives get put in the building if 9/11 was supposedly pulled off by Bin Laden and 18 terrorists with box-cutters?

NYC is the Achillies heal because once you ask the question about explosives, endless possibilies and other questions are opened up. And that is why the media has not covered explosives on 9/11 - rather have covered the new video footage at the Pentagon. Because once you conclude that explosives were used, then it becomes apparent that 9/11 was an inside job.

""We should concentrate on ALL OTHER EVIDENCE"? Who are "we"? You mean "us", or you mean "you"? Why should some people not be dealing with the Pentagon issue? You do not like this idea? I wonder why? And why did you originally call this new thread that you have posted "Pentagon Strike: Disinformation?""

By we, I mean the people like you and I that are searching for the truth. People like Steven Jones whose lectures you can find online that are actually using hard evidence to prove our case. I never said that people should not be dealing with the Pentagon issue; rather people should not get too distracted. You can only take the Pentagon case so far before you hit a wall - that wall being the lack of evidence in pictures and videos that the FBI has not disclosed. If you take the time to read the link in this post, I am sure you will see the point that I am trying to make.

I labeled it as Disinformation because the evidence is not conclusive enough to prove that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. To deny that a 757 did not hit is based on the assumption that the pictures provided by the FBI are the only pictures available.
 
If the Pentagon is not a strong point of our argument, then why is it that the only time the media has been provoked to respond to any of the claims of those who discount the official story of 9/11 is when the Pentagon Strike flash appeared? Within weeks they were forced to come up with excuses: the Washington Post, Popular Mechanics, Scientific American. Nothing that the so-called truth movement did until that time had made any impact at all.

Nothing they have done since, either.

The guilty parties know that the Pentagon is a sticking point, that is why they panicked. That is also why the meme "don't don't about the Pentaon" is circulating in the 9/11 movement.
 
ToeKnee said:
I labeled it as Disinformation because the evidence is not conclusive enough to prove that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. To deny that a 757 did not hit is based on the assumption that the pictures provided by the FBI are the only pictures available.
I think you better take a little more care with your thinking and writing when trying to discuss this (or any other subject), not only because your logic is - shall we say - muddy, but also because your writing is about as clear as mud. Care to tell us what the second sentence above really means?

I'm asking you to stop and read all the threads on this subject before you post again. :)
 
ToeKnee said:
...

...NYC is the Achillies heal because once you ask the question about explosives, endless possibilies and other questions are opened up. And that is why the media has not covered explosives on 9/11 - rather have covered the new video footage at the Pentagon. Because once you conclude that explosives were used, then it becomes apparent that 9/11 was an inside job.

""We should concentrate on ALL OTHER EVIDENCE"? Who are "we"? You mean "us", or you mean "you"? Why should some people not be dealing with the Pentagon issue? You do not like this idea? I wonder why? And why did you originally call this new thread that you have posted "Pentagon Strike: Disinformation?""

By we, I mean the people like you and I that are searching for the truth. People like Steven Jones whose lectures you can find online that are actually using hard evidence to prove our case. I never said that people should not be dealing with the Pentagon issue; rather people should not get too distracted. You can only take the Pentagon case so far before you hit a wall - that wall being the lack of evidence in pictures and videos that the FBI has not disclosed. If you take the time to read the link in this post, I am sure you will see the point that I am trying to make.

I labeled it as Disinformation because the evidence is not conclusive enough to prove that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. To deny that a 757 did not hit is based on the assumption that the pictures provided by the FBI are the only pictures available.
I agree with sleepy Vinnie that pentagon strike is the "achillies heel" of 9/11. In any criminal investigation the focus should be the weakest link, ie what happened at the Pentagon that day.

As sleepyvinny mentioned, this topic was recently discussed on the Podcasts which can be found here,
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs.php

and here are several articles on this subject,

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/911eyewitnesses.htm
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/hidden.htm
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm
 
The real evidence IMO is at the pentagon site but so many people want to discuss the towers that one has to wonder why they would want us to be looking in the other direction. If the evidence from the pentagon is sufficient(and it is) to cast serious doubt on the origination of the attack (the people who gave the order), then the rest of the attack, the destruction of the towers, becomes clear. Evidence at the towers, although strong, has been obfuscated by a complete obliteration of the crime scene evidence by a quick clearup of debris very soon after.

An examination of the white blob puported to be the nose cone of flight 77 will reveal that its angle of 'trajectory' would sugest that it would hit the ground several hundred feet in front of the pentagon. Which of course it didn't, so my guess is a doctored frame of film, Though why they couldn't get the angle right I don't know.

No evidence will be substantiated from examination of the towers footage of films, but the glaring inconsistencies at the pentagon site will sooner or later yield the truth and the man/people behind the curtain. OSIT
 
"If the Pentagon is not a strong point of our argument, then why is it that the only time the media has been provoked to respond to any of the claims of those who discount the official story of 9/11 is when the Pentagon Strike flash appeared? Within weeks they were forced to come up with excuses: the Washington Post, Popular Mechanics, Scientific American. Nothing that the so-called truth movement did until that time had made any impact at all."

It is strong, but not strong enough. There is no hard evidence to conclude that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. That is my point. But...the media has also been forced to come up with excuses for the collapses of the three towers due to "fire damage." While the corporate media has taken the time try and discount what has happened at the Pentagon; they have not taken the time to air anything about explosives in NYC.

"I think you better take a little more care with your thinking and writing when trying to discuss this (or any other subject), not only because your logic is - shall we say - muddy, but also because your writing is about as clear as mud. Care to tell us what the second sentence above really means?"

Could you please explain to me how my "writing is about as clear as mud?" While you tell me to "stop and read all the threads on this subject before you post again," you have obviously not taken the time to read what I have posted.

I apologize for sounding like "mud," but I am writing without revising much. If you would like to know in detail what exactly I am talking about, please visit these sites:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/ ... index.html
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/ ... ntrap.html
 
ToeKnee said:
By we, I mean the people like you and I that are searching for the truth.
Sorry, but I do not know you are and I have not eveidence whatsoever that you are "searching for truth". In fact, from what you are writing it seems to me (and I give it a reasonably high probability) that you are trying to dilute and redirect the discussion. Evidence: putting "Disinformation" in the subject of this thread.
 
ToeKnee, what you're selling no one here is buying. We know, we know, you want us to leave the whole Pentagon issue alone...now, I wonder why that is?

If you actually take the time to read the threads that Laura requested, and then, you still feel the same way about this subject, then please come back and talk to us about why that is. Maybe, we're missing something.

At this point, however, you're hocking old wares, and ones that the PTB sorely want you to hock - please do it elsewhere.
 
ToeKnee said:
Could you please explain to me how my "writing is about as clear as mud?" While you tell me to "stop and read all the threads on this subject before you post again," you have obviously not taken the time to read what I have posted.
You assume. As the author of a book on the subject, I have spent literally YEARS looking at the evidence. Again, read the threads on the subject on this forum before posting again.

Forum rules:

Okay people! Let's be clear on some things before you join up, now I know you are aching to get in there and comment on...stuff... but before you do you need to agree to some basic rules about politeness, kindness, and not being a total psycho.

One, don't harass people, or flame them, or really make them want to flame you. Don't make blatantly pointed comments - or snide insinuations - about others on the board. If you don't like what they have to say, come out and say it, and more importantly say why.

Two, please don't post messages about your illegal pastimes and habits. Signs of the Times does not wish to appear to condone such practises, for reasons that should be pretty obvious if a little common sense is applied. If you do post such stuff, expect it to be deleted immediately.

Three, don't spam, just don't, it will be deleted almost immediately, so it's a waste of time. Spamming means sending multiple meaningless posts. If you don't have anything beneficial or informative to say, don't just join in for nothin'. Posts deemed by the moderators (who have experience with this, by the way) to be "noise" will be deleted.

Four, We have ZERO tolerance for profanity. If you aren't intelligent enough to say what you think without using language that is objectionable to most civilized people, you're on the wrong board. If you think you can be clever and circumvent the board's auto-censor, go ahead and try it. When we catch you, you'll be gone.

Five, we the moderators reserve the right to do anything and everything we see fit to ensure a friendly comfortable environment for our guests; that includes deleting you and all of your posts if you break any of these rules or act like a psychological deviant at any time past present or future. Oh yeah people, I said future, Tom Cruise has nothin' on us.
 
Back
Top Bottom