Pentagon Strike Video: Information

[Mark]

You started off by labelling the Pentagon Strike "disinformation".

Then you get upset at the way you say we are treating you! You act all innocent and play the victim.

ToeKnee's behavior is a textbook example of covert aggression.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2002.msg11431#msg11431

Playing the Victim Role - This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstances or someone else's behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. One thing that covert-aggressive personalities count on is the fact that less calloused and less hostile personalities usually can't stand to see anyone suffering. Therefore, the tactic is simple. Convince your victim you're suffering in some way, and they'll try to relieve your distress. [...]

 

[MoonFox]

You claim that there is no "hard evidence" to conclude that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, but neither is there "hard evidence" that one did. Equally, there is no "hard evidence" that the WTC towers were not brought down by planes and fire, but neither is there "hard evidence" they were.

What there IS, in BOTH cases, is a LACK of evidence to support the official government line that planes and fire brought down the WTC towers and that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and it is this LACK of evidence which supports the conspiracy theories that No Boeing hit the Pentagon and plane impacts and fire brought down the WTC towers.

But there is "hard evidence" showing that it is not physically possible for both towers to fall due to "fire damage." Engineers, physicists, and scientists from Universities nationwide have provided enough "hard evidence" to show that the towers could not have possibily collapsed due to the official explanation of fire damage, rather that demolition charges were definitely used to not only bring down the North and South towers; but building 7 as well, a building that a plane did not even hit.

Proponents of the no-Boeing theory have made the following claims about the debris from the crash:
1. There was no aircraft debris.
2. There was insufficient aircraft debris for a jetliner crash.
3. There was an absence of aircraft wreckage that should have survived a jetliner crash, such as pieces of wings and tail.
4. The absence of signs of bodies, seats, and luggage in photographs of the crash site prove that the attack plane wasn't Flight 77.

Claim 1 is disproved by numerous post-attack photographs of the Pentagon.
Claim 2 is based on the unfounded assumptions that the quantities of debris can be established from public evidence.
Claim 3 is invalidated by a review of the debris fields of any number of jetliner crashes.
Claim 4 supposes that bodies, seats, and luggage should have survived in easily recognized forms, and that they would have ended up in places that were photographed. However, the impact holes would have admitted an entire fuselage of 757 into the building, and there is no complete photographic record of the interior wreckage available to the public.

At the Pentagon, there was hard evidence of only ONE engine, i.e. there was a LACK of another engine or damage from it, suggesting that a twin engined 757 did NOT hit.

You can find a professional analysis of the engine found at the Pentagon here:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

The claim by certain 9/11 researchers, Mike Ruppert for one, that the "no Boeing at the Pentagon" theory is damaging to, and divides, the 9/11 truth movement does not stand up to scrutiny. Knowing what we know about CoIntelPro, it is very likely that this claim is actually part of an operation by government agents, or those in some way in their employ, to do exactly what they claim the "no boeing at the pentagon" theory is doing - divide the 9/11 truth movement.

So you are saying that Mike Ruppert is possibly part of this "CoIntelPro"? A man almost assasinated by the FBI is all the sudden compromised by the government that tried killing him? Ruppert is not the only one claiming that the "no being at the pentagon" theory is dividing the 9/11 truth movement. I took the time to read the entire analyis that ToeKnee pointed to earlier, in which the authors of the website do an indepth analysis of why Rupert and others have made this claim. Here it is again:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.

Here is a huge collection of eyewitness testimony, all organized and cited for easibility.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

As far as we are concerned, anyone who tries to steer 9/11 researchers away from exposure of the Pentagon attack, has either succumbed to the manipulations of Cointelpro, or are part of the Cointelpro operation themselves.

That is quite an assumption to make. It now makes sense why ToeKnee was shut out and shut-down.

Suffice to say that it is the Pentagon attack and the lack of a Boeing 757 at that site, that holds the threat of exposing the Israeli contingent. This is why most of the efforts of the Cointelpro operation is dedicated to preventing investigation of events at the Pentagon. Because it would expose them.

Why is that? How would the Israeli contingent be exposed at the Pentagon...but not at the WTC, or by any indepedent investigation into 9/11 in general? All three events on 9/11 are interconnected, so if 9/11 was exposed somehow, wouldn't you agree that the Israeli contingent would eventually be exposed? So the question is, why do you say that Pentagon attack holds the only real threat of exposing the Israeli contingent?

As I pointed out, the Pentagon Strike has been the only thing produced in the five years that has forced the guilty into responding.

How do you know that the Pentagon Strike video is the only thing produced in the last five years that have forced the guilty into responding? How do you know that it isn't the thousands of professors, students, engineers, physicists, etc., and their websites and lectures that have forced the guilty into responding? I'm very curious.

 

[anart]

Boy you guys really don't get it, do you? You're not dealing with the uneducated masses here - we've seen all this, we've read every page of it and already determined it to be LIES. This entire seige is beyond boring. Quite frankly, this entire little paragraph of horse hockey is laughable...

Claim 1 is disproved by numerous post-attack photographs of the Pentagon.
Claim 2 is based on the unfounded assumptions that the quantities of debris can be established from public evidence.
Claim 3 is invalidated by a review of the debris fields of any number of jetliner crashes.
Claim 4 supposes that bodies, seats, and luggage should have survived in easily recognized forms, and that they would have ended up in places that were photographed. However, the impact holes would have admitted an entire fuselage of 757 into the building, and there is no complete photographic record of the interior wreckage available to the public.

For the love of Pete - move along already, your ignorance is embarrassing.

 

[Laura]

But there is "hard evidence" showing that it is not physically possible for both towers to fall due to "fire damage." Engineers, physicists, and scientists from Universities nationwide have provided enough "hard evidence" to show that the towers could not have possibily collapsed due to the official explanation of fire damage, rather that demolition charges were definitely used to not only bring down the North and South towers; but building 7 as well, a building that a plane did not even hit.

What you aren't getting is that you are dealing with psychopaths and the ease with which they can slip out of that one is so obvious that anyone with two firing neurons can see it.

Yes, indeed, the evidence of thermite/thermate is enough reason to press to reopen the investigation, but you are dealing with psychopaths in power with unlimited resources. They can spin that anyway they want.

What they canNOT spin away is the fact that they lied about Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

Suppose the investigation is re-opened because of the evidence of controlled demolition. What do you grok from the pattern of lies and subterfuge and slipping out of responsibility by the Bush gang? Hopefully, if you have studied psychopathy, you will know how easy it will be to just "shift the blame."

But they can NEVER shift the blame for lying about a Boeing hitting the Pentagon that never hit the Pentagon.

It's that simple.

That is the ONE thing that can take them down totally and that is why it scares them to death.

And since you are pushing obvious disinformation, I think that we might need to add the site you are pushing to the questionable list...

 

[kenlee]

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.

By whom? So we wait for more evidence from the foxes in the hen house?

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.

So there you go. That's evidence right there. If the FBI is witholding evidence then that's the evidence that they are covering something up. If they are covering it up then that's the evidence that they must be part of the crime.

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.

So we reject this information? You just said it was evidence. The deductions that can be reached from this video and associated evidence is self evident. It seems the only evidence you will accept is the FBI saying that they lied and that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Well, that ain't gonna happen. So it looks like you'll never get your evidence. Seems to me that's exactly what you want. You don't really want evidence. But yet you will argue about the evidence until the day you get it. Which means you'll be arguing forever. That's pretty much what you really want.

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.

Divide us? Who is us? You?

Sure the Pentagon controversy is being used to the media's advantange. They created the controversy. Perhaps you work for the media? Just a thought.

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.

If there are no questions there are no answers. As stated above you do not wish to ask questions and have them answered. That answers my question.

 

[Obi]

Claim 1 is disproved by numerous post-attack photographs of the Pentagon.

Indeed, the post-attack pictures speak for themselves.

Claim 2 is based on the unfounded assumptions that the quantities of debris can be established from public evidence.

The post-attack pictures speak for themselves. Unless, of course, the Pentagon is made of antimatter and the major part of the plane debris simply vanished.

Claim 3 is invalidated by a review of the debris fields of any number of jetliner crashes.

The post-attack pictures speak for themselves.

Claim 4 supposes that bodies, seats, and luggage should have survived in easily recognized forms, and that they would have ended up in places that were photographed. However, the impact holes would have admitted an entire fuselage of 757 into the building, and there is no complete photographic record of the interior wreckage available to the public.

This is pure nonsense. The post-attack pictures speak for themselves. Have you seen the hole in the Pentagon wall? Are you trying to tell you could pull 757 through that hole?

There are two possibilities: either you are here to support Mike Ruppert and the 911 Truth Movement which seems to be one major CoIntelPro opertation or you are blind. I vote for the first.

 

[MoonFox]

Boy you guys really don't get it, do you? You're not dealing with the uneducated masses here - we've seen all this, we've read every page of it and already determined it to be LIES. This entire seige is beyond boring. Quite frankly, this entire little paragraph of horse hockey is laughable...

Please do not stereotype and group me with the same people as ToeKnee. I am just another curious individual trying to filter out the facts from the plethora of information online.

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.

Can you please explain why these are LIES and that it is 'laughable'? It is the number one rule for this forum. I wouldn't mind reading it at all.

 

[henry]

So you are saying that Mike Ruppert is possibly part of this "CoIntelPro"? A man almost assasinated by the FBI is all the sudden compromised by the government that tried killing him? Ruppert is not the only one claiming that the "no being at the pentagon" theory is dividing the 9/11 truth movement.

Mike Ruppert did more to divide the 9/11 movement with his disinfo about "peak oil" than anyone else, showing up at 9/11 conferences to tell people to focus on his pet theory. "Peak oil" is playing into the hands of Cheney et al. If you don't see that, then please don't bother us with any of your other ideas. "Peak Oil" is disinfo, pure and simple.

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/exposing_the_big_con.htm

As I pointed out, the Pentagon Strike has been the only thing produced in the five years that has forced the guilty into responding.

How do you know that the Pentagon Strike video is the only thing produced in the last five years that have forced the guilty into responding? How do you know that it isn't the thousands of professors, students, engineers, physicists, etc., and their websites and lectures that have forced the guilty into responding? I'm very curious.

The Timeline:

Late August 2004, Pentagon Strike comes out. Within weeks it is being seen by tens of millions of people. As of today, over half a billion people have seen it.

September 2004, the Washington Post start researching a story on it. That story appears on October 7, 2004.

Shortly after, the longer hit pieces appear in Popular Mechanics and Scientific American.

Before the Pentagon Strike, nothing. After the Pentagon Strike, the campaign starts.

Simple, no?

 

[Obi]

Can you please explain why these are LIES and that it is 'laughable'? It is the number one rule for this forum. I wouldn't mind reading it at all.

Then go and read the content of Signs-of-the-Times website as well as what is written on the cassiopaea.org on the subject at hand. Site map is a good point to start. All the answers are there in plain sight. Once you finish the lecture, you are welcome to return to this discussion.

 

[MoonFox]

Yes, indeed, the evidence of thermite/thermate is enough reason to press to reopen the investigation, but you are dealing with psychopaths in power with unlimited resources. They can spin that anyway they want.

How could they spin that in anyway they want? This not only proves that the 9/11 commission is a fraud, but it also proves that the government lied about the towers falling due to "fire." And even if they did spin this somehow, how could they possibly explain that terrorists snuck into the office buildings and carefully planted explosives everywhere?

But they can NEVER shift the blame for lying about a Boeing hitting the Pentagon that never hit the Pentagon.

You're right. But is there enough proof to say that Boeing didn't hit it?

There are two possibilities: either you are here to support Mike Ruppert and the 911 Truth Movement which seems to be one major CoIntelPro opertation or you are blind. I vote for the first.

This is absoutely crazy... I suggest that maybe Mike Ruppert and others may be right...and I get shut-down.

 

[Keit]

Please do not stereotype and group me with the same people as ToeKnee. I am just another curious individual trying to filter out the facts from the plethora of information online.

Right.... ;) You really have to develop a new approach....this one is boring and obvious.

...A common tactic that many trolls resort to is the strategy of using multiple usernames or pseudonyms that are ready to use just in case a debate or argument emerges. By using multiple usernames (called "sock puppets" in this context) and a variety of artificial personalities the troll would have the ability to protect his image in a community. A troll would then also be able to increase his or her influence in an entire online community by simply using those other self serving nicks to increase the attention towards his or her most favored account.

Truth and facts speak for themselfs.
And after all your effort, you are not even close to mudding the Water.

 

[MoonFox]

The Timeline:

Late August 2004, Pentagon Strike comes out. Within weeks it is being seen by tens of millions of people. As of today, over half a billion people have seen it.

September 2004, the Washington Post start researching a story on it. That story appears on October 7, 2004.

Shortly after, the longer hit pieces appear in Popular Mechanics and Scientific American.

Before the Pentagon Strike, nothing. After the Pentagon Strike, the campaign starts.

Simple, no?

Isn't that quite an assumption to make? How could you be possibly be SO SURE that the Pentagon Strike video caused the corporate media to respond? Before and after that video was released, professors worldwide started organizations and websites to study the 9/11 cover-up. Ontop of that, numberous other more compelling videos, such as Loose Change, were also released and viewed by millions of people worldwide.

As far as Mike Ruppert goes...I didn't know that. I always knew Peak Oil was disinformation, but I will take some to read your the link you provided.

Then go and read the content of Signs-of-the-Times website as well as what is written on the cassiopaea.org on the subject at hand. Site map is a good point to start. All the answers are there in plain sight. Once you finish the lecture, you are welcome to return to this discussion.

Ok, I will read this.

 

[henry]

This is absoutely crazy... I suggest that maybe Mike Ruppert and others may be right...and I get shut-down.

Tell us Bush might be right and you'll get the same reaction. Mike Ruppert/George Bush, same game. Peak Oil. Rally the US people behind the war for oil.

The point is that members of this forum have looked at these questions already. We have investigated the evidence. We have posted articles on our site and there are threads here on the forum. It is closed until some new evidence comes up. You are not offering any new evidence.

It is up to you to get up to speed. It isn't up to us to spoonfeed you our conclusions.

Go read the articles on the site, then come back.

 

[MoonFox]

Henry, what about my other concern?

Isn't that quite an assumption to make? How could you be possibly be SO SURE that the Pentagon Strike video caused the corporate media to respond? Before and after that video was released, professors worldwide started organizations and websites to study the 9/11 cover-up. Ontop of that, numberous other more compelling videos, such as Loose Change, were also released and viewed by millions of people worldwide.

Is that not quite a leap to make?

I will read the websites everyone has provided and I will get back to this.

 

[Laura]

How could they spin that in anyway they want? This not only proves that the 9/11 commission is a fraud, but it also proves that the government lied about the towers falling due to "fire." And even if they did spin this somehow, how could they possibly explain that terrorists snuck into the office buildings and carefully planted explosives everywhere?

No it doesn't. Think, McFly. THINK about what Bush and gang have done so far. Think about the "WMD" lies, lies, upon lies... and getting away with it.

Really sit down and wrap your 1.5 firing neurons around what they have done so far and gotten away with and how much money and power they have, and how many witnesses they can buy and how much evidence has been already been gotten rid of, and how conveniently people can die, and the fact that they NOW OWN the judiciary.

THINK, McFly! Stop sucking on that bottle and trade those diapers for training pants!

This ain't a game, buster. Real people are dying over this crap and you are just playing "I'm a big bad researcher" game.