The Pentagon attack - WingTV vs Alex Jones

N

Nando

Guest
Alex Jones always avoids the pentagon theories in his quest for truth, he never put anything about the pentagon attack in his movies and he would never use it as evidence when being interviewed by the mainstream media. Groups like WingTV have accused Alex of acting as a gatekeeper but that couldn't be further from the truth, as I will explain:

Any rationally thinking person knows that a guy who could barely drive a car certainly couldn't have pulled off those maneuvers which stun even the most experienced pilot, and he certainly couldn't have flown across the pentagon lawn without leaving a scratch, disappearing into that tiny little hole whilst simultaneously pulverizing the plane into tiny pieces you could pick up in your hand. Even a child would have difficulty believing that one.

But are the people who orchestrated 911 really that stupid? Are they so arrogant that they think they can just sweep all of this under the rug with more propaganda and lies? Perhaps they thought the 911 tragedy would be so awful that people simply wouldn't ask the hard questions... But people are asking the questions, this movement is growing every day, discussion forums are buzzing with activity and videos being spread like wildfire. The movement seems almost unstoppable.

But what if these people who orchestrated 911 were not simply arrogant and stupid, but rather, deceitful and calculative? What if they preemptively took steps to ensure that movement would fail? What if the plane that hit the pentagon was remote controlled? Wouldn't that explain how it could have pulled off such maneuvers? Wouldn't that explain how it flew across the Pentagon lawn without leaving a scratch? And what if the section of the pentagon that was struck had been designed to absorb the impact? Wouldn't that explain why there wasn't much visible evidence of the plane left? What if they then carried away any remaining pieces of the plane, detonated a few car bombs to mess things up and then cherry picked frames from the pentagon video and inserted something looking like a missile?

The official story of the pentagon attack may be hard to believe but it's probably not far from the truth. The attack was designed from the very beginning to be as suspicious as possible, it was intended to become one of the central issues of the 911 debate. This way, when this movement reaches a critical mass a video will be released which shows the plane flying into the pentagon and in a single moment everything we have worked for will be flushed down the toilet.

WingTV say that Alex is abusing his position to sell videos and that he's bringing no direction to the 911 truth movement, but I ask you, what direction would Alex Jones be taking us in if he led us directly into a trap? This is a perfect example of where Alex Jones is using his position to direct discussion away from something which would be counter-productive to the movement. It also serves as proof that Alex Jones is not in this movement simply for the sake of making a $, because if that were true he most certainly would have covered the pentagon attacks in his videos

car-3.jpg
 

Windmill knight

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Nando said:
What if they preemptively took steps to ensure that movement would fail? What if the plane that hit the pentagon was remote controlled? Wouldn't that explain how it could have pulled off such maneuvers? Wouldn't that explain how it flew across the Pentagon lawn without leaving a scratch? And what if the section of the pentagon that was struck had been designed to absorb the impact?
Those are all assumptions. What we must do is see the facts without prejudice, and then come to the most likely conclusion.

There are many anomalies in the 9/11 events. Some in the WTC. Some in surrounding events. And MANY in the Pentagon. And what you are saying is: "Precisely because there are so many anomalies in the Pentagon, we should avoid it, cause it may be a trap!" Doesn't make much sense to me.

Now, it is just not the lawn, nor the fact that a plane could have not been flown with such a precision. There are many other PHYSICAL elements that make it impossible for a Boeing 757 to have caused the damage.

Have you read here?:

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

For an example of physical evidence: Go to that article, and wait a couple of seconds before it loads (as you may know, that piece has been targeted and attacked by others and as a consequence it has been moved to a mirror). Then, scroll down to the fifth picture, for a close up of the hole on the Pentagon. Notice that there are no marks of wings, turbines and tail; just a hole barely enough to accommodate the body of the plane. Assuming that wings, engines and tail were not strong enough to penetrate the wall (unlikely, but lets assume that for a moment), why are there not even any slight marks? Why are the windows where the tail should have hit still intact?

Now compare that picture with the 7th picture, the one that shows the hole on a WTC tower. Notice that not only is the hole much larger, but that the shape of the wings can be seen on it. Why didn't that happen on the Pentagon? Both buildings were steel reinforced (or so we are told), weren't they?

Like that one, there are many other examples of PHYSICAL evidence. Better to read the whole article slowly before assuming that the Pentagon no-boeing story is a trap. Alex Jones should do that too.

And by the way, if the story is a trap, why is it that after 5 years the Pentagon has not come up with the video that will disprove it? What, in your view, are they waiting for?
 

vinny

The Living Force
Nando said:
Alex Jones always avoids the pentagon theories in his quest for truth, he never put anything about the pentagon attack in his movies and he would never use it as evidence when being interviewed by the mainstream media. Groups like WingTV have accused Alex of acting as a gatekeeper but that couldn't be further from the truth, as I will explain:
I have a better explanation:

EVERYTHING that happened at the WTC is plausibly deniable.
controlled demolition? no problem, they can just say 'the terrorists did it, as a backup plan'
radar failure? well, who's fault is that - investigations can always be subverted
security cameras not working? simple coincidence
etc etc ad nauseam. there is always a get-out.


However], with the Pentagon event, the government SAID that the boeing hit the pentagon. It's on record. they SAID it happened. They are on record as saying this, and if it was to be disproved, then they would be on record, as LYING about the event. no escape.

THIS is what has got the PTB so hot under the collar. THIS is why any investigations into the pentagon strike always bring a reaction - eg media 'damage limitation' campaigns, vicious smear campaigns, death threats etc. THIS is why the SOTT forum is being swamped by cointelpro efforts.

These things have already been discussed. Any attempt to re-open the subject which ignores these issues, is contributing more to confusion than to the truth, IMO.
 
N

Nando

Guest
apeguia said:
Nando said:
What if they preemptively took steps to ensure that movement would fail? What if the plane that hit the pentagon was remote controlled? Wouldn't that explain how it could have pulled off such maneuvers? Wouldn't that explain how it flew across the Pentagon lawn without leaving a scratch? And what if the section of the pentagon that was struck had been designed to absorb the impact?
Those are all assumptions. What we must do is see the facts without prejudice, and then come to the most likely conclusion.
Ofcorse they are assumptions, the idea that a plane did not hit the pentagon is also an assumption. You have your Visual evidence, I've got witness testimony.

apeguia said:
There are many anomalies in the 9/11 events. Some in the WTC. Some in surrounding events. And MANY in the Pentagon. And what you are saying is: "Precisely because there are so many anomalies in the Pentagon, we should avoid it, cause it may be a trap!" Doesn't make much sense to me.
I'm saying we should avoid it because at some stage a video will be released showing a plane did hit it

apeguia said:
Now, it is just not the lawn, nor the fact that a plane could have not been flown with such a precision. There are many other PHYSICAL elements that make it impossible for a Boeing 757 to have caused the damage.
Remote control + GPS.. Technology is great.. And isnt it interesting that there was a line on the pentagon lawn as if something had been buried there to help guide the plane in?

apeguia said:
Have you read here?:

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

For an example of physical evidence: Go to that article, and wait a couple of seconds before it loads (as you may know, that piece has been targeted and attacked by others and as a consequence it has been moved to a mirror). Then, scroll down to the fifth picture, for a close up of the hole on the Pentagon. Notice that there are no marks of wings, turbines and tail; just a hole barely enough to accommodate the body of the plane. Assuming that wings, engines and tail were not strong enough to penetrate the wall (unlikely, but lets assume that for a moment), why are there not even any slight marks? Why are the windows where the tail should have hit still intact?

Now compare that picture with the 7th picture, the one that shows the hole on a WTC tower. Notice that not only is the hole much larger, but that the shape of the wings can be seen on it. Why didn't that happen on the Pentagon? Both buildings were steel reinforced (or so we are told), weren't they?
I've read that and most of the other pentagon theory sites, It all ignores witness testimony.. The idea that the government can control anybody within a 500 metre radius of the pentagon is absurd. If the building was designed to absorb the impact kindof like a giant garage and the plane was guided in using Remote control + some kind of beacon then i'm absolutly positive that a plane could have gone into the hole.

apeguia said:
Like that one, there are many other examples of PHYSICAL evidence. Better to read the whole article slowly before assuming that the Pentagon no-boeing story is a trap. Alex Jones should do that too.
There is also physical evidence of a plane crashing at the pentagon, like shreds of metal which were most probably photographed before the pentagon workers had the chance to remove them

apeguia said:
And by the way, if the story is a trap, why is it that after 5 years the Pentagon has not come up with the video that will disprove it? What, in your view, are they waiting for?
They re-released the pentagon footage a little while ago to ensure that the pentagon attack would be a central issue in the 911 truth movement, They are waiting for a critical mass to be reached and then they will show us the real video and destroy everything we have worked for
 
N

Nando

Guest
sleepyvinny said:
Nando said:
Alex Jones always avoids the pentagon theories in his quest for truth, he never put anything about the pentagon attack in his movies and he would never use it as evidence when being interviewed by the mainstream media. Groups like WingTV have accused Alex of acting as a gatekeeper but that couldn't be further from the truth, as I will explain:
I have a better explanation:

EVERYTHING that happened at the WTC is plausibly deniable.
controlled demolition? no problem, they can just say 'the terrorists did it, as a backup plan'
radar failure? well, who's fault is that - investigations can always be subverted
security cameras not working? simple coincidence
etc etc ad nauseam. there is always a get-out.


However], with the Pentagon event, the government SAID that the boeing hit the pentagon. It's on record. they SAID it happened. They are on record as saying this, and if it was to be disproved, then they would be on record, as LYING about the event. no escape.

THIS is what has got the PTB so hot under the collar. THIS is why any investigations into the pentagon strike always bring a reaction - eg media 'damage limitation' campaigns, vicious smear campaigns, death threats etc. THIS is why the SOTT forum is being swamped by cointelpro efforts.

These things have already been discussed. Any attempt to re-open the subject which ignores these issues, is contributing more to confusion than to the truth, IMO.
Again, Ignoring the witness testimony. There were plenty of people who saw a plane. The government couldn't have controlled everybody within a 500 metre radius of the building, what if some whistle-blower was hiding in the bushes ready to shoot video? They couldnt just ignore possibility of somebody seeing what they were doing.

As for blaming the controlled demolition on Bin Laden and his crew, sure, I agree with that.

And just for the record, that is a huge assumption of yours.
 

vinny

The Living Force
ando, each of your points has already been covered by the discussion, and is NOT as clear cut one-sided as you seem to be implying, if you look at the details. The phsyical plane parts, the witness testimonies, everything.

And just for the record, that is a huge assumption of yours.
what assumption? I have backed up what I say with observations of events and material evidence.

Are you really looking for the truth, whatever the cost, or have you perhaps become 'attached' to a particular solution, at the expense of considering any other possibilities?
 
Nando said:
I'm saying we should avoid it because at some stage a video will be released showing a plane did hit it
As apeguia mentioned, at this stage the Pentagon is fairly (and probably too) late for 'leaking' such footage. You might want to read another thread, which also covers this particular issue:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1616

Laura said:
Again I say, releasing a computer generated video of Flight 77 is very risky business considering the alleged fact that at least three countries not particularly friendly to the US (though that could be just for deceiving the masses) have satellite photos of the Pentagon Strike. Imagine what would happen if the US Gov released such a "Hollywood version" and this was followed by exposure from abroad? That would mean the firing squad for Georgie, Dick, Rumsfeld, and a lot of others...

I don't think they are willing to take that risk. They were already entrapped with the Pentagon Strike to begin with - which is why it is such a sore toe, and why it is the only thing they bother to try to combat, pitiful though their efforts are. I don't think they will ever trust anybody again under any circumstances.
 

Ben

Jedi Council Member
Even if SotT is proven wrong by footage of a 757 hitting the Pentagon (which we've already established almost certainly doesn't exist because it almost certainly hasn't happened), does that mean that we should stop analysing the Pentagon strike? Isn't that the point of a working hypothesis? - something which takes into account all the available evidence and is subject to review upon the presentation of new evidence?

I suggest you inform yourself and then provide some new evidence to support your position, or stop suggesting that SotT continues down this road which seems to be so uncomfortable for the perpetrators of atrocities. It would benefit them quite nicely if we left it alone, and I'm reserving judgement on whether or not it would benefit you also - why are you here?
 
T

The Gardener

Guest
Nando said:
But are the people who orchestrated 911 really that stupid?
About the whereabouts of the debriss of the plain, Rumsfield said: Well... it evidently evaporated!
Nando said:
Are they so arrogant that they think they can just sweep all of this under the rug with more propaganda and lies?
Have you heard what Bush has to say not only about the Pentagon or the whole 9/11 thing, but about any given thing he happens to comment?
Nando said:
But people are asking the questions, this movement is growing every day, discussion forums are buzzing with activity and videos being spread like wildfire. The movement seems almost unstoppable.
I disagree. People are not asking the questions: I think they are being lead to ask certain questions and ignore others. Jones is but one of the perpetrators of this cover-up-
This movement is growing every day... towards the opposite direction, where it finds a satisfaction on the scream of moral scandal because of the atrocity, overlooking the Pentagon scenario. "Lets focus where there are the evidence" = lets not get "distracted" by the Pentagon discussion.
This is the line the forums you have found are buzzing with.
nando said:
What if the plane that hit the pentagon was remote controlled?
What plain?
Nando said:
Wouldn't that explain why there wasn't much visible evidence of the plane left?
gee...
Nando said:
The official story of the pentagon attack may be hard to believe but it's probably not far from the truth. The attack was designed from the very beginning to be as suspicious as possible, it was intended to become one of the central issues of the 911 debate.
It may not be hard to belive. It is NOT belivable. It IS as far from the truth as it can be. What happened is clear, not suspicious.
Nando said:
This way, when this movement reaches a critical mass a video will be released which shows the plane flying into the pentagon and in a single moment everything we have worked for will be flushed down the toilet.
You wish. The fact is the movement has already reached a critical mass and a video has been released shwing a plane flying into the pentagon. Just the critical mass was not critical, and the plain showed was not a plain: Everything we have been working for has not been flushed down to the toilet. The ilussions of people is what is dessireable to be flushed down to the toilet -like this "perhaps" you elaborate on your post.
Nando said:
This is a perfect example of where Alex Jones is using his position to direct discussion away from something which would be counter-productive to the movement.
Just eliminate the word "counter" from your sentence, and it is ok. That is: The pentagon was not hit by a plane.
Nando said:
Alex Jones is not in this movement simply for the sake of making a $
Some where over the Rainbow...
Nando said:
Alex Jones is not in this movement simply for the sake of making a $, because if that were true he most certainly would have covered the pentagon attacks in his videos
Why? You think theres money behind the pentagon?
 

vinny

The Living Force
I think a thing to highlight here is the mistaken/misleading idea being pushed: that the truth can be found by 'avoiding' a particular subject. Not only that, but also that it is important to persuade others to ALSO avoid that subject.

This is faulty thinking. Unless the purpose is to obscure the truth.

For example: Even when I suggest that the pentagon IS worth investigation, I am not suggesting for example that the WTC issue should be ignored. just that it seems to be of lesser importance.
 

Windmill knight

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Nando said:
Ofcorse they are assumptions, the idea that a plane did not hit the pentagon is also an assumption. You have your Visual evidence, I've got witness testimony.
Nando, the idea that a Boeing 757 didn't hit the Pentagon is more than an assumption. It is supported by physical evidence.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe more in witness testimony than in physical evidence. Please use logic and tell me what is a more reliable proof: the words of people or physical evidence. Physical (visual) evidence shows that grass is green. Would you belive me if I told you that grass is really red or blue?

Witnesses can make mistakes, or they can be bought, or they can be intimidated into saying what the authorities want to hear, or their words can be twisted and taken out of context. Still, a Boeing 757 cannot fit through a hole that size with wings, engines and tail. Perhaps you believe that the testimonies of SOME witnesses are enough proof that the laws of physics were suspended that day? I stress 'SOME', because there are also OTHER witnesses that declared that a SMALL plane crashed into the Pentagon, and not a 757.

And that brings me to another point: we are not saying that a missile hit the Pentagon, as apparently you interpret. We are simply saying that a 757 did not. The object that hit could very well have been a small drone plane with explosives, or something similar. That is why I am really not making assumptions and you are. Because I do not assume that this or that hit the Pentagon, I simply compare the physical evidence to a 757 and it doesn't fit. Thus, I am just saying what did NOT hit the Pentagon, while you are assuming that it was a 757 and that it's all part of a clever trap to be used sometime in the future against the 9/11 truth movement.
 
T

the rabbit

Guest
Nando wrote

This way, when this movement reaches a critical mass a video will be released which shows the plane flying into the pentagon and in a single moment everything we have worked for will be flushed down the toilet.


They would not only have to produce a special effects video,they would have to produce the wreckage and there isnt any.....And everything else.........
 
N

Nando

Guest
SleepyVinny said:
what assumption? I have backed up what I say with observations of events and material evidence.
The assumption that a plane did not hit the pentagon, the assumption that the people who planned this were so stupid that they wouldnt make this fool proof, the assumption that the visual evidence was not tampered with..

SleepyVinny said:
Are you really looking for the truth, whatever the cost, or have you perhaps become 'attached' to a particular solution, at the expense of considering any other possibilities?
Absolutly, and im trying to get the word out about this pentagon shit because I can see whats coming and its NOT GOING TO BE GOOD FOR THIS MOVEMENT


Salleles said:
As apeguia mentioned, at this stage the Pentagon is fairly (and probably too) late for 'leaking' such footage. You might want to read another thread, which also covers this particular issue:
What the hell do you mean its too late? They can release it whenever the hell they want and it will still have the same effect. INFACT it would be BETTER to wait until the last possible moment, this way it will take us longer to rebuild our movement

Ben said:
Even if SotT is proven wrong by footage of a 757 hitting the Pentagon (which we've already established almost certainly doesn't exist because it almost certainly hasn't happened), does that mean that we should stop analysing the Pentagon strike? Isn't that the point of a working hypothesis? - something which takes into account all the available evidence and is subject to review upon the presentation of new evidence?

I suggest you inform yourself and then provide some new evidence to support your position, or stop suggesting that SotT continues down this road which seems to be so uncomfortable for the perpetrators of atrocities. It would benefit them quite nicely if we left it alone, and I'm reserving judgement on whether or not it would benefit you also - why are you here?
You havn't established anything other than theorys, all you know is that the official story is a lie. What im saying is that the official story is indeed a lie, but its not far from the truth, and this will be proven later. It would be foolish to commit such a disgraceful act and not cover your tracks.

Telling me to inform myself, wow, you are one arrogant son of a gun. All of the so called evidence which you provide to back your claims can easily be explained by my theory, if the people that did this wanted to have control over the movement, they had to make something so glaringly obvious that no matter what, it would become one of the central issues of the 911 movement.. So that they could pull the plug later by releasing the real footage and showing the REAL visual evidence which they probably removed or blew up.

The only person that benefits when we talk about this stuff is the people that did it! It gives them control over the movement, thats why they released the footage of the pentagon again and thats probably why they put alex jones on CNN, because they expected him to be a moron who would talk about the pentagon, they want to get people focused in on the pentagon stuff so they can pull the plug when shit hits the fan.


TheGardener said:
About the whereabouts of the debriss of the plain, Rumsfield said: Well... it evidently evaporated!
...
TheGardener, I address all of those issues in my article. You havn't attempted to counter anything I've said so I will not respond.

SleepVinny said:
I think a thing to highlight here is the mistaken/misleading idea being pushed: that the truth can be found by 'avoiding' a particular subject. Not only that, but also that it is important to persuade others to ALSO avoid that subject.

This is faulty thinking. Unless the purpose is to obscure the truth.
What im saying is the opposite, the people who orchestrated 911 are using our weakness to there advantage, they know that a movement cannot plan its response, a movement cannot have a central administration.. So if they tamper with evidence and deliberately make some aspects of the attacks very suspicious, that aspect will almost certainly become a central issue in the 911 debate.. And then they can simply release the footage of the plane and the whole movement is gone.

My thinking is not faulty at all, I'm just taking this stuff to the next level. We can't just assume that the planners didnt plan for us, we have to think about the traps they might have inserted for us.

For this truth movement to succeed there needs to be a leader, there needs to be somebody who can guide this movement in the safest direction possible and you should be thankful to god that Alex Jones has taken that role. This is a truth movement, but more than that, it is an Information War. What good would it do to spread the "truth" if that "truth" was deliberately made to look like the "truth" but was really just lies?

apeguia said:
Nando, the idea that a Boeing 757 didn't hit the Pentagon is more than an assumption. It is supported by physical evidence.
It is supported by physical evidence which was planted deliberately to make the event look suspicious

apeguia said:
You, on the other hand, seem to believe more in witness testimony than in physical evidence. Please use logic and tell me what is a more reliable proof: the words of people or physical evidence. Physical (visual) evidence shows that grass is green. Would you belive me if I told you that grass is really red or blue?

Witnesses can make mistakes, or they can be bought, or they can be intimidated into saying what the authorities want to hear, or their words can be twisted and taken out of context.
You ignore certain parts of my posts, As I already said, the government can't control everybody within a 500 metre radius of the pentagon, thats absurd.. There could of been a whistle blower or something hiding in the bushes.. They cannot simply ignore the possibility of somebody seeing what they were doing.

apeguia said:
Still, a Boeing 757 cannot fit through a hole that size with wings, engines and tail. Perhaps you believe that the testimonies of SOME witnesses are enough proof that the laws of physics were suspended that day? I stress 'SOME', because there are also OTHER witnesses that declared that a SMALL plane crashed into the Pentagon, and not a 757.
What if the building was designed to absorb the impact like some kind of massive garage and the plane was guided in using remote control with a beacon to ensure the strike was a direct hit. What if they then blew the rest of it up with some car bombs? What if they then went around hiding any big parts of the plane ?

apeguia said:
And that brings me to another point: we are not saying that a missile hit the Pentagon, as apparently you interpret. We are simply saying that a 757 did not. The object that hit could very well have been a small drone plane with explosives, or something similar. That is why I am really not making assumptions and you are. Because I do not assume that this or that hit the Pentagon, I simply compare the physical evidence to a 757 and it doesn't fit. Thus, I am just saying what did NOT hit the Pentagon, while you are assuming that it was a 757 and that it's all part of a clever trap to be used sometime in the future against the 9/11 truth movement.
I'm assuming that the people who carried out the attacks were not stupid enough to fake the attack, I'm assuming that these rich evil bastards were so disguistingly slick that they prepared for all of this, I don't care what you think, I'm saying what I think. And If you don't think it was a missile then how do you explain the object in the pentagon video? I can explain it.. It was deliberately added to make it more suspicious.

The rabbit said:
They would not only have to produce a special effects video,they would have to produce the wreckage and there isnt any.....And everything else.........
I'm not suggesting they would make a special effects video, that is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard. They can produce the wreckage because they carried it away before any photos were taken, ofcorse they missed a few pieces which were scattered on the lawn.
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
Nando said:
It is supported by physical evidence which was planted deliberately to make the event look suspicious
How does one 'plant' a pristine green lawn where a 757 crash trench should be? (and no planting grass seed jokes allowed ;) )

Nando said:
I don't care what you think, I'm saying what I think.
Yes, we noticed. However, if you could provide some real data to back up 'what you think' that might make us actually try to listen, instead of just shaking our heads noticing how, once again, someone has come here to distract and mislead.
 
N

Nando

Guest
Anart said:
How does one 'plant' a pristine green lawn where a 757 crash trench should be? (and no planting grass seed jokes allowed wink )
They didn't plant it, they simply flew over the top of it. The area infront of the pentagon was a mess.. and that is evident when looking at the pictures.

Anart said:
Yes, we noticed. However, if you could provide some real data to back up 'what you think' that might make us actually try to listen, instead of just shaking our heads noticing how, once again, someone has come here to distract and mislead.
My theory is not based on "data" its based on the fact that the people who planned 911 were probably smart enough to prepare for all of this, they probably expected there would be a truth movement, and they are doing there best to get us focussed on the extremely suspicious pentagon attac so that they can come out later and prove the official story - And destroy this movement.
 
Top Bottom