9/11 - what happened?

[InTheGenes]

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit.

You wouldn't know fact OR truth if either of them bit you on the ass. But it's amusing to see you invoke their definitions here. Thanks for providing the term 'Disinfo Artist', though. Now I know what to call you, since (as you'll see below), you definitely fulfill the criteria you borrow from 911review.org (a really STELLAR website, btw! I'm sure they've won all sorts of awards!).

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter.

It would seem that you've mastered the very technique above.

Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source.

There you go citing fact and truth again! And to think I thought you were strangers.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time.

You're just as guilty (if not moreso) than anyone else here, Cloggy.

...the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

This reads like your résumé.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely.

OK, fine. I accuse you of the following, using your own (borrowed, but obviously accepted by you as law) criteria:

Disinformation Rule 1 (modified): Hear no truth, see no truth, speak no truth
Disinformation Rule 2: Become incredulous and indignant
Disinformation Rule 3 (modified): Create rumor mongers (or become one!)
Disinformation Rule 4: Use a straw man (can you say: nose-dive?)
Disinformation Rule 5: Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule
Disinformation Rule 6: Hit and Run (you've certainly ignored any answers that don't coincide with your own opinion.)
Disinformation Rule 7: Question motives
Disinformation Rule 8: Invoke authority (even if all your 'facts' are borrowed from your fellow consipiracy theorists)
Disinformation Rule 9: Play Dumb (No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, you avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion.)
Disinformation Rule 10: Associate opponent charges with old news (quote from you: 'It was buried until you Rockdrummer opened it.')
Disinformation Rule 11: Establish and rely upon fall-back positions (basically ALL you've done here)
Disinformation Rule 12: Enigmas have no solution
Disinformation Rule 13: Alice in Wonderland Logic (I'm not sure if you swallowed the blue pill, or the red pill, but you're obviously on SOMETHING!)
Disinformation Rule 14: Demand complete solutions
Disinformation Rule 15: Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
Disinformation Rule 16 (modified): Discredit/dismiss evidence and witnesses
Disinformation Rule 17: Change the subject
Disinformation Rule 18: Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
Disinformation Rule 19: Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs (WHERE are the tapes? WHERE, WHERE, WHERE?!?!?!?!)
Disinformation Rule 20: False evidence
Disinformation Rule 21 (modified): Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, Launch a nonsensical internet-based campaign to uncover lies... er... truth... er... which is it, again?
Disinformation Rule 22: Manufacture a new truth (oooh, BIG time offense for you)
Disinformation Rule 23: Create bigger distractions
Disinformation Rule 24: Silence critics (well, you try!) :grin:

The ONE rule you don't violate is...
Disinformation Rule25: Vanish
IF ONLY you would.

You might consider holding a mirror up in front of your own arguments before making that kind of post. As we've just seen, those criteria can be twisted to apply to ANYONE who disagrees with your opinion (or mine, or anyone else's).

Reba's right. Even if evidence did surface to prove you wrong, you would deny it's veracity. I don't think there's ANYTHING that will ever convince you that you've been walking down the wrong path for so long.

Rockdrummer's right, too. It IS a waste of time arguing with you. But hey... if anything, it's amusing and entertaining to see what else you'll come up with, so by all means... continue sharing your delusions with us.

Until next time!

 

[rockdrummer]

Please Don't feed the animals. They will keep comming back for more

 

[Heath]

Mmmm

Excellent....!!!

BTW Heath,
Didn't you have a friend in the army that would look into something.....????

Yes I do and I have not gotten any e-mails from him although he does e-mail his mom. I tried again last week and he seems pretty busy. I don't know what is going on but his mom says he is gone sometimes 2 days sometimes 3 days sometimes up to 2 weeks going from place to place and that really scares his mom so she is trying to ask him to change his M.O.S. to something much safer. She said she wishes she could take him out of the army because she does not agree with war, any war. I don't blame her and he seems to be doing fine and has alots of work to do and it never stops.

 

[Reba]

Well, imagine them coming with video footage now...

Isn't that what you've been calling for?

how are they going to explain that they have withheld it for so long....

I don't know; I'd say let's listen and find out.

But no, I will not say they are fake. I'll have a look at them first...

Ah, now I understand. If the videos confirm your theory, then they will be acceptable.

If the videos don't confirm your theory, then you will call them "fake."

We're not all like you.

Ah, getting personal again. Naughty, naughty.

 

[Cloggy]

.........Ah, now I understand. If the videos confirm your theory, then they will be acceptable.
...........
If the videos don't confirm your theory, then you will call them "fake."
......:

Hey, don force your way of thinking on me... all that is your theory.


My theory.... if it happened that way... show me some video's... or pictures... If you cannot provide such a simple piece of evidence.... It didn't happen...

So far... Nothing confirms the Conspiracy Theory of the government.!!

 

[Reba]

Hey, don force your way of thinking on me... all that is your theory.

Since when do I have the power to "force" anything on you?

My theory.... if it happened that way... show me some video's... or pictures... If you cannot provide such a simple piece of evidence.... It didn't happen...

We're going in circles here. You as much admitted that you'll only believe videos that mesh with your theory, so what's the point?

So, where are your photos and videos that prove otherwise?

So far... Nothing confirms the Conspiracy Theory of the government.!!

Nothing confirms the conspiracy theories of the web loonies either.

 

[Cloggy]

..................
So, where are your photos and videos that prove otherwise?
...........

You're so funny and you don't even realise it..

Have you read Disinformation Rule 19: Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs (WHERE are the tapes? WHERE, WHERE, WHERE?!?!?!?!)

I have never claimed that I know what did happen. SO, I have no proof to show you. I only question a 757 hitting the Pentagon, BECAUSE there is no proof of it. Because the "proof" that is shown is inconsistent with the story.

And now you are asking for proof from me of something that I claim did not happen.
Actually I have shown you that. Pictures of NO two engines, pictures of a small hole in the wall, pictures of NO wings outside the walls, pictures of people picking up evidence on a crimescene, pictures of a studentcard that supposingly was in posession of the pilot...
YOu see, plenty of pictures......

Like I said.... you're funny

 

[Reba]

Have you read Disinformation Rule 19: Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs (WHERE are the tapes? WHERE, WHERE, WHERE?!?!?!?!)

Yes, I read that, and it fits your technique perfectly. So?

I have never claimed that I know what did happen. SO, I have no proof to show you.

So you have no proof that the events of 9/11 didn't happen the way that they were reported. Thank you for admitting that.

I only question a 757 hitting the Pentagon, BECAUSE there is no proof of it. Because the "proof" that is shown is inconsistent with the story.

There is proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon. It is NOT inconsistent with the conclusion of what happened. You can "question" it until the day you die but it won't change the facts.

...Actually I have shown you that. Pictures of NO two engines, pictures of a small hole in the wall, pictures of NO wings outside the walls, pictures of people picking up evidence on a crimescene, pictures of a studentcard that supposingly was in posession of the pilot...
YOu see, plenty of pictures....

Pictures by themselves are forensic elements; they are not "proof" until they have been classifed, processed, analyzed and presented with an expert conclusion.

I also posted photos showing engines, wings, and debris from the scene, which you dismissed.

The fact is, all the evidence in the world isn't going to change your mind because you refuse to accept the evidence. There is nothing more anyone can do for you.

Like I said.... you're funny

I'll take that over paranoid tin-foil-helmet wearer any day.

 

[Tousi]

Lol, Reba!

 

[Cloggy]

Yes, I read that, and it fits your technique perfectly. So?

Excellently redirected... Except, I'm asking for footage that should exist, you ask for footage of something that doesn't exsist..

So you have no proof that the events of 9/11 didn't happen the way that they were reported. Thank you for admitting that.

That's another question indeed. Proof that it didn't happen.
You are avoiding the initial problem... Proof that it did....

There is proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon. It is NOT inconsistent with the conclusion of what happened. You can "question" it until the day you die but it won't change the facts.........
Pictures by themselves are forensic elements; they are not "proof" until they have been classifed, processed, analyzed and presented with an expert conclusion.
.........
I also posted photos showing engines, wings, and debris from the scene, which you dismissed.

Saying there's proof is easy.
But, 1 engine that's too small for a 757 and where there should be 2, 1 little piece of plane that could be from any plane and ....wings... you have pictures of wings...

WOW!!! show me... or a link would be great!!

The fact is, all the evidence in the world isn't going to change your mind because you refuse to accept the evidence. There is nothing more anyone can do for you.

I think you're right that there is no evidence. Anything that could have proven the opposite has been cleaned away straight after the impact.. (destroying evidence..) But the fact remains,

There are numerous camera's and still, no footage has been shown....

YOU can avoid that problem - or talk it straight (.....until they have been classifed, processed, analyzed and presented with an expert conclusion. 6 years.. it does take a while!
But the question still stands.... Why is there no footage from the world best guarded building..

I'll take that over paranoid tin-foil-helmet wearer any day.

See, you are funny!!

 

[Reba]

Excellently redirected... Except, I'm asking for footage that should exist, you ask for footage of something that doesn't exsist..

There you go. There is no footage proving that something other than the 757 hit the Pentagon because nothing other than the 757 did hit the Pentagon. You said it yourself.

...WOW!!! show me... or a link would be great!!

I've posted them before and you refused to accept them. I'm not going to do it again.

You're just going in circles.

Unless you have anything new to post, or the reality bug finally bites you, then I need to let you rest.

Sweet dreams....

 

[Cloggy]

There you go. There is no footage proving that something other than the 757 hit the Pentagon because nothing other than the 757 did hit the Pentagon. You said it yourself........

WOW I said that.....??? Your reading skills are amazing...

And your frasing.... Let me get this straight...

There is no footage of anything hitting the Pentagon THEREFORE it HAS to be a 757....

This is amazing !!!!

Are you actually listning to yourself ??

 

[InTheGenes]

There is no footage of anything hitting the Pentagon THEREFORE it HAS to be a 757....

This is amazing !!!!

Are you actually listning to yourself ??

Well, let's see...

Several hundred, if not thousands, of people that live and commute near the Pentagon saw what happened, with their own eyes. Not just people who work for the government, nor for the military, but "normal" every-day people. Respected journalists, people from all walks of life. You seem to think that nobody saw anything that day, and that's just patently untrue. Several of us saw what happened, and we all saw the SAME thing. Sure, some of the smaller details weren't seen by everyone, from the same vantage point... but the collision was witnessed by far more people than the people who are writing their conspiracy articles.

Compare their eyewitness accounts vs. the paranoid ramblings of a few conspiracy theorists (such as yourself), and I think the answer is quite clear.

Do you totally disbelieve everything you learned in school regarding History? Did anything that happened prior to videotape and/or photography just not happen, in your world, since you weren't there to see it, yourself? If you DO accept historical accounts of things that transpired several hundreds of years ago, based on the eyewitness accounts of even a SINGLE person... why is this any different? Especially given the fact that so MANY people saw this?

If you're going to naysay the accounts of ALL those people (including myself), since you're basically calling the lot of us a bunch of liars, then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that anything OTHER than what we all saw hit the Pentagon did so, instead.

 

[Cloggy]

Well, let's see...

Several hundred, if not thousands, of people that live and commute near the Pentagon saw what happened, with their own eyes. Not just people who work for the government, nor for the military, but "normal" every-day people. Respected journalists, people from all walks of life. You seem to think that nobody saw anything that day, and that's just patently untrue. Several of us saw what happened, and we all saw the SAME thing. Sure, some of the smaller details weren't seen by everyone, from the same vantage point... but the collision was witnessed by far more people than the people who are writing their conspiracy articles.

That sir, is a misunderstanding. Hardly anyone saw anything. Something flying over at 900kph at low level is hardly noticable. In fact, there's quite a difference between witness testimonies from the beginning of the explosion and the day's afterwards. People will witness what they have been programmed with.
When the news-channel get's the super-tip that AA-77 went into the Pentagon, and it's broadcasted, any blue-white object is suddenly AA-77, and therefore a 757.
This makes witness tesitimonies so confusing.

Compare their eyewitness accounts vs. the paranoid ramblings of a few conspiracy theorists (such as yourself), and I think the answer is quite clear.

This kind of sentenses is such a shame. This kind of namecalling is not needed.
"Paranoid rambling" might be correct when I would put forth what DID go in there. And why, and who did it etc.
Instead, I'm just pointing to the lack of evidence. I'm just pointing to the inconsistency of the official conspiracy theory.

BUT, instead of explaining what the reason could be of NOT showing footage of numerous camera's lookingat the impact site... (There must be dozens.) focus is on the official conspiracy theory.

How can I believe you that you saw a 757, when there's no wrackage indicating this.
And even though people shout that they have the pictures..... they are never shown.

It's like a the story is that a Greyhound crashed through a house, and only 2 small wheels are found and the hole n the house is small enough to fit a car. Not a bus...

Do you totally disbelieve everything you learned in school regarding History? Did anything that happened prior to videotape and/or photography just not happen, in your world, since you weren't there to see it, yourself? If you DO accept historical accounts of things that transpired several hundreds of years ago, based on the eyewitness accounts of even a SINGLE person... why is this any different? Especially given the fact that so MANY people saw this?

Ridiculing the question is again a pitty. It's not about believing ONLY when there is footage. It's about: There MUST be footage. Why is it not shown?

If you're going to naysay the accounts of ALL those people (including myself), since you're basically calling the lot of us a bunch of liars, then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that anything OTHER than what we all saw hit the Pentagon did so, instead.

Yes, that could be the conclusion. (Calling you a liar.) but then again, like I said, there's no evidence backing up your statement.
There's nothing to proof for me. I'm doubting the official conspiracy theory BECAUSE they show no proof.

It's strange that I have to proof something because I'm not claining something happened (I know something happened, but I do not explain what could have happened), but the official theory needs NO proof.!!

 

[InTheGenes]

That sir, is a misunderstanding. Hardly anyone saw anything. Something flying over at 900kph at low level is hardly noticable. In fact, there's quite a difference between witness testimonies from the beginning of the explosion and the day's afterwards. People will witness what they have been programmed with.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Hardly anyone saw anything?? What an idiotic statement. If you had ANY idea what traffic was like that morning, you'd know just how stupid that statement is.

Hardly noticeable? Again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. But again, you weren't there.

BUT, instead of explaining what the reason could be of NOT showing footage of numerous camera's lookingat the impact site... (There must be dozens.) focus is on the official conspiracy theory.

Why is it that you seem to think that the city of Washington DC is a housemate on "Big Brother", and that there are cameras watching from every angle? No, there are not dozens of cameras pointing at the Pentagon, as you suggest. I'm sure there are several hundred of them INSIDE the building. There are, after all, several subterranean levels, in addition to what you see aboveground. You keep going on about how "surely the most secure building in the world would have dozens of cameras", etc... well, obviously, it isn't the most secure building in the world.

Do you even know anything about the geography of the area surrounding the Pentagon, specifically on it's western face. Please, enlighten me with your wisdom. Share with me what you know, and why you believe it feasible that there are dozens of cameras.

How can I believe you that you saw a 757, when there's no wrackage indicating this.
And even though people shout that they have the pictures..... they are never shown.

Again, wrong. There was wreckage, and there are pictures. It's not my fault if you haven't done your homework enough to know this.

It's like a the story is that a Greyhound crashed through a house, and only 2 small wheels are found and the hole n the house is small enough to fit a car. Not a bus...

That's an apples vs oranges comparison. First of all, a Greyhound bus couldn't come close to the velocity that AA77 was going that morning, nor are most houses built with the same kind of structural integrity as the Pentagon. Nor are Greyhound busses laden with jet fuel. I suggest a Physics class for you.

Ridiculing the question is again a pitty. It's not about believing ONLY when there is footage. It's about: There MUST be footage. Why is it not shown?

No, what's a pity is that you have a child, and that that child is subjected to your kind of paranoid logic.

Yes, that could be the conclusion. (Calling you a liar.) but then again, like I said, there's no evidence backing up your statement.
There's nothing to proof for me. I'm doubting the official conspiracy theory BECAUSE they show no proof.

And like I (and others here have) said... there IS evidence. You just choose to ignore it, to suit your purposes.

It's strange that I have to proof something because I'm not claining something happened (I know something happened, but I do not explain what could have happened), but the official theory needs NO proof.!!

Well, for those of us that were there, there's no need for proof (even though it DOES exist). We saw it happen. Imagine for just a moment that you WERE there, and DID see it. What would your reaction be to people like you who claim to their dying breath that it COULDN'T have happened, because they haven't seen the video footage? How frustrated and angry would that make you?

 

[Cloggy]

InThe Genes,

Do you even know anything about the geography of the area surrounding the Pentagon, specifically on it's western face. Please, enlighten me with your wisdom. Share with me what you know, and why you believe it feasible that there are dozens of cameras.

Pictures of the Pentagon show camera's on the roofline on each segment, about 10m apart.
Then, camera-footage was confiscated from a nearby hotel that has the view on the Pentagon where the explosion was, and a petrol station had a clear view. That surveillance tape was also confiscated. None of them has ever been released. Why?
In addition, there are surveillance camera's looking at the road, and they should also have recorded the object that crashed into the Pentagon.

..... There was wreckage, and there are pictures. It's not my fault if you haven't done your homework enough to know this.

You're not really reading are you?
I'm not disputing there's wreckage. I'm disputing it's wreckage of a 757.

That's an apples vs oranges comparison. First of all, a Greyhound bus couldn't come close to the velocity that AA77 was going that morning, nor are most houses built with the same kind of structural integrity as the Pentagon. Nor are Greyhound busses laden with jet fuel. I suggest a Physics class for you.

Now you are insulting your own intelligence. Didn't you realise that the beginning of my sentence was "It's like a the story.." and you start babbling about the velocity of a greyhoundbus hitting the Pentagon...
Is everything OK with you??

And then insulting me to get the attention away from the real subject....

No, what's a pity is that you have a child, and that that child is subjected to your kind of paranoid logic.

... Where's the paranoia??

But you thought you saw a 757 and me not believing you... I can imagine that frustrates you. You feel you do not need any proof because you saw it.
Well, other people testified they saw a SMALL plane. They are probably more frustrated than you because the proof that is available show's them right, and it shows you wrong. That must be frustrating......

You claim there is wreckage but you do not claim that it's from a 757. And for the right reason. There is none. Plenty of explosion, small hole, collapsing facade even parts of a plane... all could be carried away by hand.....

Yes I am in Norway, perhaps that distance gives me a better view on the situation than you.

But, to get rid of your frustration, and to proof me wrong....

Why don't you request the footage... They have it, they confiscated the footage even from places outside the Pentagon....
Just tell them to make the footage public and show those unbelievers that it really WAS a 757...

Come on....
(And BTW, any pictures of engines, wings, 757-debris is welcome..
Stop saying .... I've showed it, they have showed it.... SHOW IT !!)

 

[Cloggy]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/117.html

None of these witnesses were lying !!!

From this website, Regarding witnesses:

What we'll do here is simply observe the variety of opinions just to make the point that different people see different things.

Meseidy Rodriguez - "it was a mid-sized plane" Washington Post

Steve Patterson - "Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetery so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said." Washington Post

Scott P. Cook - "I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight." Statement

Ken Ford - "We were watching the airport through binoculars, he said, referring to Reagan National Airport, a short distance away. The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building."
Article

Sergeant Maurice L. Bease - "Turning around expecting to see a fighter jet fly over, he saw only a split-second glimpse of a white commercial airliner streaking low toward the building, and him! He did not even have time to duck before it plowed into the side of the Pentagon around the corner and about 200 yards from where he stood." Article

Mike Dobbs - "was standing on one of the upper levels of the outer ring of the Pentagon looking out the window when he saw an American Airlines 737 two-engine airliner strike the building." Article

James S. Robbins - "I was looking directly at it when the aircraft struck. The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory, but at the time, I did not immediately comprehend what I was witnessing. There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and a dark, mushroom shaped cloud rose over the building. I froze, gaping for a second until the sound of the detonation, a sharp pop at that distance, shook me out of it." Editorial

Levi Stephens - "Two explosions were heard. According to one witness, "what looked like a 747" plowed into the south side of the Pentagon, possibly skipping through a heliport before it hit the building." Article

Firefighter Alan Wallace - "was standing outside his fire station when he looked across the nearby interstate and saw a white airplane with orange and blue trim heading almost straight at him. It slammed into the building just a couple hundred feet from him. "When I felt the fire, I hit the ground," he said." Article Local copy- original removed.

David Marra - “It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground.” There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cart wheeled into the building.”
time.com/time/world/printout/0,8816,174655,00.html (copy and paste this one)

Noel Sepulveda - "It seemed like the pilot was scrambling to keep control, and I watched as he dropped lower and lower," Sepulveda said. "Then he dropped his landing gear and started coming down even faster and lower. As it came down, the plane was hitting light poles, the sergeant said. "Then the right wheel hit a light pole and the plane popped into a 45-degree angle" Article

Phillip Thompson - "cruising at a shallow angle, wings level, very steady. But, strangely, the landing gear was up and the flaps weren’t down." Article

CONCLUSION: We have several types of planes mentioned, different color schemes, wheels up, wheels down, steep dive, level flight, cartwheeling, hitting the helicopter pad and much more I didn't cover. There are even accounts of people seeing the faces of the passengers and one where they saw it hit a helicopter on the pad. At a speed of 506 feet per second very few people had a chance to see the plane up close for more than a fraction of a second as you can observe in the video.

 

[Cloggy]

Video Evidence

More "lunatics" asking simple questions....
Or are they just using their brain, instead of just ASSuming that what they hear from the "official" source MUST be true...

The purpose of this page is to demonstrate the existence of video and the likelihood that somewhere in the 85 videos the FBI admits to having, there should be an image of a 757-200. One of the greatest mysteries of the Pentagon incident is that in a town full of media that was already aware of the attacks in New York, there is not one single still photo or video of an AA 757 anywhere near the Pentagon that morning. This void of information is what has spurred the variety of theories to account for the damage at the Pentagon.

The U.S Government originally claimed to have no video. The Pentagon even told broadcast news reporters that its security cameras did not capture the crash. Then five frames were leaked which you can read about on the DoD Video page 1. They most recently released another video (which does not show a 757 clearly) that you can read about on DoD Video page 2. If, in fact, they have clear video of a 757-200 hitting the Pentagon they have refused to release it. I personally believe they have purposefully contributed to the confusion surrounding the Pentagon attack. To allow this and not put the stories to rest may speak of an ulterior motive and most certainly is thoughtless in regards to the families and the victims.

 

[Cloggy]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

PENTAGON RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION


Why investigate 9/11? The simple answer is because the current administration has failed to do so. The official investigation has been handled poorly by any standards and the information released to the American public well after the fact is woefully inadequate. But yet they have used 9/11 to justify a number of policies that affect us all. That day has changed our world forever and I want to understand why. I realize that lives have been dramatically altered by these events and intend nothing but respect for the passengers and crew of Flight 77, the Pentagon workers and their families. I would also like to acknowledge the soldier's and their families who have given beyond words.

If my life had been lost in one of these events I would appreciate people asking honest questions about what happened. That is how I approach this. This is not a partisan effort on my part - it is every citizens right to know. I would ask the same questions of anybody in charge.

It is my goal to present as much observational information as possible to assist in the process of determining what really happened that day, specifically at the Pentagon. Realize that the Pentagon could release 60 seconds of clear video from the 83 security videos the FBI now admits to having, but refuses to release, and put this all to rest. The two poor quality videos they have released that show nothing clearly don't count. They have showed us footage from the first WTC bombing, Madrid, London, and the WTC Towers. In other words, from every other event except the Pentagon......why? It is the administration's defiant choice not to provide American citizens with the complete facts in this case.

Continued...

 

[InTheGenes]

Bottom line: we're never going to convince one another of our opposing views. Our beliefs are too deeply ingrained, and too closely held.

All I can tell you is: I'm not lying, I'm not crazy, and I know what I saw. I know that other people saw what I saw.

You've cited several examples of various conspiracy theories from several different sources. Without having been there yourself, and with so many unanswered questions (and I'll grant you that there ARE many unanswered questions about various aspects of what happened on 9/11; the one MAJOR point of contention I have with what you've suggested is about whether or not a 757 hit the Pentagon), I suppose I have to accept that you're going to question the "truth", no matter what. That's your prerogative, and as much as it galls me to do so, I'm going to have to respect that.

That being said, this back and forth is going nowhere. For every website you post excerpts from, I could post from other sites refuting your claims, etc. Back, and forth, back and forth. We're getting nowhere.

Perhaps, someday, the evidence that you so urgently need to review will be made available, and then you'll know that I'm not lying. Perhaps it never will, and you'll always think I am. ::shrug:: I don't care either way, anymore.

Continue to hypothesize, if it suits you. I'm not rising to the bait anymore, as the wise Rockdrummer has been advising against for some time now. I remain confident in the knowledge that one day, perhaps years from now, you'll know that I was telling the truth.