Important analysis concerning Jesse's Pentagon episode and the no plane theory

[grapecrusher1]

Jesse Ventura, who I like and respect is a conspiracy theorist. Is that wrong to say? He has a book called "American Conspiracies" and a show called "Conspiracy Theory". So I don't think I am throwing any insults out.

I think it is absurd that I need to apologize for not being a conspiracy theorist. But here goes......I am sorry. I am more interested in reality. I'm not interested in theorizing on what I consider to be conspiracies. I am a researcher and amateur historian. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am sorry.

9-11 was indeed a conspiracy, so it was to be expected that conspiracy theorists, would be active in 9-11 truth. And there are different levels of conspiracy theorists, some wear tin foil hats even. But most don't. If the truth movement is wanting to have any success whatsoever it needs to get past the hardcore conspiracy theories or go down as just another fringe group of "nutty", "eccentric", "crazy", "weird", "wacky"...or whatever...choose your own term. Cult, is a word that seems appropriate to me in regards to these no planes conspiracy theories. I am not interested in being part of any cult. I'm not even interested in proving 9-11 was "an inside job". I am interested in the truth and historical facts. I again apologize for not being a conspiracy theorist.

3000 people died on 9-11 and hundreds of thousands of others died because of it. The constitution has been shredded, and we have been lied to and manipulated. That isn't a conspiracy theory. Exposing the truth behind this event is more important than some silly conspiracy theory.

According to the TV show a missile hit the pentagon. Or if it wasn't a missile it was a bomb as a plane flew over. Well.....which is it? Not one person who was there(and there were lots) saw a missile or a plane flying over the pentagon. What they saw was a passenger jet hitting the pentagon. Because......ON 9-11 PLANES FLEW INTO BUILDINGS.

Book sales, and ratings equal money. Let's be honest. A good old fashioned conspiracy theory beats the truth every time as far as entertainment value goes. And entertainment value equals ratings, and ratings equal money.

"Our" expert witness at the 11:30 mark doesn't know what he's talking about. Just a few months ago this guy admitted to knowing almost nothing about what happened at the pentagon....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrZ14NRbT-s

31:25 mark of following interview....
Question: "I don't know if you've looked into the pentagon at all?"
NASA Conspiracy theorist: "I have not...uh..very little."
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-69500/TS-378263.mp3

Now he's on TV as our "expert" explaining how everyone was "fooled" as the plane few over the pentagon. I find that to be pretty strange. It's BS, and he's not an expert on what happened at the pentagon and his retarded conspiracy theory in no way represents me or anyone else but a few Conspiracy Theorists.

I like Jesse Ventura and respect him. Which is why it is such a disappointment watching him play into the hands of the MSM as they control the 9-11 truth message. Is he willing to sacrifice credibility for ratings and TV exposure? I would have thought the research would have been better before presenting this show before a television audience, but IMO he is caught up in his "conspiracy theories"

22:32 mark "The only bodies found at the scene were pentagon employees" ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrZ14NRbT-s

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

"It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm

So no plane at the pentagon, maybe Jesse could do a program about the alleged plane crash in Shanksville. I think he will find no plane there either. So if there were no planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville, then how sure can we be that there really were planes at the WTC? Since we know the families were "fooled" with voice morphing technology, and the pentagon witnesses were "fooled" as well, could we have been "fooled" with video manipulation?

And that is how you get a "no planes on 9-11" conspiracy theory, that television would be happy to assist us with.

I like Jesse Ventura and am disappointed he seems to be letting the MSM and his conspiracy leanings manipulate him. On 9-11 planes flew into buildings. The evidence is overwhelming.

Notice how not a single eyewitness to the actual event was talked to? Because not a single witness who saw what happened claimed a missile hit, and not a single one saw a plane fly over the pentagon. They saw this......

Less than 45 minutes after the event this witness is interviewed...
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_news

Think this witness would have seen a "fly over?....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBjxYrhI4E&feature=&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&index=0&playnext=1

Check out the "pretty" lawn as this eyewitness speaks...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISwWfCGyjzQ

We have actual real evidence of a cover up that can be very easily proven. The MSM wants to continue to paint us all as fringe "Conspiracy Theorists". And JV is playing right into their hands. How unfortunate. Once again, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am sorry. I apologize for that.

Was waiting for you to chime in with grounding commentary.

[Scootle]

I always wonder why people always insist on tryng to prove a plane didn't hit the pentagon just coz of a few percieved damage anomalies, when a much simpler explanation for those damage anomalies that fits the witness testimony better than any other theory and potentially explains the silvery colour of the explosion and the weird smells that some witnesses describe, is the theory that Flight 77 did crash into the pentagon but the plane was rigged with explosives which were detonated a split second before impact to weaken the plane and REDUCE DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING! If they could rig three skyscrapers for demolition, they can rig a plane for demolition!

[citizenx]

So, that is why there is no impact hole for either engine -- the plane was rigged was explosives and they were set off before impact.  Who's creating unsupported theories, now?

Ummm...no.

Evidence, please.

[Scootle]

So, that is why there is no impact hole for either engine -- the plane was rigged was explosives and they were set off before impact.  Who's creating unsupported theories, now?

Ummm...no.

Evidence, please.

Hey I'm not saying I believe in that theory but it definitely fits the data better than the no-plane/missile/flyover theories, and it's simpler too.

[Wintermute]

According to the TV show a missile hit the pentagon. Or if it wasn't a missile it was a bomb as a plane flew over. Well.....which is it? Not one person who was there(and there were lots) saw a missile or a plane flying over the pentagon. What they saw was a passenger jet hitting the pentagon. Because......ON 9-11 PLANES FLEW INTO BUILDINGS.

Building 7 begs to differ. So what evidence is there that a plane hit the Pentagon? Other than "it happened somewhere else" which is not the most convincing argument..

[citizenx]

Hey I'm not saying I believe in that theory but it definitely fits the data better than the no-plane/missile/flyover theories, and it's simpler too.

I am not saying that I personally have a theory that completely fits all the facts either, but I think there are "holes" in both "theories" and that it ought to be possible for sincere, well-meaning truthers who are relatively rational to be able to disagree on particulars related to this one event of 9/11 without losing overall focus.

What we don't need are Grand Inquisitors who think they are Sherlock Holmes (I am not talking about you specifically, Scootle.  I don't think you fit that description at all.)

There has been a great crime commited and never investigated by those (the gov't.) that should have investigated it.  If they had and if some people had been subpoenaed, maybe we would have many answers right now that we don't necessarily have.

I still believe there is no reason why this should not and cannot take place.

I still think that is what true advocates of justice should be fighting for, no matter how impossible it may seem.

A real investigation might show us minutiae that none of us are aware of at the moment.

In the meanwhile, I think it would be wise to allow for some gray areas in the case against the real perpetrators on whom many of us would probably agree.

How did they do it exactly?  I think that will eventually come out in the wash.

[Scootle]

Building 7 begs to differ. So what evidence is there that a plane hit the Pentagon? Other than "it happened somewhere else" which is not the most convincing argument..

Like 100 witnesses including a taxi driver who was almost killed who saw the plane hit the building, the testimony of first responders who picked up burnt body parts with seats still strapped to them and removed plane parts that were embedded in columns, photographs of large sections of fueselage on the lawn and of engine parts, both black boxes, a chunk with the serial number on, wheel rims and pieces of landing gear.

[Dig]

I am not saying that I personally have a theory that completely fits all the facts either, but I think there are "holes" in both "theories" and that it ought to be possible for sincere, well-meaning truthers who are relatively rational to be able to disagree on particulars related to this one event of 9/11 without losing overall focus.

What we don't need are Grand Inquisitors who think they are Sherlock Holmes (I am not talking about you specifically, Scootle.  I don't think you fit that description at all.)

There has been a great crime commited and never investigated by those (the gov't.) that should have investigated it.  If they had and if some people had been subpoenaed, maybe we would have many answers right now that we don't necessarily have.

I still believe there is no reason why this should not and cannot take place.

I still think that is what true advocates of justice should be fighting for, no matter how impossible it may seem.

A real investigation might show us minutiae that none of us are aware of at the moment.

In the meanwhile, I think it would be wise to allow for some gray areas in the case against the real perpetrators on whom many of us would probably agree.

How did they do it exactly?  I think that will eventually come out in the wash.

jimd3100's point is that the prevailing direction of the show was that a plane did not hit whereas loose change final cut offered both theories and evidence for both. I think that was the main issue.

[citizenx]

Well, I definitely favor the position of the editors of "Loose Change: Final Cut", and if that is where he is coming from I think we are pretty much on the same page.  But, I wasn't pointing any fingers at anybody, just defending the need for some leeway in specific areas with regard to investigating 9/11 in order to really tease out as many of the facts as possible.  Maybe, we are basically on the same page after all.

[Dig]

Building 7 begs to differ. So what evidence is there that a plane hit the Pentagon? Other than "it happened somewhere else" which is not the most convincing argument..

jimd3100 has done the most research on the matter than any other member. Please review his last 500 posts or so to get up to speed on the issues...most importantly the plethora of witnesses who undeniably saw a plane.

[Dig]

Well, I definitely favor the position of the editors of "Loose Change: Final Cut", and if that is where he is coming from I think we are pretty much on the same page.  But, I wasn't pointing any fingers at anybody, just defending the need for some leeway in specific areas with regard to investigating 9/11 in order to really tease out as many of the facts as possible.  Maybe, we are basically on the same page after all.

I think the place where you differ is that jimd3100 has recognized that only pushing the no plane theory even on the petagon without giving appropriate comprehensive evidence to the contrary leaves a kink in the armour of the 9/11 truth movement. To use disproven or uncredible witnesses allows for great scrutiny especially when jimd3100 and others have already vetted most of the witnesses by their own statements. And there is much historical evidence of this kink being exploited by less than comprehensive and stubborn propagandists who shift public opinion from a positive one to a negative one regarding the 911 truth movement.

[chris jones]

I'm impressed, the feedback hits on many needed points.
 The problem I have is this reminds me of the "magic bullet",  the JFK assassination.

The coverup imposed by the Gov insiders, confiscation of cameras and tapes leading the vast list of evidence removed.

Fellow Americans were murdered, we should be privy to all the evidence.

[pac522]

Witness can alter the truth, video couldn't be. We'll never know because they have all the footage and if it's anything like what they did with WTC7 NIST footage, forget about it.

[grapecrusher1]

Although repetitive it should be mentioned again.  If the Pentagon gets built up as the major 911 truth point all the complex has to do is show a video of the plane slamming into the side of it and the entire movement is DONE.  It is speculative as opposed to the nanothermite at the WTC.  The pentagon issue is a honeypot and appears to be a set up:
you have Rumsfeld "slipping" by saying a missile
on Ventura's show you have a military higher up "slipping" by saying a missile

this is very suspicious.  Rummy doesnt slip up, if anyone had noticed..

[MonkeyPuppet]

There would be no risk to "national security" to release the video of a dozen or so camera angles aimed at that side of the Pentagon.  If merely seeing that side of the building was a threat to "national security", they would have a 100ft wall (at least) erected around the damn place!

That footage would clear the air once and for all.  No more questionable witnesses, no more theorizing necessary, and everyone would know without a doubt what actually happened... at least at the Pentagon.

Since such footage would only shed light on what actually happened, withholding that footage only serves to raise questions and gives fuel to theories abound.  I can understand withholding it for a couple years to allow theorists to be discredited with conflicting evidence, but 9 freakin' years?!  That's a bit much.  Every year that passes without that footage makes it even more apparent that something other than the official story happened.

[agentbluescreen]

Although repetitive it should be mentioned again.  If the Pentagon gets built up as the major 911 truth point all the complex has to do is show a video of the plane slamming into the side of it and the entire movement is DONE.  It is speculative as opposed to the nanothermite at the WTC.  The pentagon issue is a honeypot and appears to be a set up:
you have Rumsfeld "slipping" by saying a missile
on Ventura's show you have a military higher up "slipping" by saying a missile

this is very suspicious.  Rummy doesnt slip up, if anyone had noticed..

The corollary to this totally false and paranoid argument is that it would be simply impossible, even with Academy Award winning advanced, state of the art SGI film or digital special effects and thousands of Photoshopped  image frames, to produce a believable simulated "757 crash" at the Pentagon THAT RESULTS IN THE DAMAGE EVIDENT AFTERWARDS!

We have the exact visual evidence of exactly what it looked like after Cheney's Pegasys air dropped Naval Boeing AGM 86C cruise missile struck it. Two GIANT HARDENED jet engines and a 757 fuselage did not "go into" that structure.

Neither they nor anyone else could do it, because that's not what happened.

[pac522]

Although repetitive it should be mentioned again.  If the Pentagon gets built up as the major 911 truth point all the complex has to do is show a video of the plane slamming into the side of it and the entire movement is DONE. 

It's not done, quite the contrary. We can move on to the next question, in how were the terrorists able to over-ride preprogramed flight parameters, speed, turning-banking angle, etc and fly that huge jet when seasoned pilots can't do it.

Showing us a real video will help focus the point of attack.

[agentbluescreen]

It's not done, quite the contrary. We can move on to the next question, in how were the terrorists able to over-ride preprogramed flight parameters, speed, turning-banking angle, etc and fly that huge jet when seasoned pilots can't do it.

Showing us a real video will help focus the point of attack.

One cannot override the laws of physical flight science or the engineering design limitations of the vehicle to "do" something that is physically impossible for it to do. The so-called "flight data recorder" data was hastily falsified and released untested by incompetent hubris-filled idiots to make it superficially appear to support an impossible scenario. If this supposed "Flight 77" data was true it could be very simply and easily verified, but it can't, because it isn't.

If any so-called "suicidal terrorist" with a 757 wanted to damage or destroy the Pentagon they'd simply aim their airplane anywhere at the center of it. No fire trucks could even get inside of it to deal with such a perfect and simple catastrophe. The whole building is a sprawling, totally stupidly designed inaccessible deathtrap. If one had it laying bared before you undefended it would be complete stupidity to aim for any single outer ground floor window.

No truly suicidal terrorist fanatic could ever totally waste a perfect opportunity by doing that because no truly vindictive and violent crazed suicidal terrorist fanatic (who had any training or common sense whatsoever) ever would.

The penetrator missile was programmed and targeted precisely at the auditing offices on that exact easy to fire-extinguish face of the outer ring and to do absolutely minimal damage to the rest of their treasonous criminal-psychotic mob operations there.

Their biggest mistake was in not so carefully planning their cover up. This phony, foolishly doctored FDR "evidence" (and the five frames showing an impossible 575MPH ground-effect "jumbo jet aircraft flight" yards above the supposed-ground) are totally damning.

[jimd3100]

I don't really see any point in continuing to say release the videos! What are they hiding?! Because they already told us.

Here's the deal with the 85 videos....

Judicial Watch supposedly got the crappy video released that is supposed to show the plane impact. They got most of the press but actually it was a guy named Scott Bingham that did a FOIA that got it released. He was asking for any and all videos showing the plane impact at the pentagon. He had a website called www.flight77.info. It's no longer any good because he got tired of being harassed by "9-11 truthers". But using the wayback machine you can still see his FOIA request response letters.......



Yes. They have 85 videos but only one showed the actual impact. That is why the rest have not been released. There are no other videos showing the impact at the pentagon.

In Summary:
•She determined that the FBI had 85 videotapes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
•Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
•Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
•The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
•No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.


Flight77.info's FOIA Release: Doubletree Hotel 9/11 <---I don't see a flyover
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ

Judicial Watch September 11 Pentagon Video  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8&feature=channel

Pentagon Citgo Video from 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA9XI5imNcE

If they have anything they could have a video of the plane ......
•Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."

So, I'm pretty sure a lot of you would not believe the WTC were hit by planes if there wasn't any videos of it. No Witness at the pentagon (and there were lots) said anything hit the pentagon except for a plane. There were plane parts recovered and they were from a passenger jet. The c130 pilot saw the passenger jet. No one saw this passenger jet fly over the pentagon.

Typical pentagon witness, lots say the same thing....
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_news

another witness-there were lots...Is that really a "pretty" lawn?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISwWfCGyjzQ

This witness obviously would have seen a fly over he was on a nearby roof...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBjxYrhI4E&feature=&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&index=0&playnext=1

[citizenx]

So, release the video (singular).

The one crappy video with 5 frames shows nothing that could be distinguished as  a plane.

Why are they hanging on to the one video.

I know, so they can say "Gotcha".

We should not let up on trying to get them to release the video (singlular) anyway.  America has a right to know what the police state and all the wars and bloodshed were/are for -- nothing.

[jimd3100]

So, release the video (singular).

That's what I'm telling you. They already did.

Why are they hanging on to the one video.

They're not.  This is it....

September 11 Pentagon Video  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8&feature=channel

[citizenx]

If that is the one video, it shows almost nothing.  In fact, the blur preceding the expolsion does not look large enough to be a jetliner, but a missile.

I thought you were taliking about another video.

At about 24 seconds you can see a thin white blur about the size of a missile enter the frame from the right at about the level of the treeline -- it is about the size (width) of a missile, not a jetliner.

[jimd3100]

If that is the one video, it shows almost nothing.  In fact, the blur preceding the expolsion does not look large enough to be a jetliner, but a missile.

I thought you were taliking about another video.

That's as good as it's going to get. This happened it broad daylight in front of lots of people. A total of 0 people said they thought it was a missile. Everyone said it was a plane, and almost all of them said it was a passenger jet, several saying an American Airlines passenger jet. A missile could not knock over lamp poles. There is no reason to shoot a missile when the planes themselves were being used as missiles. If we want to ignore the c 130 pilot, and every witness at the scene and the physical evidence I suppose we can but I don't know why anyone would take us seriously if we did.

[citizenx]

Don't believe your lying eyes, believe the people on the Pentagon payroll -- the ones who were in a daisy chain cleaning up the evidence of the crime scene on the Pentagon lawn ("Pentalawn 5000").

No doubt.

[jimd3100]

Don't believe your lying eyes, believe the people on the Pentagon payroll -- the ones who were in a daisy chain cleaning up the evidence of the crime scene on the Pentagon lawn ("Pentalawn 5000").

No doubt.

Almost none of the eyewitnesses were on the pentagon payroll. They were civilians. The people who work at the pentagon were in the pentagon. Most of the eyewitnesses were civilians on the nearby roads, I just posted 3 of them none work for the pentagon.

[citizenx]

At about 24 seconds you can see a thin white blur about the size of a missile enter the frame from the right at about the level of the treeline -- it is about the size (width) of a missile, not a jetliner.

It is what it is.

[worcesteradam]

is the one gas station camera that shows the blur, even a government camera

[Freeski]

Is there any wide-angle video? Like of the airspace? You'd think the Pentagon would be as secure as any military installation, and that would include surveillance of its surroundings.

[citizenx]

Of course, there was.

[jimd3100]

Is there any wide-angle video? Like of the airspace? You'd think the Pentagon would be as secure as any military installation, and that would include surveillance of its surroundings.

Grapecrusher (and others) have theorized that they could at any time show a nice clear video of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon. Like I showed....they have no other video of the impact, but yes, I do think it's very possible they have video of the passenger jet.
But I personally don't really care. The people that were there already told us what happened, and the clean up crew told us too. And the physical evidence confirmed it. I don't know what the big mystery here is, as to what was flying into buildings on 9-11.

[citizenx]

See, now you are trying to broaden it again. Nobody here said there were no planes flying into buildings at WTC.  That is not cricket.

That there is another video is purely theoretical as you say.

The video we have doesn't support a jetliner.

If you don't see why there is any "mystery" or any reason for folks to disagree possibly with he official version, you are blinding yourself to the facts.

That sounds more like dogmatism than objectivity.

[jimd3100]

See, now you are trying to broaden it again. Nobody here said there were no planes flying into buildings at WTC.  That is not cricket.

There were 4 planes. One hit the south tower one hit the north tower one went down in shanksville, but the other didn't hit the pentagon even though every witness says it did and the clean up crews agreed and there were plane parts from a passenger jet. What is the mystery here?

[Freeski]

I think what Jim is saying (at least a key part) is that there were enough human eye witnesses that they couldn't all be co-opted. Right?

[MonkeyPuppet]

That's as good as it's going to get. This happened it broad daylight in front of lots of people. A total of 0 people said they thought it was a missile. Everyone said it was a plane, and almost all of them said it was a passenger jet, several saying an American Airlines passenger jet. A missile could not knock over lamp poles. There is no reason to shoot a missile when the planes themselves were being used as missiles. If we want to ignore the c 130 pilot, and every witness at the scene and the physical evidence I suppose we can but I don't know why anyone would take us seriously if we did.

1. In the "video", it shows nothing but a white blur on the right in 1 frame prior to the explosion/impact/whatever.

2. There very well may have been "a" plane (which would account for the civilian witnesses) , but that doesn't mean it hit the Pentagon.  In fact, a witness that was 30ft from the impact/explosion/whatever that climbed out of the very hole that was made says there was no debris that indicated a passenger airliner hit the Pentagon.

3. There were dozens of cameras trained on that side of the building... some with angles that when all pieced together on a timeline would show the approach, the impact and the entire clean-up process.  However, all we get is a blurry white pencil-shaped object half-way into the right side of ONE FRAME from ONE ANGLE.

All I'm asking for are a few video angles that show the approach, impact and clean-up.  Provide that and all this bickering can be put to rest for good.

[jimd3100]

I think what Jim is saying (at least a key part) is that there were enough human eye witnesses that they couldn't all be co-opted. Right?

Exactly, well said.

[jimd3100]

1. In the "video", it shows nothing but a white blur on the right in 1 frame prior to the explosion/impact/whatever.

It's a crappy video. Which is why witness testimony is important. There were lots of witnesses. They said a plane hit, almost all said it was a passenger jet.

2. There very well may have been "a" plane (which would account for the civilian witnesses) , but that doesn't mean it hit the Pentagon.  In fact, a witness that was 30ft from the impact/explosion/whatever that climbed out of the very hole that was made says there was no debris that indicated a passenger airliner hit the Pentagon.

No, that is not a witness to what hit. She was inside and had no idea what happened. And the last thing you would think happened was a plane flew into your office. She was not looking for plane parts, she was looking to get out.

3. There were dozens of cameras trained on that side of the building... some with angles that when all pieced together on a timeline would show the approach, the impact and the entire clean-up process.  However, all we get is a blurry white pencil-shaped object half-way into the right side of ONE FRAME from ONE ANGLE.

It's a crappy video, but the FOIA request was for all videos showing the impact at the pentagon. They said that's it.

All I'm asking for are a few video angles that show the approach, impact and clean-up.  Provide that and all this bickering can be put to rest for good.

There is no bickering if we would just listen to the eyewitneses and look at the physical evidence. They flew planes into the wtc why not the pentagon? IMO this is nothing but a wild goose chase and waste of time. And trust me. I've spent lots of time. I see no reason to think anything but a passenger jet hit. I think I'm allowed to have that opinion without being labled a cointel operative. I'm not accusing you of doing that, BTW.
But yea, if they have any more video that shows anything, might as well release it, but it's going to be a passenger jet, not a missile. According to everyone that was there anyway.

[citizenx]

We know they threatened at least one eyewitness.  Who's to say all of the "witnesses" were not bribed or intimidated?

We don't know that there wasn't a concerted effort to get the story straight.

Again, the one video we have seems to belie the official story.

You can theorize that they have one or more videos of the plane hitting the building and are just trying to sweeten the honeypot and ("Wham") hit us with the incontrovertible video of a plane hitting the building or you can suppose they are either sitting on (crazy) or have destroyed (not so crazy, but evil) evidence/video which would show beyond a reasonable doubt that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.  The latter seems much more likely/probable to me.

And in fairness, jim, I don't think Monkey Puppet was accusing you of being "COINTEL" and neither am I.

[Freeski]

I am not saying that I personally have a theory that completely fits all the facts either, but I think there are "holes" in both "theories" and that it ought to be possible for sincere, well-meaning truthers who are relatively rational to be able to disagree on particulars related to this one event of 9/11 without losing overall focus.

What we don't need are Grand Inquisitors who think they are Sherlock Holmes (I am not talking about you specifically, Scootle.  I don't think you fit that description at all.)

There has been a great crime commited and never investigated by those (the gov't.) that should have investigated it.  If they had and if some people had been subpoenaed, maybe we would have many answers right now that we don't necessarily have.

I still believe there is no reason why this should not and cannot take place.

I still think that is what true advocates of justice should be fighting for, no matter how impossible it may seem.

A real investigation might show us minutiae that none of us are aware of at the moment.

In the meanwhile, I think it would be wise to allow for some gray areas in the case against the real perpetrators on whom many of us would probably agree.

How did they do it exactly?  I think that will eventually come out in the wash.

Good post. There are still way too many unanswered questions.

[jimd3100]

We know they threatened at least one eyewitness.  Who's to say all of the "witnesses" were not bribed or intimidated?

Yea, well to be frank she is full of it. They told her no it wasn't a bomb, it was a plane. If she wants to take that as a threat fine, but it sounds perfectly normal to me, since that seems to be what it was. Her bosses told her to stop saying she didn't see any evidence of a plane. Yea, that makes sense to me too. I was in the military, and if a plane crashed and killed a bunch of people there I can see why they would tell her that. And check out the show just before the 27:00 mark. She is acting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrZ14NRbT-s
She has sued for millions of dollars in a ridiculous lawsuit that said a plane flew over the pentagon and/or a missile hit. You think she wants money and attention or the truth? The truth is she didn't see what hit.

We don't know that there wasn't a concerted effort to get the story straight.

Yea we do. Reporters were on the scene immediately asking people what happened.

Again, the one video we have seems to belie the official story

.
That's your interpretation. Pretty dumb of them to do that isn't it?

You can theorize that they have one or more videos of the plane hitting the building and are just trying to sweeten the honeypot and ("Wham") hit us with the incontrovertible video of a plane hitting the building or you can suppose they are either sitting on (crazy) or have destroyed (not so crazy, but evil) evidence/video which would show beyond a reasonable doubt that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.  The latter seems much more likely/probable to me.

I don't theorize any of that.

And in fairness, jim, I don't think Monkey Puppet was accusing you of being "COINTEL" and neither am I.

And in fairness I said I wasn't accusing him of doing that.

[Freeski]

Does anyone have an estimate of the volume of people (in numbers) who actually saw the plane hit? Is it dozens or hundreds?