Pentaconned spreads disinfo (ranke CIT disinfo )

[wakingup72]

There's lot's of evidence to show that a plane hit the Pentagon. Lot's of photos of wreckage, bodies, seats, fuselage. The plane went in on the ground floor hence why the section of the Pentagon which was hit collapsed because there was nothing left standing to support it.

Thanks, David.  I didn't realize that.  Looks like I have much information to research for myself.  *sigh*

[Unintelligable Name]

Maybe you can help me understand why this clip hurts the Truth Movement.  Honestly, I would like to know, because I don't quite get it.

Saying that this clip hurts the movement is Jim's viewpoint. He says it's disinfo that makes us look insane to the media.

"Are you and others still so desperate, to not admit a jetliner crashed at the pentagon that you'd say this innocent old cab driver nearly killed that day are actually "in on it"? All in the name of 9/11 "truth"? How embarrasing."

I've never seen a photograph of bodies... or seats... or the fuselage...

All I've seen is parts of some type of engine and some scrap of metal with paint on them. Possibly a tire from landing gear, can't remember.

Links please David.

[wakingup72]

OK CR, maybe explaining this to us newcomers would actually help us.  We're not all disinfo agents/CIA operatives/spooks.

[Unintelligable Name]

OK CR, maybe explaining this to us newcomers would actually help us.  We're not all disinfo agents/CIA operatives/spooks.

Sorry heh I'm not trying to confuse anyone -- here's the run down.

This clip with Lloyd England talking was released in Early May on Youtube, we watched it and had a couple threads on it where it was debated out. One group said it was disinformation, the other group said it was legitimate. It was basically thrown around that it was ridiculous to say, the threads were going to be deleted, and we were all digging our own graves in terms of the credibility of the movement.

The end conclusion particularly from Jim, the mod of this forum, was that it was utter nonsense.

Now, after seeing the film, do you feel it's a bunch of baloney?

I'm just glad this film came out, and people are coming to the conclusion that the evidence supports... with pilots for 911 truth and the whole 9 yards.

[Mike Philbin]

Links please David.

David doesn't have ANY SUCH LINKS because they don't exist.
David needs to watch the documentary this thread is about.

It shows how the EYE WITNESS testimony refutes the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT FLIGIHT PATH.

[Unintelligable Name]

This is a long running debate, this thread alone is from 2007

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=11131.0

[wakingup72]

Sorry heh I'm not trying to confuse anyone -- here's the run down.

This clip with Lloyd England talking was released in Early May on Youtube, we watched it and had a couple threads on it where it was debated out. One group said it was disinformation, the other group said it was legitimate. It was basically thrown around that it was ridiculous to say, the threads were going to be deleted, and we were all digging our own graves in terms of the credibility of the movement.

The end conclusion particularly from Jim, the mod of this forum, was that it was utter nonsense.

Now, after seeing the film, do you feel it's a bunch of baloney?

I'm just glad this film came out, and people are coming to the conclusion that the evidence supports... with pilots for 911 truth and the whole 9 yards.

OK, I'll need to look at that YouTube clip.  So...are you saying that the pilots for 9/11 truth site is bogus?  Because they seem to be touting this documentary as gospel.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

I've never seen a photograph of bodies... or seats... or the fuselage...

All I've seen is parts of some type of engine and some scrap of metal with paint on them. Possibly a tire from landing gear, can't remember.

Links please David.

Scraps of metal with paint on them? That's like saying a car or a plane or a ship is a collection of scraps of metal with paint on it come on. Take some time to study all the photos in these links -

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...anremains.html

[Unintelligable Name]

Second link does not work.

First link shows the same photos I've seen before.

All that metal just vanished leaving enough to build a 2 man Go-cart.  Speculation is all that can be done there, got anything else?

[DAVIDENGLAND]

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/humanremains.html

[DAVIDENGLAND]

Second link does not work.

First link shows the same photos I've seen before.

All that metal just vanished leaving enough to build a 2 man Go-cart.  Speculation is all that can be done there, got anything else?

Well that's your opinion but I think most people would agree that after looking at all of those photos a plane defiantly hit the Pentagon.

[Unintelligable Name]

5 bodies, out of 64 on the plane, and reportedly 125 killed on the ground.

Any more?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522

I'll check back later, got other things to do for now.

This subject could literally suck up an entire month in debates alone and never really get very far.

[phasma]

I think something hit the pentagon - but i`m not sure exactly what that was.

the link to those first photos show such tiny peices its difficult to determine what they come from, except for this one

[IMG}http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Pentagon_Debris_191.jpg[/IMG]

In which the largest piece of debris i have seen is shown. It looks (and ok i am not an aviation expert so don`t attack me!) like the cockpit off a much smaller plane!

I also cannot believe (if the witness reports are to be trusted , and since they are independantly verified i see no reaon that they should not be) that a huge plane, going at a relatively slow speed, would not leave bigger peices of wreckage - the hole left after the crash did not, i understand penetrate right through the entire pentagon, and so I feel that atleast part of the wings or tail ought to have remained at least partly intact, visible.

There is also the small matter of there being a perfectly spherical hole with no apparent damage from the wings of the plane !

Finally as the damage reaches to the floor - why is there no tracks on the floor?

I`m not saying there wasn`t a plane - i just do not understand how these oddities could occur with such a giant plane !

I`m more inclines to think it was a missile - or a RC drone. Or some other thing! Until someone can satisfy me as to the points above !

[Mike Philbin]

THIS IS A CORKER

it took 13 seconds for the plane to wobble down the road ... it'd just leave a dent in the Pentagon and we'd see the charred remains of some big plane, like this:



it wasn't travelling at 500 mph so it wouldn't 'vapourise'.

more!

MORE grist for the mill.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

Why would they use a missile? You have to apply common sense here which is something that the no planers seem to have difficulty understanding. Could whoever was behind these attacks fly a plane into the Pentagon? The answer is yes, so why risk the whole operation by using a missile? A missile would have to be launched from somewhere and if someone got lucky and managed to catch a photo of the missile the whole operation is exposed so given the fact that they could use a plane why on Earth would they use a missile?

The question about why there were no marks left on the Pentagon lawn comes from when the first reports were coming through on live TV on 911, when they were reporting a 'massive gash on the Pentagon lawn'. This was dis info in my opinion. There is no reason why a plane would leave any marks on the lawn because it didn't hit the lawn. Does a plane leave scorch marks on the runway when it takes off or lands? Of course it doesn't. 

[Mike Philbin]

well, those TWO BIG THINGS hanging below the wings - if a WOBBLING JUMBO entered on floor one - might leave a bit of a trail in the lawn.

[phasma]

Why would they use a missile? You have to apply common sense here which is something that the no planers seem to have difficulty understanding. Could whoever was behind these attacks fly a plane into the Pentagon? The answer is yes, so why risk the whole operation by using a missile? A missile would have to be launched from somewhere and if someone got lucky and managed to catch a photo of the missile the whole operation is exposed so given the fact that they could use a plane why on Earth would they use a missile?

Ok - A missile might be far fetched - but COULD the people behind this have used a missile if they so chose? Yes, they could !
There wouldn`t be any photos of it taking off - all ait traffic was grounded inc helicopters i think.


The question about why there were no marks left on the Pentagon lawn comes from when the first reports were coming through on live TV on 911, when they were reporting a 'massive gash on the Pentagon lawn'. This was dis info in my opinion. There is no reason why a plane would leave any marks on the lawn because it didn't hit the lawn. Does a plane leave scorch marks on the runway when it takes off or lands? Of course it doesn't. 

No, you are right do not leave marks on runways. But the runways are concrete, and the plane is running on wheels. (and actually tail strikes do sometimes leave marks)
The lawn was, well lawn. I think something ought to have touched the floor given that the damage goes clearly all the way to the floor - do you know how difficult it would be to keep the plane from hitting the floor at such a low altitude?

I am looking but i still cannot dismiss what my eyes are telling me until someone can explain the round hole, with no gashes made by the wings, and no big debris ! I like to watch these aircrash investigation things, and for a recent example look at flight 447. They are pulling up pretty huge bits of debris - considering the plane was going at almost mach1 when it went down - hitting water at that speed is not so much different than hitting the floor - (land) and so i just struggle to understand the lack of debris in this case!

Are we discounting the two planes theory?

[DAVIDENGLAND]

Just imagine if 911 goes mainstream, that's when the NPT will really serve it's purpose. Can you imagine the smarmy knobheads on Fox sitting there shaking their heads in dismay at some NPT oddball telling them that holograms, missiles and space beams were used on 911? Tut tut tut.

[phasma]

Just imagine if 911 goes mainstream, that's when the NPT will really serve it's purpose. Can you imagine the smarmy knobheads on Fox sitting there shaking their heads in dismay at some NPT oddball telling them that holograms, missiles and space beams were used on 911? Tut tut tut.

I don`t know anything about holograms or space beams in this respect !

Of course something hit the pentagon - that much is clear. The question is what (no i doubt lazers, photons, holograms etc did)
But why did the stage the light posts ? What did it matter if the plane came from the north or south of some gas station. If it were true in my opinion it wouldn`t matter which direction the damned thing came from - the result speaks for its self.
So - why lie?
Why rig the light posts?
Obviously they are trying to hide something - but what?
I think this video is pretty clear in that it does demonstrate clearly that the plane did not approach from the direction that was given in the official report. Yet it is clear that something did this damage.
So - why lie about the route it took to get there?
I would love to ask a pilot their opinion on this - surely of everyone they would be the authority on this?

[Mike Philbin]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

++

rather damning NTSB flight path evidence corroborates EYE WITNESS statements.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Q8nSEeUec

[phasma]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Thanks !

[DAVIDENGLAND]

I don`t know anything about holograms or space beams in this respect !

Of course something hit the pentagon - that much is clear. The question is what (no i doubt lazers, photons, holograms etc did)
But why did the stage the light posts ? What did it matter if the plane came from the north or south of some gas station. If it were true in my opinion it wouldn`t matter which direction the damned thing came from - the result speaks for its self.
So - why lie?
Why rig the light posts?
Obviously they are trying to hide something - but what?
I think this video is pretty clear in that it does demonstrate clearly that the plane did not approach from the direction that was given in the official report. Yet it is clear that something did this damage.
So - why lie about the route it took to get there?
I would love to ask a pilot their opinion on this - surely of everyone they would be the authority on this?

Again the whole faking of the flight path is done to confuse the issue, to split the opinion. We're not dealing with simple people here they're much more devious than that. Same thing with the plane which was shot down. The crash site was obviously faked to create a different reality to split the opinion. Karl Rove has spoken about this, about creating different realities to keep us confused.

The aide in question here is Karl Rove -

http://mondediplo.com/2008/01/04scheherazade

[phasma]

Do i understand you correctly in repeating that The faking of the flight path was done to confuse "us" ?
Whom did this? And what would be their motives?

I found this:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44
08/20/06

We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. The animation covers the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in real time.

So we can be clear that this plane did not bring down the light poles - and so SOMEONE OR SOMETHING else bought down the light poles - and it is reasonable i think to assume that the people who organised this did this. But! I do no understand their reasoning.
Why knock down light posts?
Why not just leave it as it was - with the plane approaching from the north and not hitting light posts? Is this any worse a crime because light posts were spared?
The fact that they are messing in this would indicate that there is something they are trying to hide. So there is more than meets the eye. Why could they be so concerned that we all believe the plane flew in from the south?
Logic points towad them trying to cover something that happened from the southerly direction.

[Mike Philbin]

plus, you'd f**king dive bomb the pentagon, you'd go in from altitude vertically, you wouldn't piss about skirting the floor at LANDING SPEED in case you a) hit the lawn or b) overshot the fourth floor.

it's just dumbass

[phasma]

This is likely wrong i know but heres a thought antway!

Plane flies in low from the North - everyone is watching the birdy
Something else hits the pentagon from the south
original plane pulls up - what might have become of this plane i have no ideas as yet.

Pilots for truth state plane was flying 100ft too high to have hit the pentagon 1 sec prior to impact.



PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

03/26/07

PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
www.pilotsfor911truth.org

Contact: Robert Balsamo
e-mail: pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org

OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF  9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77", consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.   
The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.   
If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

[Unintelligable Name]

I reflected on it for 2 hours while I was working outside and I came to the same conclusion I came to when discussing the zionist nuke theory.

It ultimately doesn't matter, 9/11 was a fraud, an inside job -- whether we can prove a plane did or didn't hit the Pentagon.

It is very interesting though... I'd like very much for someone to come out and explain the entire thing, each black op that took place, etc etc. Would be highly entertaining to see how accurate everyone was in reconstructing what happened. Sadly that will never happen.

[smoofness2k8]

I reflected on it for 2 hours while I was working outside and I came to the same conclusion I came to when discussing the zionist nuke theory.

It ultimately doesn't matter, 9/11 was a fraud, an inside job -- whether we can prove a plane did or didn't hit the Pentagon.

It is very interesting though... I'd like very much for someone to come out and explain the entire thing, each black op that took place, etc etc. Would be highly entertaining to see how accurate everyone was in reconstructing what happened. Sadly that will never happen.

Somehow the US citizens should get it out of them...  How can someone (a large group of people) that orchestrated those attacks NEVER be held accountable??   
I know it wont happen either and that makes he f*cking sick...

[phasma]

CR is right in this - really it doesn`t matter what hit the pentagon - it just causes in-fighting, we don`t need that - we have enough to fight against.
So we all have own own seperate theories, thats fine. What unites us is our belief that this was not carried out by cave men and that in fact it is all part of a larger , ongoing plot.

This will out one day. I believe that. Everything eventually comes out - even if it is going to be when we are too old (or long dead) and can no longer do anything about it.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

Yeah I agree. And it's good to be able to discuss this topic with reasonable people who don't resort to insults the second their viewpoint is challenged.

[phasma]

Yeah I agree. And it's good to be able to discuss this topic with reasonable people who don't resort to insults the second their viewpoint is challenged.

2nd that !

[Voskhod3]

Perhaps people know my views on no-planes at the WTC.

But this is a completely different matter.

These are real witnesses with real accounts - excellently presented by the film makers - that suggest the plane really did fly down north of the Citgo Gas Station.

This is a GOOD 9/11 argument against the official story.

And as for the taxi driver.. jeeze.. what is he about?

These witnesses, if they are telling the truth, are worthy of a hearing.

[Voskhod3]

Jim again saying...

"I guess if we want to keep this no plane stupidity going we'll have to call him a lier. We should also accuse Lloyd England the old cab driver who was nearly killed by a flying lightpole that he claims was knocked over by a passenger jet a lier too. Better yet, we will have to claim this guy is "in on it". Could you please tell the forum why that is helpfull for the 9/11 truth movement? Because now I'm going to give examples of how no planners "help" the truth movement by turning it into a lie movement. Would you no planners explain to the forum how it is helpfull to the truth movement to be a lie movement in order to support your no plane stupidity?"

I'm convinced that the WTC no-planes sh*t is deliberate to obscure the genuine plane issues at the Pentagon.

There is DEFINITELY a question mark over the official story here.

[Mike Philbin]

There is DEFINITELY a question mark over the official story here.

That's all the EYE WITNESS testimony points to - reopen the case. Find out the facts.

[trailhound]

DAVID ENGLAND watch this video before you comment because you are completely missing the point.

[phasma]

That's all the EYE WITNESS testimony points to - reopen the case. Find out the facts.

If only huh?

Wonder what Obama`s view on an independant inquiry given the glaringly obvious discrepancies would be? Any one asked?

[Mike Philbin]

did you see that the IRAQ WAR ENQUIRY might now be done in public?

LMAO

just like the 911 Commission. The irony is just painful sometimes.

[phasma]

did you see that the IRAQ WAR ENQUIRY might now be done in public?

LMAO

just like the 911 Commission. The irony is just painful sometimes.

No - apparently the most important bits will be done in private - sky news just reporting.

Because of "national security" of course !

[Voskhod3]

Yes some of it will still be in secret.

Shame on them!

[trailhound]

 This vid leaves many questions unanswered however it raises some serious questions with some credible testimony from eyewitnesses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

[phasma]

Yes some of it will still be in secret.

Shame on them!

No, really, shame on us for letting them get away with this !