Pentaconned spreads disinfo (ranke CIT disinfo )

[wakingup72]

OK, I'm totally confused here people.  I commented earlier in the thread about how great this clip was, and how chilling it was to see the taxi driver participate in a black op.  Then I get sniped by a few of you and was told that, after a long debate, some mod determined this was all bogus.

According to what I have seen, I believe it is plausible that the plane did NOT fly into the pentagon.  I will continue to research this, but this is what I (currently) believe.

[trailhound]

OK, I'm totally confused here people.  I commented earlier in the thread about how great this clip was, and how chilling it was to see the taxi driver participate in a black op.  Then I get sniped by a few of you and was told that, after a long debate, some mod determined this was all bogus.

According to what I have seen, I believe it is plausible that the plane did NOT fly into the pentagon.  I will continue to research this, but this is what I (currently) believe.

 I could be mistaken by i am pretty sure the mod hadnt seen this eyewitness testimony. I agree with Jim(the mod) on everything he has said on the topic; however, the info in this vid opens a whole other can of wtf.

 I sent the link to Jim last night but i dont believe he has been online yet.

[Unintelligable Name]

OK, I'm totally confused here people.  I commented earlier in the thread about how great this clip was, and how chilling it was to see the taxi driver participate in a black op.  Then I get sniped by a few of you and was told that, after a long debate, some mod determined this was all bogus.

According to what I have seen, I believe it is plausible that the plane did NOT fly into the pentagon.  I will continue to research this, but this is what I (currently) believe.

lol man just forget everything you read and stick your original opinoin of it being a great clip.

Sorry I confused you.

[smoofness2k8]

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?"

So, if someone disagrees with the almighty mods, they are spreading dis-info and therefore hurting the truth movement...  some people need to get over themselves...

It's obvious by watching that documentary that the cab driver told different stories, that his 1 testimony  contradicts all of the other eye-witnesses in the area that were interviewed...

Hey..  everyone says "september clues" is dis-info...    what about zero?? that's another that says no plane at the pentagon...

[Mike Philbin]

Hey..  everyone says "september clues" is dis-info...    what about zero?? that's another that says no plane at the pentagon...

Plane at WTC 1 - video* and EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY agrees with the official story
Plane at WTC 2 - video* and EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY agrees with the official story
Plane at Pentagon - conflicting EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY with the official story

Let's not go into the BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS issue again...

but you get the gist.

[smoofness2k8]

Plane at WTC 1 - video* and EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY agrees with the official story
Plane at WTC 2 - video* and EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY agrees with the official story
Plane at Pentagon - conflicting EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY with the official story

Let's not go into the BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS issue again...

but you get the gist.

So if they lie about 1 or 2 planes... then what... you know once someone finds out you're a liar, it's hard to believe anything that they say...

so do you think that the WTC planes were hi-jacked, remote controlled?  why hasn't any surveillance footage been shown with "hi-jackers" boarding planes?

[Mike Philbin]

So if they lie about 1 or 2 planes... then what... you know once someone finds out you're a liar, it's hard to believe anything that they say...

so do you think that the WTC planes were hi-jacked, remote controlled?  why hasn't any surveillance footage been shown with "hi-jackers" boarding planes?

Weren't there CCTV cameras on commercial jets in 2001?
Or (you're right) more convincing security camera footage at the check ins?

It's totally corporatised and f**ked up, for sure.

[bernardboggins]

I Got into the 911 truth movement when i was working at a major UK airport as an aircraft handler.
The first thing that got me interested was a book i heard about from a French author questioning the official Pentagon strike.

From that day on, after looking at what facts i could find on the internet, i was Adament that no 757 hit the pentagon. no way.

The simple fact that there is a round hole and no marks whatsoever on the building of where the Engines should have been say alot. But also no marks whatsoever from where the tail section would have struck is enough for me.

And then i learnt of the flight 93? "crash" with no debis or bodies.

And then i saw the Two towers falling at freefall speed, blowing sections out 500 feet at 50-70 mph the rest of the building turning to dust.

And then i saw Building 7 fall at freefall speed because of three small fires. 3 small fires.

I'd just like to say regardless of all the bickering going on in this thread, i thought this was an excellant film.
Alot of things ive read about the pentagon strike came together.

[Voskhod3]

Hey..  everyone says "september clues" is dis-info...    what about zero?? that's another that says no plane at the pentagon...

September Clues is dis-info.

This Pentagon video is completely different because it presents real evidence from real documented witnesses and not a video sack of sh*t about supposed faked pictures completely avoiding any technical discussion about photography.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

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

Yeah, I've just watched it and yeah I was missing the point. Time for some thinking

[Mike Philbin]

Yeah, I've just watched it and yeah I was missing the point. Time for some thinking

Welcome to the REAL WORLD, David - it's a sick place, no?

[Scootle]

Damn Backjack thing distracted me I should have read this earlier...

CIT is disinfo so is Pilots for 911 truth, so are ALL the pentagon no plane theories!

See: http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html

The Pentagon attack is a huge distraction ... its a psy-op. What happened in New York was devestating enough so it makes you wonder why they even bothered attacking the pentagon and shooting down 93... they did it to distract the people who question the official story so that they will focus on these two vague areas and ignore the obvious demolitions in New York ... of which there is massive evidence to support. They attacked the pentagon... confiscated all video evidence and let the conspiracy theorists run wild. It was entirely designed to promote speculation and crazy no-plane theories.

The pentagon E-Ring wall was REINFORCED CONCRETE ... when a plane made of light aluminium crashes into reinforced concrete at 540 miles per hour... of course there's not gonna be much left after! However the walls between the E and D and D and C rings were relatively light ... this is why there was a hole in the C-Ring. It didn't require a missle to be made.

http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055
Now there is a book called Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon which has interviews with more than 150 washington firefighters who were there in the aftermath of the attack. Now many of these firefighters describe in pretty graphic detail how they personally picked up plane parts, bits of clothes and chairs and BURNT BODIES! Were they all part of the conspiracy?

Here are some pictures of these bodies




All of the passengers of Flight 77 by the way identified. Flight 77 hit the pentagon folks! Many of the pilots for 9/11 truth people will tell you that the maneouvers Hanjour did were aerodynamically impossible... but many pilotsfor911truth members also say the attack on the world trade center was aerodynamically impossible and therefore promote no-plane theories. Now im not denying they would have been difficult to pull off and theres no way Hani Hanjour could have been at the controls but remote control systems are very sophisticated.

As a debunker of 911 debunkers who spends half his time on the JREF forum looking at the other side I know alot about easily debunked disinfo and CIT is pure disinfo ... they interview 13 people who give vague statements and ignore all the hundreds of other people who witnessed it. 911Blogger don't want anything to do with them.

http://www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html#pentacon

[Voskhod3]

CIT is disinfo so is Pilots for 911 truth, so are ALL the pentagon no plane theories!

Normally I would agree, but this video has legs.

These are real documented witnesses telling what they saw and where they saw it, it's pretty convincing. You you were standing at the Citgo gas station with the station behind you, you would remember the plane in the north because you wouldn't see it in the south - the building was in the way.

At the very least these 13 people need a hearing.

[Freeski]

Thanks for making the confusing even more confusing Scootle!

[Mike Philbin]

Scootle,

just trying to help you out here, so don't kill the messenger.

The EYE WITNESS testimony totaly refutes the OFFICIAL STORY.

So, whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not, it doesn't matter. There's a lie going on. If it's the Citizens Investigation Team, that's just sad. If it's The Government we're all f**ked.

Do you see that distinction and why this documentary is so relevant?

Mike

[DAVIDENGLAND]

Thanks for making the confusing even more confusing Scootle!

Lol

[luckee1]

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.

Links please.  if they are already posted, never mind.  I was trying to catch up and only saw the first page.

[DAVIDENGLAND]

Links please.  if they are already posted, never mind.  I was trying to catch up and only saw the first page.

There's been a lot of water under the bridge since then mate

[trailhound]

Damn Backjack thing distracted me I should have read this earlier...

CIT is disinfo so is Pilots for 911 truth, so are ALL the pentagon no plane theories!

See: http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html

The Pentagon attack is a huge distraction ... its a psy-op. What happened in New York was devestating enough so it makes you wonder why they even bothered attacking the pentagon and shooting down 93... they did it to distract the people who question the official story so that they will focus on these two vague areas and ignore the obvious demolitions in New York ... of which there is massive evidence to support. They attacked the pentagon... confiscated all video evidence and let the conspiracy theorists run wild. It was entirely designed to promote speculation and crazy no-plane theories.

The pentagon E-Ring wall was REINFORCED CONCRETE ... when a plane made of light aluminium crashes into reinforced concrete at 540 miles per hour... of course there's not gonna be much left after! However the walls between the E and D and D and C rings were relatively light ... this is why there was a hole in the C-Ring. It didn't require a missle to be made.

http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055
Now there is a book called Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon which has interviews with more than 150 washington firefighters who were there in the aftermath of the attack. Now many of these firefighters describe in pretty graphic detail how they personally picked up plane parts, bits of clothes and chairs and BURNT BODIES! Were they all part of the conspiracy?

Here are some pictures of these bodies




All of the passengers of Flight 77 by the way identified. Flight 77 hit the pentagon folks! Many of the pilots for 9/11 truth people will tell you that the maneouvers Hanjour did were aerodynamically impossible... but many pilotsfor911truth members also say the attack on the world trade center was aerodynamically impossible and therefore promote no-plane theories. Now im not denying they would have been difficult to pull off and theres no way Hani Hanjour could have been at the controls but remote control systems are very sophisticated.

As a debunker of 911 debunkers who spends half his time on the JREF forum looking at the other side I know alot about easily debunked disinfo and CIT is pure disinfo ... they interview 13 people who give vague statements and ignore all the hundreds of other people who witnessed it. 911Blogger don't want anything to do with them.

http://www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html#pentacon

 Im with you on all that but how do you explain what the witnesses saw?

[luckee1]

There's been a lot of water under the bridge since then mate

Got an oar?   

Thanks I saw that

[pcc]

As a debunker of 911 debunkers who spends half his time on the JREF forum looking at the other side I know alot about easily debunked disinfo and CIT is pure disinfo ... they interview 13 people who give vague statements and ignore all the hundreds of other people who witnessed it. 911Blogger don't want anything to do with them.

I whole heartedly agree Scootle..
anyone who is not aware of the research from BOTH sides, has no business commenting in a 911 thread..
read the transcripts from the interviews.. all 13 witnesses believed that the plane hit.. including Sean Boger who was in the heliport tower and said he watched and heard it crash into the building..
the only site that I know of that remains relatively neutral on the subject of 911 is Abovetopsecret.com
many threads discussing the CIT "theory" including the "supposed planted light poles".. Ranke is a member there..
also you might want to search the APF site for the email that was sent to them by Sgt. LaGasse.. pretty eye opening..
~toodles

[trailhound]

I whole heartedly agree Scootle..
anyone who is not aware of the research from BOTH sides, has no business commenting in a 911 thread..
read the transcripts from the interviews.. all 13 witnesses believed that the plane hit.. including Sean Boger who was in the heliport tower and said he watched and heard it crash into the building..
the only site that I know of that remains relatively neutral on the subject of 911 is Abovetopsecret.com
many threads discussing the CIT "theory" including the "supposed planted light poles".. Ranke is a member there..
also you might want to search the APF site for the email that was sent to them by Sgt. LaGasse.. pretty eye opening..
~toodles

 I agree but did you watch this vid? The interview with the cab driver is bizarre.

[trailhound]

 I almost didnt watch this because of all the disinfo around but I really cant write this off as disinfo. I suppose its possible but i dont see how. I suppose if you want to argue the witnesses are all batshit crazy and/or lying but I dont think so.

[pcc]

I agree but did you watch this vid? The interview with the cab driver is bizarre.

I watched all of the other presentations (rough drafts) by CIT..
I honestly don't know what to think of his interview except perhaps he is getting sick of the attention and was maybe messing with them.. don't know..
the whole premise of the presentation is dependent upon dismissing hundreds of witnesses in favor of 13, who contradict themselves.. they saw it fly NoC but they saw or assumed that it hit.. whereas CIT would have you believe that they were mistaken about the impact but not mistaken about the flight path..
what would you most likely remember? where exactly the plane was in the sky (from a vantage point off to the side, as most were) or would you remember the plane hitting?
also they conclude it was a decoy aircraft that overflew the Pentagon.. were are the witnesses that would have had to see that???
the math they used to determine what the FDR and RADES data shows has been in contention, many Jref'rs have done subsequent calculations and come up with different results..
what everyone needs to do is not listen to any presentation and be persuaded.. you have to check out their facts and see if it meets the smell test..
good luck everyone.. the truth is out there.. just not down this road~pcc

[pcc]

I almost didnt watch this because of all the disinfo around but I really cant write this off as disinfo. I suppose its possible but i dont see how. I suppose if you want to argue the witnesses are all batshit crazy and/or lying but I dont think so.

it doesn't have to pass my smell test.. only yours..
I have faith in anyone who really wants to know.. and faith that if you keep looking, you will see this for what it is..

[trailhound]

PCC wrote

the whole premise of the presentation is dependent upon dismissing hundreds of witnesses in favor of 13, who contradict themselves.

. 

 100's of witnesses who say what? These 13 witnesses do not contradict themselves. I am not jumping to conclusions but it seems to me these eyewitnesses saw a different plane than the one that hit the pentagon. Whatever that means im not going to speculate but this is not pure disinfo.  Im not prepared to stand by the makers of the vid, but the eyewitness testimony is worth noting.

[Freeski]

PCC wrote. 

 100's of witnesses who say what? These 13 witnesses do not contradict themselves. I am not jumping to conclusions but it seems to me these eyewitnesses saw a different plane than the one that hit the pentagon. Whatever that means im not going to speculate but this is not pure disinfo.  Im not prepared to stand by the makers of the vid, but the eyewitness testimony is worth noting.

+1

[Mike Philbin]

Im not prepared to stand by the makers of the vid, but the eyewitness testimony...

...admissible in a court of law. Especially given that they were independently interviewed by the Library of Congress a few days after the Pentagon incident before CIT got hold of them to collate their evidence.

[Voskhod3]

the whole premise of the presentation is dependent upon dismissing hundreds of witnesses in favor of 13, who contradict themselves..

I've been reading the "hundreds" of other witness statements, first I don't think there are "hundreds", second I don't think that many saw the plane actually hit the lamposts, third I don't think that many saw the plane hit the building, fourth many think the plane was banking and increased throttle near the end.

These 13 are quite specific in their testimony, quite clear about where they saw the plane, they even draw it on the pictures.

The people in Arlington cementary all saw the plane heading towards them and then it banked to their left and headed to wards the Pentagon.

Then we have two policemen who because of where they were positioned they could ONLY have seen the plane north of CITGO... "zero chance of being south of Citgo".

At the very least these witness statements deserve to get a hearing and the "hundreds" (but not really) of others reaccessed in light of this.

I thought the video presenters were very fair and clear in their presentation of these interviews, it's better than most 9/11 videos by a long way (except for 9/11: Press for Truth).

[KiwiClare]

Voskhod3

I thought the video presenters were very fair and clear in their presentation of these interviews, it's better than most 9/11 videos by a long way (except for 9/11: Press for Truth).

Confronting the Evidence of 9/11 is a good one too, I think. It seemed to be a very fair and balanced presentation, unlike Fox news. 

...They attacked the pentagon... confiscated all video evidence and let the conspiracy theorists run wild. It was entirely designed to promote speculation and crazy no-plane theories.

The pentagon E-Ring wall was REINFORCED CONCRETE ... when a plane made of light aluminium crashes into reinforced concrete at 540 miles per hour... of course there's not gonna be much left after! However the walls between the E and D and D and C rings were relatively light ... this is why there was a hole in the C-Ring. It didn't require a missle to be made.

http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055
Now there is a book called Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon which has interviews with more than 150 washington firefighters who were there in the aftermath of the attack. Now many of these firefighters describe in pretty graphic detail how they personally picked up plane parts, bits of clothes and chairs and BURNT BODIES! Were they all part of the conspiracy?

Here are some pictures of these bodies


All of the passengers of Flight 77 by the way identified.

http://www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html#pentacon

Was all the video  evidence confiscated Scootle? The aftermath was shown by the mainstream media wasn't it.  And what about this:  Rare Pentagon 9-11 Surveillance Camera Video of Impact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

Also you state "when a plane made of light aluminium crashes into reinforced concrete at 540 miles per hour... of course there's not gonna be much left after!"  What you essentially are stating Scootle is that you would expect a plane to be literally vapourized as a consequence of high speed and hitting concrete.  That doesn't happen in reality and a plane is made of a lot more than just light aluminium, as anyone who has been on one will know.    It you have a look at genuine plane crash sites, you will find wreckage.  

Also, the pictures of the bodies found that you posted could have been that of people working in the Pentagon.

And just because the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, part of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, headquartered in Washington, DC,"identified the bodies," it does not mean that the people died at the Pentagon.

(All of the human remains–of which there were more than 2000 separate
specimens–were moved to the U.S. Air Force Port Mortuary at Dover AFB, Delaware, for
evaluation. http://www.hhstrainingsummit.org/presentations/2005/266.pdf ).

[Mike Philbin]

I'll post this here for ARGUMENTs sake - re: the WTC 1 and 2 (no-)planes DISSOLVED into the steel building:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eCo29OVJow
Notice that at 25:00 there's a nose-flash very much like the nose flash of the second WTC plane that caused so much 'missile shot' controversy.

but additionally, I'll still stand by the fact that the eyewitness testimony (in this docu) and the official story (and recovered flight data) do not overlay. I like the comment that those 'identified bodies' didn't have to have died at the Pentagon - that's truly horrifying.

Reinvestigate.

[smoofness2k8]

I can see the guy with the belt to the left, but on the right it looks like a giant cock and balls...
I dont want to be morbid but I showed my roommate with out telling him the topic or what it was supposed to be and got the same answer from him...??

[Voskhod3]

Reinvestigate.

I think if enough people saw THIS film then there would be a call for an explanation.

I was agnostic as far as what happened at the Pentagon, I thought the lamposts were the probably key, sure I heard people say they could have been staged and I had heard talk of "north of Citgo" witnesses, but I didn't think much of if, "fog of war" kind of thing and there are easier and more important targets for the 9/11 official story.

However this film has made me wonder - this needs re-examining for sure.

The way this film is presented gives no wriggle-room about what the witnesses are saying.

[Unintelligable Name]

That plane was turned into dust -- very impressive.

[smoofness2k8]

That plane was turned into dust -- very impressive.

you mean 4 planes were turned into dust... that's what always happens when "a plane" goes down right...
exactly...

[Unintelligable Name]

you mean 4 planes were turned into dust... that's what always happens when "a plane" goes down right...
exactly...

??

Video Mike linked of the Government test with concrete and a jet.

I'm not following the converstaion so I have no idea what you're implying.

[smoofness2k8]

I think if enough people saw THIS film then there would be a call for an explanation.

I was agnostic as far as what happened at the Pentagon, I thought the lamposts were the probably key, sure I heard people say they could have been staged and I had heard talk of "north of Citgo" witnesses, but I didn't think much of if, "fog of war" kind of thing and there are easier and more important targets for the 9/11 official story.

However this film has made me wonder - this needs re-examining for sure.

The way this film is presented gives no wriggle-room about what the witnesses are saying.

I would like to think that if an airplane hit like 5 light poles, surely a wing would come off... or the "pilot" would lose control.. but according to many... NOPE right where he wanted it to go...

[Mike Philbin]

That plane was turned into dust -- very impressive.

It was also going @ 800 kmph  --  which is about the 500 mph the WTC planes hit. Did you see the nose-flash?

Interesting.

As far as this documentary goes, all's I can do is BLOG
http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2009/06/911-pentagon-north-side-flight-path.html
about it and try to bring it to as many people's attention as I can

something we should ALL do.

Mike

[Southern Patriot]

I saw this video, I downloaded this video and I will provide this video to as many outlets as possible until my dvd burner goes kaput.
This is the best evidence I have seen from any source! The government has documented the same accounts from the same people on record but conveniently left that information out of the commission report.
There is also a CNN clip that shows people getting off of a bus at the pentagon with large heavy looking black duffel bags....Airplane parts anyone?
I have never believed an airplane hit the Pentagon because I had friends working in the Pentagon that day who told me personally they both smelled cordite (not produced since WWII but the word is still used to describe the smell of gun powder or other low grade explosive) when they left the building. Explosives and refined diesel (JP-6, JP-8, etc.) that jets run on do not smell similar at all.
Cruise missiles just happen to be full of explosives and airplanes don't poke 4 foot exit holes through reinforced concrete.

[smoofness2k8]

Cruise missiles just happen to be full of explosives and airplanes don't poke 4 foot exit holes through reinforced concrete.

Planes were used on 9/11. 4 of them. They were big.

Patriot, I agree with you on this but the gods ERRR... mods dont... Above Jim says 4 planes...  and he's god err... MOD...