The PentaCon - 9/11 movie released

[spoon]

[Banish]

You know my thoughts on the Pentagram, AMEC were renovating a wing. BOOM.

There was no plane strike. I agree that a fly-by is the most likely candidate, precisely what happened at the towers also.

[QuitTheirClogs]

The plane went nowhere near the downed light poles – that’s an inside job. It says that the downed light poles were faked. Is there any need to get bogged down in the debate over whether the plane hit the Pentagon or not?

[rodin]

I agree. On the internet it is easy for unproven allegations to acquire a patina of authority merely by repetition. The time has come to invite in the debunkers and have them try to demolish the evidence. Thus we will find out which evidence will stand up if we mount a global challenge to the global conspiracy. There is so much that we should choose those pieces of evidence which are both conclusive and indestructible.

The Pentacon and Pilots for Truth are moving in the right direction.

[QuitTheirClogs]

[Serge]

[wickywoowoo]

[rodin]

I agree. The witnesses thought they saw a plane hit the building. I suggest we pull in expert testimony here from pilots for truth. Knowing that the plane cleared the trees and other obstacles COULD it have hit the Pentagon? Snowy? John Doe?

If it did hit it still leaves the faked pole evidence. Evidence of the inside job. What more do you want? Blood?

[spoon]

I seen Pandoras Box 2 and if this is really the official flight data then WHY WHY WHY has no one in a senior position in the government, media or anyone spoke out about this?

I know the answer to that ranges from "cover up" to "scared" but again if this is the real data it totaly blows the whole Pentagon flight 77 story to bits. This would surely (I keep saying that!!) be a major piece of evidence.

How long has this data been out and have the major truthers and debunkers picked up on this? If so please point me in the right direction as there are just so many sites to scroll through!

I also agree with the point made regarding it taking years to prove and that the movement will split, this will be bad and in the end will it not just become another Oaklahoma, JFK etc etc?

Serge whats the RE vid?

Thanks

[London Mick]

I remember reading somewhere and seeing photos of a big barrel of oil burning to create a huge cloud of black smoke just outside the walls of the Pentagon. Anyone else remember this?

[Bongo]

Rodin,

[xmasdale]

This thread is so full of acronyms that no one but an in-crowd of seasoned, English-speaking 911 truth campaigners could understand it. If you want to be understood, guys, please don’t talk in obscure jargon; explain your terms:

JREF, PBB, PFT, FDR, TBH, LC, NTSB, DVD, JDX, FBI, CCTV, SWAT, RE, CITGO, BS, AMEC, BOOM, DRG

Okay many native English speakers will be familiar with some of them but few with all of them. And remember: this website is being read all over the world by people whose first language is not English.

[wickywoowoo]

I only used JREF as I couldn't be bothered to type out James Randi Educational Forum, but now you have made me and I put a curse on your house

[Leiff]

[Anthony Lawson]

Challenging the BBC with Incontrovertible Video Evidence

I'm still downloading the 'PentaCon’ 'Smoking Gun Version', so I can’t make any comments about it, just yet, but, by the looks of things, it is some kind of reconstruction and, judging by the number of posts, some of which are getting to be quite insulting, it reinforces the fact that incontrovertible evidence has to be the best.

This morning I listened to a download of the Alex Jones broadcast with Guy Smith, the producer/director of the 9/11 episode in BBC2’s conspiracy series, and I was dismayed to note that Alex and his fellow interviewers had Smith cornered, on several occasions, but they let him wriggle away.

This was very depressing, because there is one piece of video evidence which needs no interpretation, although a comparison is helpful, and an almost perfect comparison is currently available on the net.

By way of explanation, please read the following comment which I have just submitted to a BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
It is in response to the top item, submitted by Peter Horrocks and headed.... get this:

‘Trusting the BBC’

Here is what I wrote.

[Bongo]

I have got to admit, when listening to Guy Smith on Alex Jones show, I too was a little frustrated that they let him wriggle away. I think a little part of this may be because Guy Smith didn't need to go on the show and if he had been pressed too hard they may not get him back on again (which he did promise at the end).

[gareth]

Link


ha ha ha ha ha!

[telecasterisation]

[locsen]

[QuitTheirClogs]

[wickywoowoo]

[Stefan]

I think pandoras box and this video together finally make the Pentagon worth talking about.

I have always maintained that however unlikley, it is by no means a water tight argument just to point to the size of the hole in the pentagon and grunt- furthermore it is even possible that a boeing caused that damage, or at least possible for someone to succesfully win a debate that it could.

And that's how I view all 9/11 truth evidence- if even if you are personally convinced if you can think of an easy answer for it, forget about it.

Pull it? DROP IT!

Look at the size of that hole? NOT WHOLELY CONVINCING!

But what we have here is official black box data matching perfectly with the (insert acronym beggining with N I always forget here), matching perfectly with all close by eye witness accounts (including 2 pentagon police who laugh and unwittingly say there is 0% chance the official story is true) to the true flight path and contradicting the official one.

That's solid, in fact it may just be the most solid piece of evidence we have and I'm finally happy to discuss the pentagon.

Good work Calum, JohnDoeX et all.

When people say "I don't beleive it because they'd make some mistake somewhere" WAKE UP critics- they made them everywhere other wise there'd be no 9/11 truth. In this instance I'd SPECULATE that the light poles were to convince people that the plane was flying lower than it was, and they were taken out on the wrong side, leaving the authority no choice but to claim a flight path which could easily be refuted. A silly mistake leading to an enforced massive warping of their planned story. They must have had their fingers crossed for years hoping no one would spot this one. And then Calum decided to write a letter. LOL!

[QuitTheirClogs]

My suspicions are that they needed the plane to be flying low (rather than making a dive) so it could fly over the Pentagon. And the reason why they didn’t want the plane to hit the Pentagon is because the damage would have been too unpredictable.

One problem with the video is it leaves the question of what happened to the passengers. And this question seems to be a major block for a lot of people. I think this would be less of a problem if the fly over were presented as only a possibility.

I felt the video didn’t deal with the faked light poles very well. I’ve seen something else on this somewhere – and I’ve only watched the video once – so I may be getting a bit confused on this. But I don’t remember the video suggesting anything as to how the light poles could have been faked. If people believe the light poles could not have been faked, then they’ll conclude that the witnesses and the flight path data must be wrong.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

The aeroplane's route was to the left of the petrol station looking square on to the Pentagon so the downed light poles were faked and if that plane had hit the Pentagon it would have impacted other light poles. I'm just not clear about the film's supposition that the explosion was down to preplaced explosives, surely they would have had themselves a more convincing impact hole and didn't it take 'route one' through the three rings, the trajectory curiously pre-traced out on the Pentagon lawn with weed killer or something similar?

If the US government were to release ALL the Pentagon 9/11 CCTV footage AND all the FBI confiscated private business and freeway film to be analysed by several credible independent laboratories , we may learn what hit the Pentagon 9/11, but they won't for reasons better known to themselves.

[rodin]

I think the Pentacon video will connect with people who don't even understand freefall. Both policemen drew the trajectory of the jet. And it was a perfect match. That's the kind of thing the public like to see - simple, graphic, in yer face. And one of the policemen was caught on security camera and was in a position where he could not have seen the plane if it came in on the other side of the gas station.

So the toppled light poles are faked evidence. I think anyone could see that.

However, I have had a conversation with someone over the faked Luon train witness statements on 7/7. Their response? Well they probably made it up, but they wouldn't have bombed the tube...

How and why were the light poles felled? Before the Pentagon 'strike'?

Is there any CCTV footage showing the state of the light poles in the hours and minutes running up to 911? Point being that the idea that evidence might be fabricated to support a true story, silly though it is, has been used as a defence against letting the horrible truth in, wheras if foreknowledge can be shown, this is de facto proof of an inside job/conspiracy.

Why the 5 dancing Israelis evidence is crucial. An admission of foreknowledge caught on video.

[Stefan]

I think the best clue as to why not just to hit the pentagon with a plane lies with a nugget from the talk Snowygrouch gave at UEL- that the computers which contained all the records relating to the huge fortune unaccounted for in the pentagon accounts (announced september the 10th 2001) were all completley conviently destroyed when the "plane hit". Could you really rely on a plane impact to do that job so neatly?

After the wtin towers, the Pentagon was kind of superflous anyway- it raised more questions than they would be comfortable with and didn't really bring any more political curency for them- if we are going to speculate we may as well look for logical reasons (for example, isn't it more logical to look at the corproate crime files which were destroyed in WTC7 rather than suggest they couldn't possibly cover up a control room in the building without blowing it up?) they would want to take extra risks like the Pentagon and WTC7- that they were maybe trying to kill as many birds with a single stone as they could?

It's just speculation but it would be lot easier to wire them with bombs, put a small plane into the same area, small enough to fit into the gutted area under renovation to create some wreckage and just blow it up.

Sure, the plane still could have been made to hit it, if it transpires it did fly over then it will remain a mystery as to why they didn't just hit it with a plane as well as set off a bomb and be done with it. It's one of those things we will probably never know.

But speculation aside, it really doesn't matter:

We KNOW the official story lied re. the Pentagon- and we can prove it. Or for public purposes, we know the official story re. the Pentagon has innacurcies, and this needs to be looked into to gain clarity on what really happened

[Anthony Lawson]

Check First, Report Second

locsen/Bruce Kent wrote:

[Serge]

[KP50]

The Pentagon incident has always been muddied by the copious numbers of witnesses, and the lack of agreement between such witnesses. Now either there was more than one plane that hit the Pentagon and they are all correct or some of them are lying.

So what the Pentacon film does is place witnesses in a location where they can see what happened, while the Citgo CCTV confirms that they were actually there to witness the event. Thus either all 4 witnesses were incorrect in exactly the same way, all 4 witnesses are telling a false story for some reason or the plane never went near the downed light poles.

And if the poles were severed to make it look like a plane knocked them over - then the whole 9/11 charade comes crashing down, WTC, Flight 93 and all.

A great piece of work .....

[xmasdale]