Trailer - Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off

[Ravenmoon]

Trailer for "The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off"

Here is the trailer for our upcoming presentation that will reveal more groundbreaking evidence independently obtained by CIT. This new full length feature will show you exactly why and how they were able to pull off the Pentagon flyover and we will present new evidence proving the official black box and radar data fraudulent. Stay tuned to ThePentaCon.com for the February 2008 release of this explosive information.


Link

[gareth]

I found the following critiques of The Pentacon by Arabesque exceptionally well written. Amazing stuff:

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy

Pentagon Flyover Theory: RIP

A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’ Pentagon Flyover or “Left/Right” Straw-man Argument?

[TonyGosling]

Sorry guys but the trailer doesn't make me want to see this film.
There's nothing in there to whet the appetite.

[Lee]

[TonyGosling]

Well... yes, but the trailer doesn't sell it very well.

IMO it should give away a little more than it does - obviously not everything - but not nothing either.

I'm nevertheless looking forward to seeing the finished film.

[marky 54]

out of intrest was the DNA and plane part photo's and witnesses considered before the making of this presentation?

if so, can somebody give a brief description as to why these pieces of evidence the offical version puts forward was discounted or ignored?

does the upcoming presentation go into these pieces of evidence and if so is there evidence showing the offical evidence to be wrong.

or is this presentation just wiping the slate clean, as if nothing else exsisted, and then building a theory around the evidence or reasons why it is believed there was a fly over, whilst ignoring all or some of the presented evidence via the offical version?

imo if the offical version is wrong, the thing that matters most is proving wrong the offical evidence that says x, y, and z happened and heres a,b,and c to prove it, as oppose to theorizing about what might of happened whilst challenging some claims in the offical version, but not all.

its alright giving the case of a fly over, but if the DNA for example is'nt explained then its a waste of time. as the DNA will always be something along with other 'offical' evidence that people will always look to, to prove wrong any claims in the video.

is there any evidence the DNA evidence is'nt factual other than people just saying it could not survive the fire? i mean actual proof.

i did a search and found nothing provable and very little mention of DNA on truth sites.

[Chris Walsh]

I have always wondered about the so-called DNA evidence, and particularly how it doesn't sit well with one of the 'official theories' that much of the plane was vapourised when it crashed. Surely this would destroy all DNA evidence.

Has anyone actually seen any physical evidence purporting to the DNA? I have always thought it never existed and that the US government version of events relies on this fallacy as a way to pacify those that question the Pentagon incident as irrational. Lots of people watch CSI and other forensic programmes and have thus been 'programmed' to believe that when the letters DNA occur the case is solved and they can go back to sleep.

I might be wrong, but the Pentagon questions are always going to be shot down by people who assume this position. And since there is photo evidence of some plane parts - although I'm not sure they're from the 747s - people always have a hard time explaining that away.

However, one thing that could clear up the whole mess is some FBI video tape releasing or Pentagon CCTV footage that doesn't just show five frames. The Flyover thing will be interesting if it can at least disprove the flight path data.