Pentagon debunking

[sam]

Easily the best debunking of Pentagon "planted evidence" CT (especially relevant to the North of Citgo theory) comes from a CTist, Russel Pickering.

It's here:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=150 13

Well worth a read before that particular forum shuts down. The images still open if clicked. Here's a sample, where he's considering the (subtle) damage to the VDOT (traffic monitoring camera) mast :





"WHO projected the dimensions of a 757 from up on the hill or back at the Pentagon into the mass of poles and trees and decided what would be "hit" and what would not?

WHO actually scuffed the pole, removed the climbing peg and broke the glass?

WHY did they decide to do such a subtle damage that was actually never noticed or discussed until 5 years after 9/11 here in this forum? It was never used to convince the general public of the validity of a plane impact.

HOW did they do it? Did black ops VDOT workers bring in a lift bucket? Did a guy take sandpaper or a grinder to rough the metal up? Did they use a hammer to smash one of the alternating climbing pegs off? If the bucket wasn't tall enough did they climb up the pole anticipating that this would somehow be more authentic if the camera glass was also shattered emulating the vibration of the strike?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE OPERATION?

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE A HUMAN BEING CREATED THIS SCUFF ON PURPOSE TO FAKE YOU OUT?

WHY DIDN'T THEY FLY THE PLANE OVER THIS DAMAGE?

Scuff a pole with hand tools but miss the damage path with a highly sophisticated plane and navigation systems? "

[KP50]

All very interesting although not very much new there. The alleged damage to the tree looks brown which suggests it isn't new damage. Would be interesting to see the film from that traffic camera also .....

It is very far-fetched to believe that the whole flightpath was faked but so many witnesses believe an alternative flightpath - and there are no witnesses from the road to back up the taxi driver's tale - despite it supposedly being a busy road. The taxi driver's tale is still not believable. Not to mention the odd scene where the car and the driver are left alone on the highway without a single car in sight - which enables some striking photos of the car with the burning Pentagon behind. It seems an odd way to deal with a major incident.

Besides the 6 people interviewed who give the north of Citgo flightpath, there are many other accounts of the plane flying over the Navy Annex/Sheraton Hotel. If it flies that path it cannot hit the lightpoles and the impact point, so do you propose that we ignore all of these accounts?

[sam]

[pepik]

Every once in a while its worth mentioning that the entire concept of going to so much trouble to fake a plane crash into the Pentagon, rather than just crashing a plane into the Pentagon, is beyond ridiculous. There is no conceivable logic to explain it.

Anyway, back to the truthers' selective quotations and flippant evidence dismissal.

[sam]

[sam]

[KP50]

[KP50]

[KP50]

[pepik]

This is the part where I ask you what you think happened - no planes crashed anywhere? - and then you absolutely refuse to answer.

Also, I wonder why you keep pretending that you have come up with a flightpath consistent with all the witnesses - yet the only way that can be true is because you ignore all the witnesses who say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, and since that is the relevant fact we are trying to establish, it seems exceedingly dishonest to call your account consistent with eyewitness testimony.

Remember we have plenty of witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. We have zero witnesses who saw anything else hit the Pentagon, or who saw the plane miss the Pentagon. Based on this, you have concluded the witnesses prove the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. And you wonder why 911 truth is going nowhere?

[KP50]

[sam]

[pepik]

How to translate comments by KP50:

The eyewitnesses say = some of the eyewitnesses say, and we have to ignore some of what even those select witnesses say

prove = depends on context. e.g. when eyewitnesses say the plane hit the pentagon and no eyewitnesses say it didn't, that doesn't prove anything. when some eyewitnesses (see above) say the plane approached from a certain angle, that proves the plane approached from that angle.

physically impossible = relevance depends on context. physically impossible is irrelevant for alternative theories, for example if some eyewitnesses (see above) prove (see above) something physically impossible, physically impossibility is irrelevant

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I expect no-one has forgotten the organisation 'Judicial Watch' taking the US government to court in an effort to force them, under FOI, to release ALL the confiscated CCTV of whatever hitting the Pentagon 9/11 and the US authorities compromising by releasing one blurry fish eye lense film of, frankly, nothing conclusive. The 'lamestream' news media presented this story as ...conclusive proof(not that it was needed) of F77 B757 hitting the pentagon September 11 2001 (Though Paxo' did look a bit confused).I just wondered if any critics here concurred with the medias spin that this film release finally once and for all debunked all the CT's?

[sam]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

But the facts remain they lied about there being no film of whatever hitting the Pentagon 9/11, the FBI were on the scene almost immediately confiscating this evidence, they won't release the salvaged alleged F77 plane evidence to square it with Boeing records (a bit like Mugabe and the election results) that shiny unscratched, unscorched piece of fuselage with 'C' (for coincidence theorist
?)that featured in all the propaganda is frankly an insult to our intelligence, the damage was not consistent with being hit by a B757 at 400MPH plus, Pentagon employees were seen being shepherded by FBI picking up and removing evidence among all that blood and body parts, the area was covered many feet deep in sand and the salvage workers were dressed in decontamination suits, was this protection from all that mystery DU contamination?

I'm tired of fruitlessly asking 'the monkeys' these questions, I want the 'organ grinder'!!

[Micpsi]

Here is a scenario: the 9/11 perpetrators knew they could not remote control a Boeing 757 (hi-jacked or otherwise) into the only renovated part of the Pentagon exactly where they wanted to take out the ONI accountants searching into Rumsfeld's missing $trillions (the real motive for the crash). It was just too difficult a task to be so accurate. Therefore, they remote-controlled a smaller plane (as was originally reported by an Irish news agency
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story23320.asp
and which afterwards reported a second plane has hit the Pentagon). This was an easier task because of its greater manoeuvrability and lower speed). This lighter plane did knock over the light poles. However, the perpetrators had to create reports of a large commercial jet being seen flying towards the Pentagon that people who spotted it would mistakenly assume was Flight 77. So they remote-controlled a similar one (seen by the Pentagon police officers) that flew at a different angle and which passed over the Pentagon to land secretly at Regan Airport next door. It was essential to the deception because, without it, no eyewitness reports apparently confirming the official scenario of a large commercial jet plane would have been created.

Discussion about what happened at the Pentagon has been polarised into two contradictory views: either a large jet plane hit the poles or the Pentacon people are right and the knocked-over poles were planted. I have never felt the latter possibility was plausible. However, there is an alternative that is consistent with BOTH accounts: a small plane hit the poles, then crashed into the Pentagon, its small size accounting for the small amount of wreckage and damage to the Pentagon, whilst a large jet flew in the vicinity of the Pentagon in order to provide bogus confirmation of the official story.

[sam]

[telecasterisation]

My understanding is that this question;

[Wibble]

[sam]

[telecasterisation]

[Wibble]

[telecasterisation]

[sam]

[telecasterisation]

[Wibble]

[paul wright]

[Wibble]

[paul wright]