New pentagon video is a psyop!

[survooo]

This is a psyop designed to distract us from the facts.
Go to alex jones's site and read the articles, listen to his show 16 may 2006.
Spread the this post to as many forums as possible. Lets crush this psyop!


http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/pentagon_plane_release.htm
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/pentagon_video_is_giant_psyop. htm

Go to his website and listen to his radio show from today.
http://www.infowars.com/

[andrewwatson]

We are probably best to steer clear of the Pentagon and concentrate on the known facts. Alex Jones could be right - he does tend to be.

Speaking for myself, however, I can barely believe that a jumbo could skim that low across the lawn and not leave one trace.

My head says beware a trap, but my instinct says we've got them on the ropes.

[Hazzard]

After what ive seen of the "new" video. Im even more disapionted in the government.

They arnt even a worthy foe. Just a bunch of powerful thugs.

I honestly cant believe people accepted this media release. What a joke.

Even if they showed a 747 I knew it would be fake, but this just takes the piss.

[uselesseater]

Yes. Jones' videos generaly don't deal with the pentagon stuff as he says there is evidence both ways making it impossible to prove the existence of a plane or not. Just because they confiscated all the video tapes doesn't mean there is anything to hide.

Intelligence agencies like to create strawmen theories which people will latch onto and then, later discredit them by releasing evidence, hopeing to discredit all other theories.

I think we would all be well advised to stick to what we can prove at all costs.

[freddie]

absolutely - sticking to the strongest arguements is crucial. I've had a bad feeling for a while now that this pentagon issue is a trap. If this is the case then all we've got to do is spring it and the PTB have one less tool against us.

Just think of the timing of this: 9-11 documentaries are reaching more and more people everyday, faster than ever before with things like google video; Bush's approval rating is at record low, the continued/increased tension with Iran and of course the huge 9-11 truth meeting next month.

I've got a feeling that come this September we're going to be seeing this issue make a leap one way or the other - there's no way they can get through the 5 year anniversary without the ever growing number of truth seekers raining on their parade ... bring on monsoon season! The wetter the better.

[kookomula]

Trap or not. I don't think it's an unreasonable to want to see the tapes. Why should these videos remain secret there is no reason. I think there is enough evidence to provide us with reasonable doubt, eyewitnesses, lack of physical evidence, DNA recovered??? Wasn't there one eyewitness who worked at the Pentagon who will swear that there was no plane.

[Garrett Cooke]

There is no doubt that NO large plane hit the Pentagon (see e. g. http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies43.htm). This ruse (suggesting that the evidence is not good enough) I suggest is to try and put people off the scent and delay the presentation of Pentagon evidence.

Indulge me in a little speculation. No large plane hit that Pentagon. So it was either a small plane and/or a missile and/or fixed explosives (i.e. a bomb was planted). The US Government must know that no serious researchers are going to buy the F77 scenario any more. However they (the Govmt) have to play a game of pretending to justify this scenario while actually showing what amounts to evidence for (their) favoured alternate scenario. The recently released footage, from what I can determine, is video containing the previously released 5 frames. It shows something; but certainly not a large passenger plane. But it could be a missile or a small plane? So I suggest that this footage was released not to justify the F77 hypothesis but to indirectly point to a missile (or small plane) being the perp. This all draws attention from the (perhaps) true explanation i.e. a bomb was planted. The missile and/or small plane will never be provable and then (the US Govmnt hope) researchers will go around forever in cicles (small plane - missile - small plane - missile...) The bomb theory forgotten. This is just speculation, I know no better than any readers.

Garrett

[kbo234]

Alex Jones says he has been smelling a rat about the Pentagon evidence for a long time.

I think he is right.

Why is this this video becoming an issue on the news now?

The 'All-seeing eye' knows that 911 truthseekers are making advances in leaps and bounds. They need to knock us back. They will never fight on the issue of 'controlled demolitions'. There is no profit for them in this. The Pentagon offers far more promise.

They are being 'forced' to slowly reveal more and more of the evidence in response to legal actions by an organisation called 'Judicial Watch'. The latest release of ambiguous frames is to establish their integrity in the eyes of the public and commentators (no obvious photoshopping here). The next film they are 'forced' to release might be quite different. It might use the Sheraton film and show an airliner strike the Pentagon. We all know this stuff is easy to fake.

It is likely that something like this will happen. It would be a large public setback for all 'conspiracy theorists'. It would keep the media talking about the Pentagon rather than WTC's 7, 1 and 2. We will end up arguing fiercely about something we should really be deciding not to talk about at all.

I think we should go back to lobbying media, politicians etc about the 'controlled demolition' issue alone. The Pentagon and flight 93 are minefields for us. They are distractions. If we get publicly embroiled in these issues it will be quite difficult to convince the public at large in the face of massive and overwhelming media propaganda that seeks only to discredit everything we say.

We need to give a lot of thought to this because it is already clear that to defend themselves against the allegations of 911truthers these are the grounds on which the guilty party are determined to fight.

“There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible
evil of evil men.” -- Edmund Burke

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)

[kbo234]

Sorry, this is basically the same message as the 'Pentagon is a psyop' thread. I hadn't read that before making previous post.

[DrJazzz]

As I posted on the other thread - could this in fact be whistleblowing? Still it would be nice to have the other videos!

[John White]

I dont think we can say this enough

Its certainly my Point of View that the Pentagon Issue is a Minor sideshow: it really doesnt matter too much if the official story is correct or incorrect on this

The big issues are:

The collapse of WTC1,2, and 7

The stand down of Norad

The protection and training of the highjackers

Which is, as the redoubtable Mr Jones is so correct to say:

Where the proven smoking guns lie

The HIG's (Hods in Government) are very keen to pin the "Pentagon Plane" up as the main and only 911 issue that needs addressing: just one more release of Video showing a large plane slamming into the building (any large plane will do btw) and thats that:a massive psychological blow to the movements credibility amongst all those poor souls still in the hypno zone who believe the "movie" version of reality shown on TV is any reflection of WTF goes on in the world

And meanwhile of course: the blood keeps flowing in the Middle East, the world becomes increasingly less secure every day, and liberty dies by inches across the democratic world day by day

The stakes are definately heating up

Its up to us to force the debate onto the REAL issues

[Andrew Johnson]

For anyone who is interested in what this may be building up to, it is worth checking out what the truth behind the famous JFK Zapruder film is.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/index_old_c ontent.html

(this is a super analysis - and likely what we could expect over the coming months - esp now we have CGI in the hands of a powerful elite)

In summary:

1) It was released about 1 year after the assasination (and was not publicly shown until years later.

2) It showed Kennedy's car in continuous motion.

Close analysis of the film seems to show it was doctored very skillyfully - probably to add misinformation into the game. i.e. Witness in Dealey Plaza described how Kennedy's car stopped at the time shots were fired, then accelerated. Releasing the Zapruder film neatly discredited those witnesses and, by inference, there assertions about shots fired - how can statements be taken seriously from such "unerliable" witnesses?

This is the game, I think...

[Justin]

Hi everyone on this thread who have contributed so far.

As I pointed out on a previous thread the other day to do with the Pentagon, my own belief is that we attack on ALL FRONTS. Having talked to airline pilots, one of whom actually flies 757s for a living, they are convinced that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757. The below average piloting skills of Hani Hanjour, the alleged high altitude telephone calls from Barbara Olsen, a decorated war hero pilot giving up his seat and responsibilities easily to the hijackers, the lack of damage to the Pentagon's facade where the tail plane and wings would have hit, a soft carbon fibre nose cone that penetrate six walls and yet could be damaged by a bird strike....the list goes on and on.

Yes, I'm sure the PTB will no doubt eventually reveal 'footage' from the hotel or filling station which, having had four years to rearrange all the pixels, will look like a 757 flying on its merry way to the Pentagon, but no one is going to take it very seriously, especially as we are, quite rightly, flagging up the possibility they are trying to set a trap for the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Like most of you, I'm sure, I find David Ray Griffin's book 'New Pearl Harbor' and our own Ian Henshall's and Rowland Morgan's book '911 Revealed' to be the two best books for us to be guided by for our campaigning. If they feel the Pentagon strike is no longer of such importance then I would be prepared to change my mind, but until then, can I please urge all of you to campaign as hard on the Pentagon just as much as we do on WTC1,2 and 7 and the military stand down etc. We are starting to make a difference and you can feel the momentum building up. Twelve months from now and who knows.....we might even be allowed to disband with job well done!

[Andrew Johnson]

I agree with Justin.

We can see from all the evidence at the Pentagon that whatever hit it, there are 1000 questions to be answered - for example about what happened immediately before and after the event.

Something a light airplane hit it, some a missile - but that's beside the point.

Some also argue the collapse of the WTC buildings does not (soley going by the official account) break the laws of physics. Sorry, but in both cases the body of evidence shows the official story is a lie. Let's remember that

[Sinclair]

I see no reason to stop drawing attention to the no Flight 77 plane issue.

However, All the anomalous events should be 'pushed'.

Let's feed the renewed public interest with our campaign material.

[John White]

If were talking military tactics, fine, Id like to introduce the concept of a "false flank"

This is where we appear to push forward on all fronts, but fall back where the battle line is weakest, bring the enemy on, and then drive hard into the real objective

as a general observation:

Does anyone disagree that the Pentagon is where the truth movement is at its weakest? And if so, why so?

[Jayhawk]

What is very interesting also about this is that on the full 3 minute video which is on You tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8 (annoyingly doesnt seem to be working at the moment) after about a minute a car crosses the line of the camera in full motion from right to left, but at the crucial point later on we have reverted to half a second frames. Isnt this very strange?

[Spectre]

If a plane really hit that building we would have seen the video films by now. It would justify their story and make us look ridiculous, and there simply would be no reason to withhold them.

No plane in sight = no videos worth showing.

[uselesseater]

[uselesseater]

[Newspeak International]

[Hazzard]

I dont think any side of the truth is weak. Whatever new proofs they throw at us no matter how convincing we know what happened, we may not know the details but that is theirs to keep, and who needs them.

[kookomula]

Old news but I think, personally I have to go through what it was that made me believe in the first place. I don't see why many of you are backing away from this. For me the reason it has come up first may not necessarily be that it is a weak point but that it is the first thing that many seeing this information for the first time say "Why are these tapes not available?"


Danielle O'Brien, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9.25 said: "The speed, the maneurverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane".

HOW DOES THIS STATEMENT SIT WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE WERE TWO PLANES?

Another witness, seeing the plane from from a 14th floor apartment in Pentagon City, said that it seemed to be able to hold eight or twelve persons" and "made a shrill noise like a fighter plane". Lois Rains, editor at Space Week, said: 'I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane". Still another witness, who saw it from his automobile, was reported as saying that it "was like a cruise missile with wings".

This report if true - and someone could presumably interview the employee, Jose Velasquez - suggests that the FBI had known that an aircraft was going to crash into the Pentagon. How else can we explain that they got there "within minutes"? And, more directly germane to our present topic, it also suggests that the FBI officials feared that the gas station's security cameras might have captured something about the crash scene that they did not want the press or the public to see...".

All taken from "The Pearl Harbor".

Lots more points to make but later too tired now.

[freebird]

i've read somewhere an article by an airline pilot who stated that it is impossible to fly such a large plane at such a low altitude at such a high speed,something to do with lift and the workings of a jet engine.I don't know how true this is but it may be worth looking into,if anyone has any info on this i'd like to find out more.

[blackcat]

A pilot told me the following:-

"There is a phenomenon called ground effect that acts as a cushion of air under an aircraft when flying parallel to and near (or nearly so) the ground. When flying in ground effect there is a noticeable increase in performance, i.e., speed, usually starting about a wing length above ground . It can be very useful or problematic, depending on the skill level of the pilot, during landing. At the speed that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was going it would be nearly impossible for the pilot to force contact with the ground while having that cushion of air under the aircraft. Very much the opposite of what one without functional knowledge of aircraft performance might expect. There have been cases where pilots low on fuel while over water have used ground effect to extend their range to safely reach terra firma and land."

[orestes]

Sure, so he couldn't force the plane to the ground. Why would he want to? Isn't the question whether he could keep the plane stable and avoid the things he was said to avoid etc?

[freebird]

to blackcat: did the pilot tell you whether or not it was possible to execute this manoeveur given what we have been told about the flight path of the plane in question?

[freddie]

orestes,,, the reason people talk about ground effect is because the rough outline of a plane (about 90ft wide on ground floor and 18ft wide on 1st floor) requires the plane to have been traveling almost with it's belly on the ground - either that or it came in at a wicked angle that planted the nose down perectly at the base of the building.

[paul wright]

I'm not too sure we should be too insecure over varieties of data
The trained slaves of the established press are worked into a a slaver of derision over something as trivial and disinformationist as the Da Vinci Code
They hate anything that threatens their conveyed view of history and how things are
An ineffectual majority opinion will buy off certain publications like the Express over the Diana assassination
Until the Sun and the Mirror can express on their front pages that 9/11 was a done job, and a one off rather than a pattern, falsely, through the conviction of their readership, we can expect no change

[Garrett Cooke]

All we can do is present the evidence as we see it. It we try and play some strategic game of concentrating on this aspect or that because we are trying to anticipate what move 'they' will try next I suggest we are lost. No (I suggest) 'they' are scared and using whatever means to try and put the Pentagon issue on the back burner. There is an implied threat of releasing (photoshopped) video showing F77 (or a large plane) but there is already sufficient evidence to discredit such video should it be released. Surely we have confidence in the evidence: hole too small; no large plane parts; lawn untouched; no impact of the engines etc etc.

If 'they' had real evidence that F77 hit the Penatagon it would have come out before now.

Garrett