The Pentagon Incident

[Bushwacker]

KP50 would also like discussed what he calls rather strangely "the Pentagon incident" as he says it is obvious that many witnesses are lying. He would like it proved why the "lamp strike" crew are correct while the Citgo crowd are all lying with exactly the same story. He does not care to explain much, he says if you don't understand what he is talking about, maybe you need to do more research .....

[Stefan]

Bush Whacker,
I'd agree with KP on this one, although I wouldn't say any witnesses were lying per se.

The witnesses interviewed in the PentaCon (have you seen this yet?) are probably the most important, as they are the three with a standing vantage point of the Pentagon and one with a clear vantage point of the Navy annex.

With each all that is really needed is to answer "did it go this side or the other side of this building?" in order to confirm whether the flight data or the "official" flight path is correct. Furthermore each drew an estimated flight path onto an ariel photograph which matched each other well and without any deliberation between them.

The position that if they are telling the truth others must be lying does not sit true either. To understand this you have to understand how the memory works, and how this relates to eye witness accounts.

I've been using a general political forum for some time, after seeing this film I brought it up there and the immediate response was "what about all the people who SAW it hit the light poles". So I had a look at their testimoney, among them I found one of the pentagon police officers who in the film admitted he hadn't seen that really at all.

[PP]"Well you can't really see them from here, but I know it hit them because I read it"

What he had in fact done was to insert something he considered he knew about the incident as an illustrative point to work with what he saw:

"It was flying low; so low it hit some light poles"

He SAW it flying low, he ILLUSTRATED that point by inserting the information about the light poles.

Looking through the testimoney there is no absolutley explicit piece of testimoney where I could not consider a similar "illustrative" use of the reported light poles was inserted, except of course the taxi driver, whoes testimony is bizarre and inconsistant.

What is important to remember is three key points:

1) Even for the witnesses best placed, this incident happened over .5 to 2 seconds. In reality there is very little sense data the mind can process in this time and it creativly merges the little it captures into a coherent event. This is the basis of all "sleight of hand" tricks magicians perform, through part distraction and part speed of action they trick the brain into thinking they saw something they didn't. The real series of impressions a person can have had was "Big plane! Flying low! Straight at pentagon! Huge fire ball" The mind then weaves a more coherent memory out of what was in reality a confusing flash of images, when the person learns (or believes they have learned) more about the incident the memory creativley refines further.

2) The overwhelming majority of witnesses were in fast moving cars on highways (or motorways to us), not only did they have virtually no time to take in these events, they were not at a standing point and judging exactly where the plane flew would be a lot more difficult. This alone makes the PentaCon witnesses of a far greater value than the bulk of other witnesses.

3) The PentaCon properly interviews the witnessess and delves into vauge statements, it takes estimated flight paths and asks all the logical questions. Before this the body of testimony regarding this event was a sentance to a short paragraph in newspapers, on TV and in reports on the event. Look how eaily the PentaCon cop who previously claimed to have seen light poles being hit clarified the truth with a simple question "did you actually see them?" we can't question a line of text like this. You also cannot discern what flight path they are even claiming. There was an assumption in the forum I use and I'm sure you are making it as well, that every witness not in the PentaCon is claiming the official flight path, when in fact that is not clear at all because there are no questions about exactly where the plane was in the snippets of testimony we previously had.

Further more, these four witnesses are not the sum total the Citizen's Investigation Team's work. A "Researchers Edition" is due out soon, delayed, as I understand, because they have a new 15th witness to add to the existing 14 in that copy. They claim all of them in fact back up a flight path which (unsurprisingly) supports that found on the FDR readout and animation than the official story's suggested path.

Let's just wait and see.

I'll finish with a question I always wonder about critics. How strong are your minds?

A verse in the Tao Te Ching states that the tree which does not bend in the breeze will snap in a storm; pointing out that mental flexibility is strength while single minded and dogged adherence to a pre formed view, while appearing strong, is infact a sign of weakness.

I try and keep this verse with me at all times. Take the Pentagon. While at first I bought the argument that the damage done to the pentagon couldn't have been done by a Boeing, I was provided information by someone I was debating that, while incredibly unliekly, it was not impossible that this did happen. At that point I dropped the Pentagon as a subject of discussion. When the FDR and PentaCon came out I again changed my thinking on the issue as there was now strong evidence to suggest the official story was false.

I am willing to drop alternate theory elements when they prove untennable, but are you guys EVER going to drop a part of the official story (WTC7 for example, or what we are discussing here) when the evidence out weights the official story, as in these cases it has.

What I am asking, I supose, is whether your aim is to find the truth, or to not back down at any costs, regardless of the evidence?

[pepik]

I think this is the "infinite argumentativeness" approach. Take a discrepancy, ignore the fact that it is totally irrelvant to anything, and try to make a huge issue out of it. This is where the 911 truth is going, sadly, as the big conspiracy machine struggles to keep the required flow of new "evidence", new stories, new REVENUE.

[Stefan]

"Pointless arguments" presumably being those you have no answer for?

[KP50]

The plane either took a path to hit the lamp posts or it didn't. The flight recorder and Citgo gas station witnesses suggest it didn't - and you are left with the taxi driver with the smashed windscreen and undamaged bonnet. Ergo somebody is lying, they can't all be correct - unless there were actually 2 planes ......

[Stefan]

KP,
After saying nobody was lying, I did qualify that the Taxi drivers testimoney was inconsistant. He is either very confused or lying. On the C.I.T. forum there is a thread about an interview they did with him, and it seemed fairly inconsistant even with itself, not to say completley inconsistant with all other solid evidence. He was also described as a bit senile and confused.

The two photographs of the taxi appear to be in two separate places, as you rightly point out, the damage done to the cab is not at all consistant with a light pole hitting it, and the whole scene appears stages.

The light poles themselves suffer odd damage, one of them bent at a right angle and one (so I read anyway) having actually been knocked AWAY from the direction of the pentagon. None of them were knocked far from the initial positions, suggesting an airliner flying hundreds of miles an hour hit them, they seem very much placed.

[pepik]

[Stefan]

Pepik,
So basically you are saying you refuse to offer any explanation for the descrepancies between what the FDR and witness statements showed and the government stated?

It becomes "irrelevant" when you can't answer it right?

OK mate, I'll leave you to it

[pepik]

I'm saying i'm very excited to hear your alternative theory and why it makes more sense than the official story. Arguing about lamposts, no, not really interested, although if you'd like to elaborate on the CIA lampost dislodgers, go ahead.

Until the entirely of the alternative explanation for what happened at the Pentagon makes more sense than the entirely of the official story, I will go with the most plausible scenario.

Its like a court case. Both sides make cases, one side wins. So far you are a loser.

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

like a courtcase my *** , if it was like a courtcase why are they scared of it being on t.v. so the jury(the general public can decide)? sack rossie o'donnell etc, why they scared of her if the offical version is true?

they carnt have it on t.v because as soon as it is and people study it for themselves its obvious!

debunk 9/11 truth with ridicule rather than facts! just like you pepik.

[Bushwacker]

So we have a number of witnesses who saw a plane go North of the Citigo gas station, although how far North varies, a number of witnesses who saw it hit lamp poles, many of them not in fast-moving cars at all, but stationary in traffic, and some downed lamp poles. Pentacon claim that the position of the lamp poles is not consistent with their witnesses, and say those positions are the "official story" As one of their witnesses says, what official story? They kept waving about the ASCE Building Performance Report, written by volunteers from a professional body, as though it was official. It does not anyway plot the position of the lamp poles, as far as I can see. so in essence what we seem to have is one lot of eye witnesses collected by internet researchers contradicting an analysis of fallen lamp poles done by another internet researcher. Not much of a smoking gun really!

What eye witnesses actually saw in a truly terrifying split second is never going to be very reliable, but the physical evidence is difficult to fake.

What is missing is any suggestion of why the supposed plotters would go to immense trouble to indicate a wrong flight path by somehow managing to plant unobserved a collection of lamp poles, battered as though hit by a plane, and remove the existing ones in such a way as to be consistant with them being knocked over. Why would anyone do that?

Why do the Pentacon people believe their police witnesses about where the plane flew over, but do not believe them that it hit the Pentagon? Why do they not establish properly that what they are seeking to disprove is in some sense an official account? The film is a self-indulgent effort by people who are so immersed in detail that they cannot see the bigger picture at all.

[KP50]

[KP50]

[Bushwacker]

[KP50]

[Bushwacker]

[KP50]

[Bushwacker]

Yes, he could not have got out of his cab before the impact, and it is not easy to see how only the windscreen was smashed. Possibly he is talking about a secondary explosion, not the impact, which he did not see because of the pole hitting his cab. Possibly it was only the curved top of the pole that went through the windscreen. I admit it is not easy to explain just what happened to Mr England, but it is also not easily explained by a false flag operation either.

[KP50]