9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...

After watching the second video again, I now think the frame rate is correct, with no frames missing. But does that small white streak look like a commercial airliner?

Ghandi 2 wrote: [QUOTE=Fitzcarraldo] In the interests of informed debate, there is a point-by-point rebuttal of the above-mentioned '911 Loose Change' documentary, posted at the following Web site:   http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc [/QUOTE] After watching a significant portion of Loose Change and reading most of that document, I must say that I side with the document: It cites its claims and shows more than one photograph of each item in question, and Loose Change does not.

I agree with you.

The document is 146 (A4) pages long. It takes several hours to read properly and identifies clear errors of fact in the '911 Loose Change' video, supported by citations. It also provides textual references, quotes, media photographs and videos that provide further information, giving additional insight.

I do hope that the people posting in this thread will take the time to read the complete document. It is easier to watch a video then read such a document, but one cannot discuss these matters without taking time to study the materials.

I would be interested to know if Professor Jones of Brigham Young University has read this document, and what his comments are on it.

Tony R wrote: I read it. I might never read again!

It isn't easy going, is it? But the additional information on the large-scale fire and damage to the other side of WTC7 (as far as I recall, the other videos I have seen only show the undamaged side) is important. As is his analysis of the Pentagon attack, which is very detailed.

Still too many questions, Fitzcarraldo. Why did they fall like a controlled demolition- no skyscraper has ever fallen down previously. Why didn't the top of the first tower to fall not fall into the city as it had started to? Why where a number of explosion heard pre the collapse of the towers. Why was the Pentagon hit 1 hour and how many minutes after the intial event (this in itself is a damning epitath to America's readiness to defend itself)? Why were high officials warned not to fly on the day. Why did the President continue to look nonchalant in a classroom after an aide had told him "America is under attack"? Why the stock put options? Why so many paper leads to the supposed hijackers and CIA. Why did the CIA and FBI gag so many of their own. Why did those who failed in their capacity and duty receive promotions?There are a myriad more questions. If something smells like sh*t, there's a fair chance that it just might be rotten.
    

Edited by cobb - May 19 2006 at 20:48

Yes I have, but It still doesn't put to rest my unease, like the rest of the 'official' stories. I even know the link you posted needs to be edited to get to the word document.
[edit] What I haven't done is watch the video that it criticises
    
    

Edited by cobb - May 19 2006 at 20:53

Here's another conspiracy theory:
Why are Admins now coming out in favour of the official story? Has M@X been contacted by the official story wielders, like the rest of the media seems to have been?
This is just making fun... or is it?

I have now been through parts of the "de-myth" site, and I must say I am somewhat underwhelmed.

 

First, their alleged claims re WTC 7 ring incredibly hollow.  One need only watch and listen to Larry Silverstein re his comment about "pullling" the building, and everything about his tone, body language, etc. indicates exactly what he means: "pull" means controlled demolition.  As well, the site wants us to believe that Larry Silverstein, a professional developer for over 50 years, would not know the industry term "pull?"  Give me a break - of course he would.  As for the damage to the building, it almost does not matter whether it was one fire, 2, 3 or 23, or how much of the building was on fire.  The manner in which it fell was simply not in keeping with a haphazard collapse.  The building fell at free fall speed into its own footprint.  And no matter how much spin anyone puts on it, that can only happen in a controlled demolition, because in order far a building to fall at free fall speed, the interior structure must be completely destroyed first – and the only way to do that is with explosives.  Period.  As well, they outright lie about the FEMA report: it does not state that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to the fires in the building.  Both the FEMA and NIST reports are “inconclusive” about the cause of the collapse.  That one is easy to find because both reports can be accessed.

 

So as far as their “de-mythification” of WTC 7 goes, they fail utterly.

 

Re wreckage at the Pentagon, they use photos and identify certain parts as those of a 757.  Yet Loose Change was far more specific about those parts: and that they could not possibly have come from a 757.  Indeed, Loose Change does a thorough report on at least three of those parts, including the supposed engine piece, down to the details of the structure of each piece.  The “de-myth” site gives nothing of the sort: all it gives is a perfunctory “identification” of the parts as belonging to a 757.  Poppycock.

 

I also want to add something about “witnesses” to the Pentagon crash.  First, I would completely disregard any statement made by a Pentagon employee, for obvious reasons.  Second, re people in cars on the highway, consider the following.  When you are in a car, what is your actual field of vision?  Unless you are in a convertible or have a sunroof, your vertical field is extremely limited.  And your horizontal field is limited to what you can see out the windshield and the side and back windows.  Are you telling me that someone in a car could identify an aircraft moving at 450+ miles per hour as, without question, “An American Airlines plane?”  First, it is unlikely that they would see much of the plane at all due to limited field of vision.  Second, even if they did see the plane, at that speed it would be little more than a blur, and they might see it for perhaps 5-10 seconds.  Third, unless they were positioned absolutely perfectly relative to the plane, there is no way they could identify the logo, due to limited field of vision and speed of the plane.  Thus, anyone who says, with absolute certainty, “It was an American Airlines plane” is highly suspect.

 

So far, the de-myth site has not changed anything for me.  Because Loose Change is only one of many 9/11 truth videos, books, etc. that provide an extraordinary wealth of facts, extensive research, frame-by-frame analysis of video footage, and other data re the 9/11 attacks.

 

You might also want to ask yourself: who is funding the “de-myth” sites?  Did that ever occur to you?  We know who is funding the 9/11 truth sites: a wide variety of individuals, organizations, journalists, etc. who are simply troubled by the questions that remain, and omissions and distortions in the “official story.”  Yet if you track most of the “de-myth” sites, you will find that they are funded at least partly by government or quasi-government individuals and agencies.  Yes, each side has its “agenda.”  But consider what those agendas are: for the 9/11 truth movement, a more thorough investigation of 9/11 by a truly non-partisan commission that does not have myriad conflicts of interest; for the government and “de-myth” sites, the maintaining of at least partial fictions – if not outright lies – about what occurred on 9/11.

 

Each of us needs to find our place in this by considering the totality of what all of this means, and not whether one site or another is more accurate than another site.  If your gut tells you that the “official story” is correct – that 19 Arab men with plastic knives and boxcutters foiled the entire military and airlines apparatuses of the United States – then by all means stick with your gut.  But if your gut – or your logic, common sense or discernment – tells you that “there is something rotten in the state of Denmark," and that the “official story” is so full of holes that you could….fly an airplane through it, then don’t keep it to yourself.  This is far too important to keep to yourself.

 

Peace.

Edited by maani - May 19 2006 at 23:12

The Loose Change video does err on occasion and maybe some of their witnesses were insignificant, but they still make mostly valid points.

And the CCTV Video is inconclusive and the document glosses over the 5 stills and has one cursory remark about frame rates...

I was reading on a forum about the frame rate issues and the film may have frames missing, or it has been manipulated in some way.  But of course, this is all conjecture.

But out of issues made, two stand out for me:

1. The way the two towers (as well as 7 WTC) collapse, appearing to be under controlled explosion conditions
2. The CCTV footage that should show a lot more, but shows nothing.  A 757 would fill more space, in my opinion

One last remark, but not aimed at any theories in particular, but just an obeservation...

You'l find in a lot of Aircraft crashes, that the tailplane survives relatively intact.

I quite agree Peter, but if this is fake, it opens up a massive can of worms about the American Government (I mean, it's obvious they're corrupt anyway, but this makes it very big indeed).

But we will never know, so we debate it until we bore everyone to tears.

Ghandi 2 wrote: cobb wrote: Still too many questions, Fitzcarraldo. Why did they fall like a controlled demolition- no skyscraper has ever fallen down previously. I'm pretty sure that other skyscrapers have fallen down. However, even if no building has ever fallen down before, they weren't hit by a 100 ton 747 going 550 mph! Fact: These Buildings were designed to take a 7 series commercial airliner impact and no skyscraper has ever fallen in history, that wasn't purposely brought down Why was the Pentagon hit 1 hour and how many minutes after the intial event (this in itself is a damning epitath to America's readiness to defend itself)? We're not at war; we don't have planes constantly ready to scramble, as that is very expensive and Clinton cut back the military significantly to fund other things, such as Welfare. We had planes ready, but it takes a long time to get a plane from being ready for flight to actually getting it in the air. Fact: these same planes that remained grounded on 9/11 had 47 scrambles in the previous year up to 9/11 for airliners that had reported loss of radio, passenger trouble, etc Why were high officials warned not to fly on the day. The paper talks about this much better than I can.   Why did the President continue to look nonchalant in a classroom after an aide had told him "America is under attack"? It's called keeping up appearances. What was he supposed to do, make a mad dash for the limo? There wasn't really anything he could immediately anyway. Keeping up appearances. His aide told him America was under attack... Does keeping up appearances warrant here. Or did he already know what was going on.  Why did those who failed in their capacity and duty receive promotions? Because demoting people who failed during a tragedy is not politic. Yeah, that makes sense... cobb wrote: So I ask again, how quickly does an explosion occur. Look at the second video (new link in above post). Clearly 4 frames capture the explosion  Fire and smoke from an explosion rise much slower than 500 miles per hour.

I'll concede that - but still, why does the white blur not look like what they say it is. To me it looks a little like a missle.
    
    

Edited by cobb - May 20 2006 at 00:41