9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...

I agree, do you also believe the same is true with the main towers also?

Here are notes by me, in reference to the debunking of the "Loose Change" video.  Let me know your thoughts.

For example:

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down."

Sounds like they knew of a controlled explosion...

"I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people."

How conventient that they evacuated everyone before 7 WT "collapsed".

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse."

Early on?  Sounds like they changed their minds?  This can be read one of two ways though, so I'll give this one the benefit of the doubt.

"I guess around 3:00 [o'clock]"

He guesses?

"I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. 

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? 

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day."

Two uses of "probably"... so he wasn't sure!

Also: We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

That day?  So he turned up later?  Just a turn of phrase here?  What happened to Visconti?

"but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

Pretty sure?  (x2) - again, unsure.

"That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there."

Hmmm... so they didn't even bother to fight the fire?  Sounds fishy to me.  But again, I'll give this one the benefit of the doubt too.

"We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then."

Yet again a "probably".  How convenient, everyone was back by about 5!  Oh and surely there are records of when it exactly came down?


Please bear in mind I am manipulating the statements to an extreme, nobody is likely to know exact times and unsure statements, are of course common.  But I concur, the last point, especially, could indicate it was a controlled explosion.  I guess it is possible for everyone to have been pulled back, even if it wasn't a controlled explosion.

This just proves how easy it is to read into things.

All:

Re: "So we should decide all this based on our feelings? Ah, facts are such petty things. And it does matter which is more accurate; Loose Change had many, many factual errors, errors of ommision, and blatant distortion of the facts (and perhaps even a few outright lies). I see no proof that the "official story" is manipulating me by; for example, only showing me the UNDAMAGED side of WTC7."

First, I was not suggesting that feelings are more important, much less primarily important, in coming to conclusions and making decisions on one's position. Facts are, indeed, important things. But at times when "facts" are "flexible" (a contradiction in terms, perhaps, but apropos nonetheless), one needs to consider other factors as well. In that regard, a healthy dose of logic, common sense and discernment are helpful. As an aside, while facts are not a "popularity contest," there is some reason to suggest that if 8 experts say one thing and 3 experts say another, the 8 experts are more likely to be right (though not absolutely so, obviously). I have read "expert" reports from both camps (physicists, engineers, fire safety professionals, etc.). And based on my over two years of solid research as a member of the 9/11 truth movement, at least part of my position is based on the fact that far more experts are on the "questioning" side of the "official story" than are on the "fully supporting" side.

As for "factual errors" in Loose Change," those would have to be pointed out to me specifically. Yet even if that is the case, as one of my previous posts noted, I found numerous errors in only two sections of the multi-section "de-myth" report. I can only assume that I would find many others in the other sections. Once again, this is a hopeless "my report is more accurate than your report" sandbox argument.

Re WTC 7, I will repeat (as others have as well) what has been said ad nauseam: it does not matter how much damage was done to WTC 7 by debris from the twin towers or fires or anything else: no steel and concrete building - even skyscrapers - has ever collapsed as the result of fire or fire damage, even when such fires and damage were 10-fold more intense than at WTC 7 (or even the twin towers). Period. End of story. So even if there were more fires than "our side" claims, and more damage to the building, the way the building came down was not a natural result of those fires and damage. It was a controlled demolition of an admittedly damaged building - but it was a controlled demolition nonetheless. Everything points to it - from the fact that the center roof collapsed first, to the free fall speed, to landing squarely in its own footprint (even moreso than the twin towers).

As for the "official story" "manipulating you," this began only hours after 9/11, whether you know it (or accept it) or not. The dissembling, spin and obfuscation of the events of 9/11 by the government and its agencies began on 9/12 and hasn't stopped since.

Finally, it might be worthwhile to remind all the conspiracy skeptics of a couple of facts. First, the Bush Administration fought tooth and nail against a 9/11 investigation of any type for quite some time - despite the vigorous demands of the victims' families. Months later, the Bush Administration begrudgingly agreed to conduct an investigation - and chose Henry Kissinger as the chair of the Commission: a truly cynical and obnoxious choice, one that was roundly rejected by everyone. Finally, a commission was created - comprised almost entirely of Bush (and some Clinton) cronies, all of whom had serious conflicts of interest, from commissioners who sat on the boards of or had vested interests in United or American Airlines, to the lead attorney for the Commission also representing Arab nationals with financial ties to terrorism, to the Executive Director of the Commission, who is a close friend of Condoleezza Rice and was a member of a neocon think tank that included Rice, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. And then, to add insult to injury, the Bush Administration (as well as many individuals and agencies) made every effort to sabotage the investigation by not cooperating, not providing documents requested by the Commission, and not appearing before the Commission - until they were threatened with legal action.

Doesn't all that have to be factored in here? After all, if there was no conspiracy, why did the Bush Administration make every attempt to stifle any investigation whatsoever, then create a Commission of cronies, and then refuse to cooperate with the Commission except when legal action was threatened - or, indeed, taken?

More food for thought.

Peace.

Edited by maani - May 21 2006 at 16:57

Sorry, guys, but I couldn't help but add this one:-


    http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060517_NewDoctoredVideoofPentagonAttackReleaseConfirmsBoeingWasNotInvolved.php

Edited by cobb - May 21 2006 at 22:57

Just something that came into Shoutwire, Blacksword. But it did mirror my own feelings on the subject- where's the damn plane?

I wrote in my previous post that I was calling it a day, but having now watched other videos and read other papers and Web sites, I have come across additional information which I think is worth recording in this thread. For example I have found a reference to the frame speed of the time lapse CCTV camera for the recently released Pentagon video.

The '911 Loose Change' documentary and the Pentagon video are discussed in a BBC article of 17 May 2006 here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4990686.stm

which also has a link to a BBC video report which mentions that the time lapse CCTV camera recorded at half-second intervals.

Two videos were released by the Pentagon, taken from time lapse CCTV cameras at adjacent road barriers. You can find both videos at http://www.911myths.com/html/911_pentagon_links.html, along with a still from the second video and a perspective 2D rendering of a Solidworks 3D scale model of the Pentagon and 757 from the same position (modelling and rendering by a Mike Wilson: http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/). Notice that the aircraft is partially obscured by the pedestal of the barrier. The curly white shape to the right in the video/still appears to me to be smoke. Could it be from ingestion of debris into an engine on impact with one of the five lamp poles?

In the second Pentagon video and on the video still there appears to be a tail fin (vertical stabiliser) on the object, consistent with perspective rendering from Wilson's Solidworks 3D model. I can see the apparent tail fin more easily when I pause the video.

Anyhow, the scale modelling and rendered perspective view show that the object in the Pentagon video is not too small to be a 757.

Furthermore, there is a small blob on the apparent tail in the video still, which could be the AA logo (cf. the tiny AA logo on the tail fin in the Solidworks rendering).You can see a close up of the AA logo on another AA 757 on the following page: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0659730/M/.

One witness said he heard the noise of the aircraft engines "spool up", and several other witnesses said the aircraft was at full or high throttle (http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm).

Consider also the animatations of the 757 scale model and Pentagon that Wilson has posted on his site (http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/).

In a previous post maani stated: "First, as many have pointed out, there is actually nothing on the tape that proves it was a 757: it remains ambiguous, and only creates more questions than it answers."

I agree that the Pentagon video does not prove it was a 757. But when I look at the object in the still or when I pause the video, it appears consistent with the perspective rendering on Wilson's Web site. Factoring in the flight path too, it does not appear to be e.g. a cruise missile (the much smaller length and diameter of a cruise missile are given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_cruise_missile).

In any event, all the debris at the site, plus the witness statements, appear to corroborate other evidence that the aircraft was an American Airlines 757, and the debris and witness statements are clearly better evidence than the Pentagon videos alone (see for example the photos and witness accounts at http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg2.html).

Some information I have today read on Flight 93 on Wikipedia (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93):

QUOTE
The plane crashed into a reclaimed coal strip mine in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the municipalities of Stonycreek Township and Shanksville at 10:03 a.m., according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Other accounts give 10:06 or 10:10 a.m. as the time of impact. According to eyewitness statements, the plane was upside down and swaying when it crashed nose-first into the field. It landed at an estimated speed of 580 miles (933 kilometers) per hour and left a crater about 115 feet (35 meters) deep. All 44 people (including the hijackers) on board were killed.
END QUOTE

Also, to its credit, the following 'conspiracy theory' Web site shows a graphic example of a head-on impact and debunks the erroneous assumption that aircraft crashes always leave large debris. In the test crash shown into a 10-foot thick concrete block at 480 mph, the Phantom F4 was reduced to "confetti", and the article also gives other examples:
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html

This would appear to confirm my earlier speculation that the impact was high velocity and almost head on, as opposed to oblique, and would thus be more likely to not result in an intact or semi-intact tail in the case of Flight 93.

In a previous post maani stated:
"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 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."

I believe maani is referring to this page: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html which offers the evidence for and against Silverstein meaning "demolish" when he said "pull", despite his later denial. As the aforementioned Web page says "But this is just our opinion, and there’s no reason that should carry any weight with you whatosever. So it’s business as usual: go follow and explore the reference links above, think about all sides of the argument and make your own mind up."

Well, I have also heard Silverstein's original interview (it is available on the Web), and to me it does sound like he means 'demolish'. But he later denied it. So he's a liar, then?

In a previous post maani stated: "As well, there were no pieces of steel longer than between 12 and 24 feet.  In fact, almost all of the pieces of steel were exactly that size."

This is not correct. I have now seen various photographs of pieces much, much longer than the fireman or worker standing next to them. Here's just a couple of examples: http://www.clippingdale.com/images/WTCwreckage.jpg http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109248a_hr.jpg