More evidence of fake pentagon witnesses

[narcolepticwatchman]

Have a listen to this, specifically Dawn Vignola, the 2nd witness.....

911 Pentagon witness's fake phone ins - YouTube

Listen closely in the background. YOU CAN ACTUALLY HEAR SOME GUY COAHING HER AND GIVING HER LINES!

my roommate is an airplane person???

Listen to the witnesses. Conditioned, same lines.

It was American Airlines.
It accelerated in its approach.

All these people sure know their planes. 757. Spot on.

Shocking.

[dude111]

Not shocking at all!

Many have thought maybe the witness's WERE NOT LEGIT!

And of all these supposed "Witnesses",they all seem to know too much!

A very good vid!

[secondsun]

...its staring you in the face!

http://i42.tinypic.com/rif1b7.jpg

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/911wasainsidejob/pentagon-animation.gif

...if you really want to hide something... put it in plain sight!

[matrix911]

Have a listen to this, specifically Dawn Vignola, the 2nd witness.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T92HZwZsPxw

Listen closely in the background. YOU CAN ACTUALLY HEAR SOME GUY COAHING HER AND GIVING HER LINES!

my roommate is an airplane person???

Listen to the witnesses. Conditioned, same lines.

It was American Airlines.
It accelerated in its approach.

All these people sure know their planes. 757. Spot on.

Shocking.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Vignola – CIT has said that her news call-in from 9/11 about the plane impact was ‘coached’ by her roommate at the time, Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman. Suspicious. a voice in the background helping add technical details. Too bad she’s tainted, she was almost a useful witness. As Merc noted: “She told us multiple times that the plane was white, but for some reason had fused the AA into it, perhaps becuase of news reports, perhaps because of her roomate, Timmerman.” Aldo defends coaching charges: “He says it, she repeats it. Is that not coaching?” His list has her as “claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position.” Here’s an interesting discussion between CIT and a source familiar with Dawn, one “Plan271.”
Good discussion of Dawn and the issue by Craig R:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=89


Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman – see above. An impact story liar who coached Vignola, later gave his own detailed account ” it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike […] and then I lost it behind a building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit.” CIT got to look through the view they shared and found they couldn’t see shit. “The highrise building in front of them to the left completely blocked their view of the final moments of the flight path so there is no way they would have been able to tell if the plane was north or south of the citgo,” and the fireball would have blocked the flyover. Ranke: “This hitting the ground claim by Ms. Vignola and even the "plane person" Hugh Timmerman completely contradicts the official story and is further PROOF that they deduced the impact and embellished these details.” [source] No. They saw it from high up so the details were less clear. One wing hit the generator and probably exploded while the other basically hit the ground, so it exploded at ground level just before impact. From above it would look like - it his the ground and blew up.

[bryan]

...its staring you in the face!

...if you really want to hide something... put it in plain sight!

The eyewitnesses who reported seeing a plane fly into the Pentagon are all liars who were reading from a script, but the eyewitnesses who reported seeing planes fly into the WTC are all honest TV company employees who wouldn't dream of misleading the public.

[dave52]

Careful Bryan, don't go using logic now...

[bryan]

Listen closely in the background. YOU CAN ACTUALLY HEAR SOME GUY COAHING HER AND GIVING HER LINES!


He's not coaching her. He's just joining in the conversation from the background.

Compare it to Teresa Renaud:

CBS 9/11 Witness - Theresa Renaud - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mqGTAJqImk

You can't hear anybody in the background, but it's obvious from her pauses and changes in intonation that somebody is telling her what to say.

[wasp]

all that is needed is the release of the video the feds confiscated from the gas station across the street minutes after...

[matrix911]

Bryan, you forgot to mention Teresa isn't as OBJECTIVE or Neutral a witness as this Report/Interview would like people to believe.

She just "happens" to be the WIFE of a CBS PRODUCER... but of course just another coincidence right?

here's a slightly better clip to illustrate further

theresa renaud wife of CBS producer sees plane - YouTube

But again, of course this clip is completely bunk and untrustworthy nor proves anything because its on YOUTUBE right? :rolleyes:

Are there any Government loyalists here brave enough to come forward and argue semantics about Youtube or that we should just chalk this up as another coincidence and nothing suspect about this so-called random witness?

Please tell me no one here is that stupid.


He's not coaching her. He's just joining in the conversation from the background.

Compare it to Teresa Renaud:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mqGTAJqImk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mqGTAJqImk

You can't hear anybody in the background, but it's obvious from her pauses and changes in intonation that somebody is telling her what to say.

[supersmell]

I don't get how people that have the connections necessary to be interviewed quickly managed to be the ones giving the interviews is evidence of media involvement in 9/11.

[secondsun]

The eyewitnesses who reported seeing a plane fly into the Pentagon are all liars who were reading from a script, but the eyewitnesses who reported seeing planes fly into the WTC are all honest...

....your getting there Bryan!... your starting to see the Truth at last!!... :D

....no plane hit the Pentagon!... and two planes hit the Towers!... exactly!

...thats the way the Psyop` works!... it could`nt work in reverse!

[dude111]

all that is needed is the release of the video the feds confiscated from the gas station across the street minutes after...Indeed!!!

They should have made backups STRAIGHT AWAY!!!!!!

I wonder if anyone has ever asked those employees @ that station WHAT THEY SAW!! (Hopefully they would tell the truth)

[tokz1k]

Only Aired Once About PENTAGON !!! - YouTube

41 seconds of your life.... spare it.

[ronisron]

There is loads of WTC plane footage, and only one view of the Pentagon, which doesn't show a plane. If it was as easy to fake airplanes in all the WTC footage, it would be just as easy to fake footage for the Pentagon and Shanksville too. Or there's a simpler explanation which is really escaping some people...

They actually used planes at the WTC's. Remote flown military planes set to hit and explode, providing a massive distraction and giving vague proof for the immediate, total collapse of the towers.

[dude111]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcWT2lQszEE&feature=related

41 seconds of your life.... spare it.Yes i listed a very interesting thing about that clip in my thread "9/11 oddities"

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62414

[bryan]

If it was as easy to fake airplanes in all the WTC footage, it would be just as easy to fake footage for the Pentagon and Shanksville too. Or there's a simpler explanation which is really escaping some people...


Who told you faking planes at the WTC was easy?

Is this the latest straw man?

[d4rk3v1l]

Who told you faking planes at the WTC was easy?

Is this the latest straw man?

Nah, just stating that if they could have faked the tower's planes, why not fake the pentagon's as well. Validating that the planes that hit the towers were definitely real.

That's what I gather from the post.

[ronisron]

Nah, just stating that if they could have faked the tower's planes, why not fake the pentagon's as well. Validating that the planes that hit the towers were definitely real.

That's what I gather from the post.

bryan gathered the same thing; he plays dumb when it's necessary for him to do so. He is desperate to put over No Planes at the WTC for some reason. It's not enough that there is a dupe with the Pentagon and Shanksville.

If they put so much energy into faking planes at the WTC, they could have put the same effort towards any and all Pentagon footage and doctored some footage to show a plane at Shanksville too. All of the amateur video was shot live, whether it was streamed live to the networks or not.....

[helloperator]

So...I don't think he was coaching her...

[bryan]

Nah, just stating that if they could have faked the tower's planes, why not fake the pentagon's as well. Validating that the planes that hit the towers were definitely real.

Here's an example of logical thinking:

1. WTC7 was a high-security building.
2. Islamic terrorists do not have access to high-security buildings.
3. Therefore, if WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, it couldn't have been carried out by Islamic terrorists alone.


Here's the logical thinking behind your argument:

1. We were told that planes hit the WTC and a plane hit the Pentagon..
2. There are no fake videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
3. Therefore, the videos of planes hitting the WTC can't have been faked.


I don't know the name for this type of fallacy. Maybe it's so obviously wrong that it just comes under the general heading of 'sophistry'.


One of George Galloway's favourite methods of debunking 9/11 truth is to ask the question: "If Bush organised the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to go to war, why didn't he plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?".

If you believe that the absence of fake videos at the Pentagon validates that planes hit the towers, you must also believe that the absence of planted WMD's in Iraq validates that the 9/11 attacks were real.



bryan gathered the same thing; he plays dumb when it's necessary for him to do so. He is desperate to put over No Planes at the WTC for some reason. It's not enough that there is a dupe with the Pentagon and Shanksville.


I gathered you were trying to establish a false logical connection between the Pentagon and the WTC. In my reply I was pointing out that NPT is not based on the 'easiness' of faking planes at the WTC. Faking planes was difficult and it was risky.

Flying remote-controlled planes into the WTC might have been easier, but it was more risky. The aircraft might have broken up during the 20,000ft power dive. It might have missed the target altogether or partially. It might have exploded on the outside of the building without causing enough damage to justify global collapse.



If they put so much energy into faking planes at the WTC, they could have put the same effort towards any and all Pentagon footage and doctored some footage to show a plane at Shanksville too.


It's not about energy and effort. It's about a means to an end and risk assessment. Faking planes at the WTC was difficult and risky but it was necessary. Faking a plane at the Pentagon would have added difficulty and risk to the operation, with little benefit in return.



All of the amateur video was shot live, whether it was streamed live to the networks or not.....

Do you not find it odd that several world-class professional news-gathering organisations, covering the event live, failed to capture the impact of the second plane, while a few amateurs were lucky enough to film it on their camcorders?

[d4rk3v1l]

Here's the logical thinking behind your argument:

1. We were told that planes hit the WTC and a plane hit the Pentagon..
2. There are no fake videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
3. Therefore, the videos of planes hitting the WTC can't have been faked.


Not quite, IF the government would go through so much trouble to fake the planes hitting WTC 1 & 2 why would they not release a fake video of the "pentagon strike" even years later instead of continuing the controversy of the 8 frames. It's known that 80+ videos were confiscated from the immediate area, but only 8 suspect frames shown to the public.

Your ability to manipulate strawmen is astounding.

[dude111]

Yes.... And the frames that were OFFICALLY RELEASED show nothing so why bother releasing them?

[ronisron]

Here's an example of logical thinking:

1. WTC7 was a high-security building.
2. Islamic terrorists do not have access to high-security buildings.
3. Therefore, if WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, it couldn't have been carried out by Islamic terrorists alone.

We're past the point of Islamic terrorists, WTC 7 is proof of controlled demolition. Silverstein admitted it. Media complicity was demontrated by the BBC rehearsing the story of it's collapse. This is the logic I employ.


Here's the logical thinking behind your argument:

1. We were told that planes hit the WTC and a plane hit the Pentagon..
2. There are no fake videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
3. Therefore, the videos of planes hitting the WTC can't have been faked.


I don't know the name for this type of fallacy. Maybe it's so obviously wrong that it just comes under the general heading of 'sophistry'.

:rolleyes: Yes... in any case, the logic is, if they did this massive fake job at the WTC's, and that all the shots were filmed so they could manipulate them, why didn't they do the same thing with the Pentagon?


One of George Galloway's favourite methods of debunking 9/11 truth is to ask the question: "If Bush organised the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to go to war, why didn't he plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?".

If you believe that the absence of fake videos at the Pentagon validates that planes hit the towers, you must also believe that the absence of planted WMD's in Iraq validates that the 9/11 attacks were real.

I don't think that the above logic even worked for George Galloway, and it certainly doesn't apply here. Quite simply, again, if they did this massive fake job at the WTC as the NPT suggests, why didn't they do this at the Pentagon, which clearly did not have a plane crashing into it? There are several different viewpoints of the planes hitting the WTC's whether they were live or not, but NONE of the Pentagon save that little clip which doesn't show a plane.


I gathered you were trying to establish a false logical connection between the Pentagon and the WTC. In my reply I was pointing out that NPT is not based on the 'easiness' of faking planes at the WTC. Faking planes was difficult and it was risky.

Flying remote-controlled planes into the WTC might have been easier, but it was more risky. The aircraft might have broken up during the 20,000ft power dive. It might have missed the target altogether or partially. It might have exploded on the outside of the building without causing enough damage to justify global collapse.

Remote flown planes would have been much easier than launching two missiles and hoping no one in downtown Manhattan noticed..... you can enter exact coordinates with remote flown planes, we're not talking joysticks here. Like I've said previously, they were banking on DeMartini's theory of "pencil puncturing screen netting" to be true, and that's why they were comfortable using planes at the WTC's. I'm quite certain that if the planes did smash into the side and explode they still would have used them as the reason that the buildings collapsed. And it would still be a lie. There were explosives planted all over those buildings beforehand. The planes were supposed to be a ruse, a big fireball to distract from the obvious demolition that was to follow. BTW, missiles hitting the top 3rd of the buildings would not have caused their global collapse either, and it would have been simpler to say "The 'terrorists' commandeered 2 missles and launched them at the WTC's!!" than to drag all of this stuff about planes out there.


It's not about energy and effort. It's about a means to an end and risk assessment. Faking planes at the WTC was difficult and risky but it was necessary. Faking a plane at the Pentagon would have added difficulty and risk to the operation, with little benefit in return.

They did "fake" a plane at the Pentagon though. They did attempt to show "footage" which was a complete failure. They obviously didn't crash a plane at the Pentagon, they would have been better served to employ the same fakery you say occurred at the WTC's with the Pentagon hit as well.


Do you not find it odd that several world-class professional news-gathering organisations, covering the event live, failed to capture the impact of the second plane, while a few amateurs were lucky enough to film it on their camcorders?

No, most were filming the smoking tear in the first tower when the second one came in. But as you said, amateurs filmed the second impact from different angles, whether they were aired live or not. News agencies also filmed more than one angle, whether it was shown live or not. It wasn't very long before they showed every available angle on the news, and the first multi - angled views were all filmed by news agencies.

[bryan]

Not quite, IF the government would go through so much trouble to fake the planes hitting WTC 1 & 2 why would they not release a fake video of the "pentagon strike" even years later instead of continuing the controversy of the 8 frames. It's known that 80+ videos were confiscated from the immediate area, but only 8 suspect frames shown to the public.

Your ability to manipulate strawmen is astounding.

We established last week in another thread that if there were well-made videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the truth movement. The main reasons we know that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon is because the hole was too small, there wasn't enough wreckage, and the flight manoeuvre was too complicated. Any videos would have to be fake.

The videos at the WTC were not made for the purpose of persuading doubters of the official story. They were made to ram the idea of Islamic hijackers down the throats of TV viewers during the hours and days after the event.

Faking videos would actually be a liablilty, because the fakery could be used as incriminating evidence against the perps. That means the perps would need a GOOD REASON to use fake videos. It's pointless asking the question: "Why DIDN'T they fake videos at the Pentagon?" Fake videos of planes were needed at the WTC as part of the psyop, but there was no added benefit to using them at the Pentagon as well.

Your ability to pretend you're not listening is remarkable.

[dave52]

Yes.... And the frames that were OFFICALLY RELEASED show nothing so why bother releasing them?

Because when they were released the mainstream media made a big song and dance about them, and this was enough to convince the man in the street that the footage was good. People believe that the footage was authentic and showed a plane hitting the pentagon.

It's all about perception. I've seen a ton of people on here swear blind that they saw the WTC hit from many different angles. This isn't true, but the perception is there. That's enough.

[dude111]

Strange.....

I looked @ those frames AND I DIDNT SEE A PLANE HITTING THE BLDG!

Does anyone else here remember seeing a plane when looking @ the OFFICIAL RELEASED IMAGES??

[d4rk3v1l]

We established last week in another thread that if there were well-made videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the truth movement. The main reasons we know that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon is because the hole was too small, there wasn't enough wreckage, and the flight manoeuvre was too complicated. Any videos would have to be fake.

The videos at the WTC were not made for the purpose of persuading doubters of the official story. They were made to ram the idea of Islamic hijackers down the throats of TV viewers during the hours and days after the event.

Faking videos would actually be a liablilty, because the fakery could be used as incriminating evidence against the perps. That means the perps would need a GOOD REASON to use fake videos. It's pointless asking the question: "Why DIDN'T they fake videos at the Pentagon?" Fake videos of planes were needed at the WTC as part of the psyop, but there was no added benefit to using them at the Pentagon as well.

Your ability to pretend you're not listening is remarkable.

Are you assuming I think a plane hit the building? And if so, how did you come to that assumption? I don't think that at all. My post was only about "if they faked videos why not produce one for the pentagon". I don't believe any of the plane videos were "fake".

The videos at the WTC were not made for the purpose of persuading doubters of the official story. They were made to ram the idea of Islamic hijackers down the throats of TV viewers during the hours and days after the event.

I'm not assuming, I'm asking, do you believe the videos were fake to perpetuate the hijacker lie? I believe there "may" have been men on the planes that could have been used as strawmen hijackers (no concrete proof has been shown to support this however). What I DO KNOW is we have had software developed for years that can assume control of 8 airplanes at a time and bring them to whatever destination they see fit. Including into the side of a building. Enter: Dov Zakheim:

Dov S. Zakheim is a former official of the United States government.

Born December 18, 1948 in Brooklyn, New York, Zakheim earned his bachelor's degree in government from Columbia University in 1970, and his doctorate in economics and politics at St. Antony's College, Oxford University. He has been an adjunct professor at the National War College, Yeshiva University, Columbia University and Trinity College, where he was presidential scholar.

He served in various Department of Defense posts during the Reagan administration, including Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Planning and Resources from 1985 to 1987. As an Orthodox Jew, he gained notoriety for his involvement in ending the Israeli fighter program, the IAI Lavi. He argued that Israeli and U.S. interests would be best served by having Israel purchase F-16 fighters, rather than investing in an entirely new aircraft.

During the 2000 U.S. Presidential election campaign, Zakheim served as a foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush as part of a group led by Condoleezza Rice that called itself The Vulcans.

From 1987-2001, Zakheim was CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation, a high-technology analytical firm. During that period he served as a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and sat on a number of major DoD panels, including its Task Force on Defense Reform (1997) and the DoD's first Board of Visitors of Overseas Regional Centers (1998-2001).

Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and the United States Naval Institute, and a member of the editorial board of the journal The National Interest. He is a three-time recipient of the Department of Defense's highest civilian award, the Distinguished Public Service Medal, as well as other awards for government and community service.

He was an Adjunct Scholar of the Heritage Foundation, a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and published over 200 articles and monographs on defense issues.

He was then appointed to be Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller from 2001 to 2004 under the George W. Bush administration, and served in this capacity until April 2004. During his term as Comptroller, he was tasked to help track down the Pentagon's 2.6 trillion dollars ($2,600,000,000,000) worth of unaccounted transactions . He initiated a number of processes that led to the reduction of that sum by two-thirds by the time of his departure. It has now been reduced by more than 90 per cent.

He is currently a Vice President of Booz Allen Hamilton.

Lets pay close attention to System Planning Corporation for a few minutes.


Flight Termination System

System Planning Corporation's is proud to offer the Flight Termination System (FTS), a fully redundant turnkey range safety and test system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles. The FTS consists of SPC's Command Transmitter System (CTS) and custom control, interface, and monitoring subsystems. The system is fully programmable and is flexible enough to meet the changing and challenging requirements of today's modern test ranges.

The FTS is generally deployed in one of two configurations:

* Multi-Site System: a network of multple CTS units spread over a large geographic area

* Multi-Control System: multiple operator consoles sharing control of a single CTS unit

Multi-Site System

Because many installations require several remote CTS units that can be controlled from either the remote site or a centralized site, the FTS has been developed to control a fully redundant automated network of transmitters. The system can be configured to operate as a single local site or with up to eight remote sights over an extended range. Each CTS unit may be controlled locally (manually), or as part of the larger FTS system. The fully redundant central control unit also supports either manual or automated modes of operation.

Mission logging is performed by the Range Monitor, an independent subsystem which monitors commands to the CTS as well as transmitted RF tones. All activity is recorded for post-mission analysis.

One of FTS's major strengths is its flexibility. A fully programmable command library provides a variety of mission-specific command tones in addition to the required Command Destruct sequence.

* Multi-site configuration
** Multi-control configuration

Download brochure for complete system (http://www.911omissionreport.com/system_planning/fts.pdf) or RF subsystem. (http://www.911omissionreport.com/system_planning/cts.pdf)

SO, lets recap. You don't even need hijackers on the plane. You only need to mention Islamic terrorist to propagate the bogeyman theory. You, don't have to convince anyone to do a suicide mission, no one had to know. Even IF there were 19 Islamic men on the planes I don't believe they knew what they were getting into. Dov Zakeim, a dual citizen Israeli, member of the CFR and in control of the pentagons cash flow, responsible for TRILLIONS of dollars unaccounted for just aslo to be the CEO of a company which developed remote control plane software. Again, there aren't assumptions. I'm not saying this is how it went down. They are however very interesting pieces to a very interesting puzzle.

As far as what "hit" the pentagon, given the small amount of wreckage(which could have been "planted" etc who knows) there is a possibility that a drone hit the side that was laden with explosives. There is also a theory of a "flyover" of a larger craft which launched a "missile" of sorts. There is also the theory of a flyover timed with planted explosives to seem as if a plane hit. All theories though, and I try not to discuss theories. There are enough facts out there to warrant a new investigation without them, but the greater majority of American people are asleep at the wheel. It's my opinion that talking theories only waters down the movement and takes away from physical evidence. I can give you more theories, but we have already diluted the truth enough.

There is a trend on these boards I am beginning to notice, some people here would rather attack what someone said with assumptions that debate what was actually said.

[bryan]

Are you assuming I think a plane hit the building? And if so, how did you come to that assumption? I don't think that at all.


I'm assuming (from what you've said in your posts) that you think two planes hit the WTC but no plane hit the Pentagon.



My post was only about "if they faked videos why not produce one for the pentagon".


I've explained in my last few posts why I believe this is flawed logic. So far you've ignored every point I've made. You just keep repeating the same baseless assumption.

Now you've gone off at a tangent talking about the various theories of what may have happened at the Pentagon. Why don't you defend your position and tell us how you think the perps would have benefitted by faking videos of a plane at the Pentagon?

[d4rk3v1l]

I'm assuming (from what you've said in your posts) that you think two planes hit the WTC but no plane hit the Pentagon.


And I said I have a few theories about the pentagon, a plane not hitting it was one of them. I don't claim to "know".
Regarding the fake videos and why we didn't do it etc...
Why debate bullshit that never happened? Thats an unwinnable debate as it would be based on opinion. You could be right in your world view, I could be right in mine. This would lead us in circles.

[secondsun]

Yes.... And the frames that were OFFICALLY RELEASED show nothing so why bother releasing them?

...wrong!... frames 2 and 3!.... the white steak is real!


http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/911wasainsidejob/pentagon-animation.gif

...but what caused it and where did it come from?

[bryan]

Why debate bullshit that never happened? Thats an unwinnable debate as it would be based on opinion. You could be right in your world view, I could be right in mine. This would lead us in circles.

We're not discussing world views. In this thread you've repeatedly claimed that because they didn't fake videos of a plane at the Pentagon, the videos of planes at the WTC must be real. I've shown that there's no sense or logic whatsoever in that claim.

Now you say you don't want to discuss the matter any more. Well, that would be fine if you stopped making the claim. The trouble is, you'll keep repeating it like a religious mantra hoping that most people will accept it at face value because it appears to confirm their faith.

[secondsun]

In this thread you've repeatedly claimed that because they didn't fake videos of a plane at the Pentagon, the videos of planes at the WTC must be real.

...no he did not!... how long are you going to be allowed to tout your manipulative twisting bullshit?

The trouble is, you'll keep repeating it like a religious mantra ...

...and your not guilty of that at all are you bryan?

[bryan]

In this thread you've repeatedly claimed that because they didn't fake videos of a plane at the Pentagon, the videos of planes at the WTC must be real.

...no he did not!... how long are you going to be allowed to tout your manipulative twisting bullshit?


Here are a few quotes in chronological order. If you look back through the thread, you'll see that the two posters repeated the same bogus argument over and over again, totally ignoring the valid questions I was asking.

If it was as easy to fake airplanes in all the WTC footage, it would be just as easy to fake footage for the Pentagon and Shanksville too.

Nah, just stating that if they could have faked the tower's planes, why not fake the pentagon's as well. Validating that the planes that hit the towers were definitely real.


If they put so much energy into faking planes at the WTC, they could have put the same effort towards any and all Pentagon footage and doctored some footage to show a plane at Shanksville too.

Not quite, IF the government would go through so much trouble to fake the planes hitting WTC 1 & 2 why would they not release a fake video of the "pentagon strike" even years later instead of continuing the controversy of the 8 frames.


Yes... in any case, the logic is, if they did this massive fake job at the WTC's, and that all the shots were filmed so they could manipulate them, why didn't they do the same thing with the Pentagon?

Quite simply, again, if they did this massive fake job at the WTC as the NPT suggests, why didn't they do this at the Pentagon, which clearly did not have a plane crashing into it?


My post was only about "if they faked videos why not produce one for the pentagon". I don't believe any of the plane videos were "fake".


The implied logic here is:

1. If the perps had faked videos of planes at the WTC, they would have also faked videos of a plane at the Pentagon.

2. The perps didn't fake videos of a plane at the Pentagon.

3. Therefore, the videos at the WTC must be real.


I've shown several times in this thread that the first premise is invalid.

Instead of accusing me of touting 'manipulative twisting bullshit', would you like to explain why you don't agree with my interpretation of the above statements?

[ronisron]

Here are a few quotes in chronological order. If you look back through the thread, you'll see that the two posters repeated the same bogus argument over and over again, totally ignoring the valid questions I was asking

The implied logic here is:

1. If the perps had faked videos of planes at the WTC, they would have also faked videos of a plane at the Pentagon.

2. The perps didn't fake videos of a plane at the Pentagon.

3. Therefore, the videos at the WTC must be real.


I've shown several times in this thread that the first premise is invalid.

Instead of accusing me of touting 'manipulative twisting bullshit', would you like to explain why you don't agree with my interpretation of the above statements?

1. The logic is if that if they faked the videos for the WTC's, it would have served the planners of 9/11 to also fake videos of the Pentagon and Shanksville "crash sites". There is nothing wrong with this logic, and it's asking a very valid question to NPT'ers that they can't seem to answer; If they went to so much trouble to fake the videos of planes crashing into the WTC's, why didn't they employ the same method for the Pentagon and Shanksville "crash sites"?

The logical answer escapes some folks.

2. If the perps faked the video of the Pentagon that they've released to the public, they did a lousy job; all they've released is that bad security camera view which doesn't show a plane.

3. There is a lot more to the logic and the debate than the WTC crash videos being real or not, it's about saying actual planes hit the towers when you say none did. The Pentagon video they released just doesn't show a plane. There are several views available of the second plane hitting the WTC. I believe these several views, both pro and amateur shot, are available because planes hit the towers.

Those remote flown planes were de facto missiles. It would have been easier to say the "terrorists" had missiles that they launched (if that is what hit the towers) rather than go through all the BS of faking planes, hijacking stories, faked cell phone calls, doctoring videos, and not accounting for all of the people looking skyward in downtown Manhattan and from across the river who saw planes hit.

[bryan]

1. The logic is if that if they faked the videos for the WTC's, it would have served the planners of 9/11 to also fake videos of the Pentagon and Shanksville "crash sites". There is nothing wrong with this logic, and it's asking a very valid question to NPT'ers that they can't seem to answer; If they went to so much trouble to fake the videos of planes crashing into the WTC's, why didn't they employ the same method for the Pentagon and Shanksville "crash sites"?


Now the mantra has been chanted seven times. Before we all convert to the Hindu religion, how about you answer this question:

In what way would it have served the planners of 9/11 to also fake videos of the Pentagon and Shanksville?

Would they have been able to invade more countries? Would they have taken more of our freedoms away? Would fewer people have bought Thierry Meyssan's books?

Don't forget that fake videos could be used as evidence against the planners, so any benefits must outweigh the drawbacks.

[gamolon]

It's not about energy and effort. It's about a means to an end and risk assessment. Faking planes at the WTC was difficult and risky but it was necessary. Faking a plane at the Pentagon would have added difficulty and risk to the operation, with little benefit in return.

I would really like an explanation on this.

Why, in your mind, was the faking of the WTC attacks deemed necessary, but faking the Pentagon attack was deemed not necessary? You make the claim that faking both was considered risky and difficult, but one was chosen to be faked and the other was not. Why?

You say that faking the plane at the Pentagon would give little benefit in return. What do you mean? How did the faked WTC planes give more benefit to the operation than that of faking the plane at the Pentagon?

[bryan]

I would really like an explanation on this.


Let me make it clear that I'm only pursuing this line argument to show that there's no valid reason to suppose that videos couldn't or wouldn't have been faked at only one location. That's the main theme of this discussion and I notice you've ignored the bigger picture and picked up on some minor details again.



Why, in your mind, was the faking of the WTC attacks deemed necessary, but faking the Pentagon attack was deemed not necessary? You make the claim that faking both was considered risky and difficult, but one was chosen to be faked and the other was not. Why?


There were many reasons to prefer the WTC over the Pentagon or Shanksville. The WTC attacks were the most dramatic and symbolic. The victims were mostly innocent civilians. All the major TV companies were based in the area. It was easier to explain why so many passers-by just happened to be filming the buildings at that particular moment. There simply wasn't the same human element to the Pentagon attack.



You say that faking the plane at the Pentagon would give little benefit in return. What do you mean? How did the faked WTC planes give more benefit to the operation than that of faking the plane at the Pentagon?

I'm saying the videos of the WTC attacks were enough for the planned media psyop. Why do more than enough when it involves more risk of being found out?

[d4rk3v1l]

Do you think there were no planes? Yes or no only. No semantics.

[bryan]

Do you think there were no planes? Yes or no only. No semantics.

I don't use semantics.

[d4rk3v1l]

So, yes or no, were there planes in New York that flew into the WTC towers 1 & 2? (in your opinion of course)

[secondsun]

Let me make it clear that I'm only pursuing this line argument to show that there's no valid reason to suppose that videos couldn't or wouldn't have been faked at only one location. That's the main theme of this discussion and I notice you've ignored the bigger picture and picked up on some minor details again.


...you call the kettle black day in day out!

...there is no faked `footage` at the Pentagon!... there is one faked still!... inserted in the `official` footage!... the rest is real!

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/911wasainsidejob/pentagon-animation.gif

...watch the shadows!... there`s the clue!

...the perps can only come up with one faked still at the Pentagon!... but somehow faked tonnes of video and still images at the WTC FROM EVERY CONCEIVABLE ANGLE AND LOCATION!?!?!

...yeah!...right!... `course `they` did! :rolleyes:

...and no planers constantly mention the possibility of `missiles` at the WTC when there was`nt any!... but never mention the the possibility of a missle at the Pentagon... where there probably was one!

...well thats reverse psychology for you!

...:cool:

[bryan]

...there is no faked `footage` at the Pentagon!... there is one faked still!... inserted in the `official` footage!... the rest is real!


Your example of video fakery at the Pentagon was probably not planned in advance. It seems to have been thrown together as a reaction to the conspiracy theories.

[secondsun]

Your example of video fakery at the Pentagon was probably not planned in advance. It seems to have been thrown together as a reaction to the conspiracy theories.

...its not my example!... its the `official` example!... but the `officials` know the majority of people wont look closely enough or have the required analytical skills!

...`thrown together`!?!.... you sure!?!... the Conspiracy was built in!

[dave52]

Just to be clear Secondsun, fakery at the Pentagon yes...?

[secondsun]

Just to be clear Secondsun, fakery at the Pentagon yes...?

...:confused:

...you been on the popcorn again Dave!?!

[bryan]

...its not my example!... its the `official` example!... but the `officials` know the majority of people wont look closely enough or have the required analytical skills!

...`thrown together`!?!.... you sure!?!... the Conspiracy was built in!

I can't be sure it wasn't planned, but you'd think they'd have done a better job if it was, and I don't go along with the idea that they're sitting on footage of a 757 which they'll release one day to prove all the conspiracy theorists wrong.


By the way, you should know what it's like near Stansted. What does a 767 sound like at 700ft?

[secondsun]

By the way, you should know what it's like near Stansted. What does a 767 sound like at 700ft?

...what has that got to do with anything?

...anyway!... by the time anything goes over my house its probably significantly higher than that!

[gamolon]

There were many reasons to prefer the WTC over the Pentagon or Shanksville. The WTC attacks were the most dramatic and symbolic. The victims were mostly innocent civilians. All the major TV companies were based in the area. It was easier to explain why so many passers-by just happened to be filming the buildings at that particular moment. There simply wasn't the same human element to the Pentagon attack.

So you're saying that the powers that be CHOSE to fake the planes at the towers and not at any other sites because...

1. The WTC attacks would have been the most dramatic
2. The victims would have been mostly innocent civilians (I guess the folks at the other sites were all guilty of something)
3. People would heppen to be filming in the area that day
4. They needed more of a human element

The above four reasons are why you think the perps chose to fake planes at the WTC towers as instead of using real ones? So in their meeting to plan this whole affair, this is what they supposedly discussed?

Perp1: Ok, let's discuss the attacks at each of the sites.
Perp2: Right. We use holograms of planes hitting each of the towers. At a predetermined floor, we set explosives aorind the perimeter columns to make plane shaped hole. We then set off other explosives to make office fires on different floors. We then wait a little bit for the fires to burn so we can later say that the steel columns failed and caused the tower to collapse. Since we all know that fire can't cause steel columns to fail and lead to a collapse, we'll rig the core columns with explosives to bring it down. At the other sites, we use real planes.
Perp1: Ummmm.... Why not use realplanes at the towers?
Perp2: Well, there are a couple of reasons.
1. The attacks at the towers will be the most dramatic of any site
2. The victims will mostly be innocent civilians...
3. People will proably be filming in the area
4. The tower area creates a more human element
Perp1: These are the reasons why we are FAKING the planes at the towers???

I'm saying the videos of the WTC attacks were enough for the planned media psyop. Why do more than enough when it involves more risk of being found out?

But why fake the planes when you could have flown a real one into the towers? You say "why do more" as an explanation yet believe that there were holograms. Why would the perps have chosen holograms over a real plane?

You made the statement:
Faking planes at the WTC was difficult and risky but it was necessary.

Why? Why was in nesseary to fake them at the towers, but not anywhere else? You say I'm ignoring the larger part of this thread, but I am trying to comprehend your thinking on things.

You also made this statement:
Faking a plane at the Pentagon would have added difficulty and risk to the operation, with little benefit in return.

What level and type of benefit, in your mind, were the perps wanting that made them pick faking the WTC planes over the other sites?

You have to have some type of reasoning/belief to make statements like this. What are they?

[bryan]

Perp1: Ummmm.... Why not use realplanes at the towers?
Perp2: Well, there are a couple of reasons.
1. The attacks at the towers will be the most dramatic of any site
2. The victims will mostly be innocent civilians...
3. People will proably be filming in the area
4. The tower area creates a more human element
Perp1: These are the reasons why we are FAKING the planes at the towers???


There are two separate questions:

1. Real planes or fake videos of planes.

2. Fake videos of planes at the WTC or fake videos of a plane at the Pentagon.


Perp1 is asking the first question. Perp2 is answering the second question.

(As if you didn't know.)

[gamolon]

By the way, you should know what it's like near Stansted. What does a 767 sound like at 700ft?

At take off or approach? I have found a chart with decibel levels for US certified planes at 450m. The loudest level seems to be the apporach. The average decibel level amongst all the 767s is 99 decibels. So at 700 feet we add 6 decibels making it about 105 decibels.

A car horn at 1m is 110 decibels and a power lawn mower is 100 decibels. A busy urban street is 90 decibels.

Your point?

[gamolon]

There are two separate questions:

1. Real planes or fake videos of planes.

2. Fake videos of planes at the WTC or fake videos of a plane at the Pentagon.


Perp1 is asking the first question. Perp2 is answering the second question.

(As if you didn't know.)

Dodge noted. Can't answer questions about your own statements huh?

Interesting.

[d4rk3v1l]

And Dov Zakheim's involvement doesn't exist either? Still no comment on that either. Even though I have laid out his ability and close ties to pull off said event.

[gamolon]

Do you think there were no planes? Yes or no only. No semantics.I don't use semantics.

This is the kind of crap answer you get from bryan when he's backed into a corner and doesn't have an answer. Christophera does the same garbage.

[d4rk3v1l]

Sort of off topic, although 9/11 related...

Strange jem of info or coincidence? Regarding "masons" and 9/11.


Revelations 9:11And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Much of the script for the 17° is taken directly from the Revelation of God through Jesus Christ to St. John the Evangelist which is also called the apocalypse to St. John. This degree teaches you about a virtual army of martyrs that have offered up their lives to prove their faith or to benefit mankind.

17° also means Knight of the East and West, funny how we used 9/11 as a path to the east.

So weird the connection with that symbolism and 9/11... or just crazy talk?

[gamolon]

Hey bryan, can't answer post #48?

What's the matter?

I can't wait for one of your witty, humorous dodges again.

[bryan]

Hey bryan, can't answer post #48?

What's the matter?

I can't wait for one of your witty, humorous dodges again.

Not in the mood for joking at the moment. I was supposed to switch from BT to TalkTalk on Wednesday and my phone line's been dead ever since.

I'm sitting in the library with another 6 minutes to go before my hour is up!

[bealert]

This doesn't mean anything..the guy in the background could have been someone with her that also saw the attack. yes its possible there both lying but there are many other things that happened that hold a lot more credible explanations as to why this is a conspiracy.

[gamolon]

Not in the mood for joking at the moment. I was supposed to switch from BT to TalkTalk on Wednesday and my phone line's been dead ever since.

I'm sitting in the library with another 6 minutes to go before my hour is up!

You've had a dead phone for almost two days? What the hell are they doing?

[newswatcher26]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

here is the truth to the Pentagon on 9/11.

http://judicial-inc.biz/Dov_Zakheim_Fl_77.htm

Flight 77 Is What Really Ties Zakheim To 9/11

http://judicial-inc.biz/Dov_Za44.jpg

[flip side]

Bryan do you really believe the perps would use TV fakery at a place they were LESS likely to get away with (WTC) than a place where they were MORE likely to get away with (Pentagon)

Ronisron's logic is far more sound than anything you have come up with. Why use TV fakery for the WTC attacks and not the Pentagon? Think about it, it doesn't make sense.