more comedy here...

"The government did not want to release the video because they didn't want to provide future terrorists with a view of the outside of the Pentagon."

AM 870 Los Angeles is covering the 9/11 cover up right now

>
>2. A link as to what may have >started the fire in WTC7. Why didn't >the fuel tank in the basement >explode once the fire had been >ignited?
>
>geggy
>

There's also the mystery of -according to firefighters- "numerous" car fires that erupted after the towers were hit:

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/oddities.html

It seems to me this was either orchestrated to make it all really seem like doomsday, or it was a result of thermite charges making falling debris glowing hot - after all, what does it take to "ignite" a parked car? rioters do it by pouring fuel over them. but this didn't happen here

Snowballs in the middle of May.

get me?

michael medvid is saying there was a 75 foot wide hole in the pentagon AND a 16 food wide hole beneath it. he says the 75 foot hole was the main body of the plane, while the 16 foot wide hole was only the landing gear.

loose change and nothing else I've seen show a 75 foot wide hole at the pentagon.

medvid is interviewing people but not letting fetcher reply properly or fairly at all. :(

isnt medvid a hardcore republican?

OMFG that trailer is bullshit. I think it shows the supposed "fireball" traveling down the shaft?

Nic Cage with a moustache alone was enough to make me ill..

Oh and I like how it says "a true story" at the end. Just so we know.

911truth.org just got mentioned on CNN. turn on now.

Wolf "AIPAC" Blitzer just said "some people wont believe anything though".what a douche.

"they" are quickly becoming the minority. let's kick "they're" asses down the street

They are done, we are mainstream folks, lets use it to our advantage. We fought long and hard for this.

Spread the word!!!

There's similar stuff happening over here in the UK - for the first time the BBC have written a whole story about us - and even linked Loose Change!
With enemies like that...

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

flight 93 broke all records getting on the shelf at blockbuster!

not sure what the record is but it is at blockbuster.

it would be nice if Mr. Moore would awaken from his long sleep and give us a hand.

I,m only getting an ad when I click the above link. Anyone else have this problem. Suggestions?

It's at blockbuster? Jesus.

Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2006, 15:03 GMT 16:03 UK

Conspiracy theorists down but not out
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs Correspondent, BBC News website

Security camera image of attack on Pentagon

The release of new video pictures of the Pentagon being attacked on 9/11 will not quell the endless claims in the world of conspiracy theorists that a missile or military aircraft hit the building instead.

The theorists do not believe eyewitnesses, physical evidence, engineering studies or even the claims of Osama Bin Laden, so it is unlikely that they will be convinced by grainy video frames.

The latest pictures are the missing frames from a series taken from two cameras at a filling station.

If you look closely, you do see what could be a plane, flying very low and then hitting the building, causing a huge fireball. It is consistent with the official account.

However, the new frames do not absolutely without doubt show that this was American Airlines 77 in its final moments, so hope will spring eternal for the conspiracists that they have not been knocked out.

And even if the pictures did clearly show the doomed airliner, the theorists would probably just change their charge.

After all, in the case of the Twin Towers, they argued that the attacks were carried out by, or tolerated by, the US government. The Pentagon could easily be fitted into that category as well.

Claims

To understand the conspiracy theory, it is worth considering a film called Loose Change: 2nd edition. Available on the internet, it reveals the full alternative version of what happened to the Pentagon in all its glory. It states:

AA77 did not crash into the building. And if there was no AA77, it must have been a missile, a military aircraft or a drone that did it

The alleged pilot Hani Hanjour was not skilled enough to execute the manoeuvre and the plane would have stalled in the tight turn alleged

Street lights were knocked down but did not bring down the plane; therefore there was no plane. They could have been deliberately lifted from the ground

The damage was not consistent with the size of the airliner and therefore there was no airliner

There were no remains of either the 757 or passengers and therefore neither existed

Pieces of fuselage found nearby were planted

Eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane were confused. Others said they saw a commuter jet or a helicopter

Answers

There are, of course, answers to all of the above, to be found in the report of the 9/11 Commission, in other technical assessments and in common sense.

For example, the limited damage on each side of the impact zone was due to recent strengthening work on the building. Windows that survived were made of shatterproof glass.

Another obvious weakness in the film is that the eyewitnesses chosen are all treated as if they have equal value. And did nobody see the lampposts being lifted out of the ground?

And the passengers...?

The most glaring gap in the theory is surely this. If AA77 did not end its flight hitting the Pentagon, what happened to it and its passengers?

This appears to be of little relevance to 9/11 theorists. In the course of an e-mail exchange with one of them I asked this question and was told that for all she knew, the plane could have been diverted somewhere and the passengers gassed.

One of the passengers was well-known. She was Barbara Olson, wife of Ted Olson, the US Solicitor general. However, I was told by the theorist that two calls she made to her husband from the plane probably never existed. Exactly where she might be now remains a mystery, it seems.

The film "Loose Change" also claims incidentally that United 93 which came down in a field in Pennsylvania, never crashed (the "crash site" was dug out by bulldozers) but landed at Cleveland and the passengers taken off. What happened to them, one wonders.

It also says that the Twin Towers were brought down by "controlled demolition". Again, great emphasis is placed on immediate eyewitness accounts of "explosions" within the towers, and almost none on later engineering examinations of the sequence of the collapse.

Plane comes into view at far right

The film is the work of three young American videomakers, who started off making a fictional film about how they revealed that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy.

One of them, Dylan Avery, has described what happened next: "It was that month that I began writing Loose Change, a fictional story about my friends and I discovering that 11 September was not a terrorist attack, but rather, an attack by their own government.

"Upon researching for the movie, it became apparent that the subject matter might not have been entirely fiction. Over two years time, adding more and more information, the fictional movie evolved into what it is today: a documentary."

The film is quite professionally done on a technical level, with sinister music and fast cutting. Avery said it cost only $2,000 to make and was done on a laptop.

Internet influence

It is proving popular on the internet in reinforcing beliefs that 9/11 might not have been all it seems.

The theorists are very small in number but are working in fertile soil. The events are endlessly fascinating.

And the fact remains that some people around the world believe that somehow the US government might have been involved.

Part, most probably, of that suspicion has to do with anger against the United States. There are always conspiracy theories involving the US right across the Middle East and beyond. Many people want to believe the worst.

The new pictures will not have much effect on that kind of thinking.

It might well be that, as in the case of the Kennedy assassination, it will take many years for a settled view on the events of 11 September 2001 to take hold.

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

someone did some math about sizes etc. here:

http://website.lineone.net/~bosankoe/analysis.htm

I think he's referring to the documentary "Flight 93", not "United 93".

blockbuster = yes, saw it yesterday. 4 copies - all out.

maybe we should all start requesting loose change 2 on the blockbuster web site? i rented "bush's brain" and "control room" there.

i may have confused "united" with "flight" - good catch.

''The theorists do not believe eyewitnesses, physical evidence, engineering studies or even the claims of Osama Bin Laden, so it is unlikely that they will be convinced by grainy video frames''.

Wrong on all four counts, Mr Reynolds.

>
>came down in a field in >Pennsylvania, never crashed(the "crash site" was dug out by >bulldozers) but landed at
>

They show us a smoking hole in the ground, with zero plane parts, and you say that's it, i believe it, a plane crashed there. You then believe everything, any lie ever told?

If it doesn't fit, you must aquit...

And neo-cons believe any statement by an Osama-like actor, but refuse to believe the real one who said "only on suspicion" did they attack Afghanistan.

A prime example of "selective quoting"

"Conspiracy theorists down but not out"

The BBC entitled an article, "Conspiracy Theorists Down But Not Out" because the Pentagon released a video that didn't show anything? Seems to me the focus is to destroy the truth movement with one fell swoop by hitting us where it hurts... in the _______ hit the Pentagon theory.

Who started the ______ hit the Pentagon theory? Theirry Meissan? Thanks Theirry. Thanks a bunch.

Do you guys know that I have never. Not once, not ever promoted the _____ hitting the Pentagon theory. I'm doing just fine.

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Did you notice that the BBC article ends with an email address unlike the other similar articles in that section of that page?

That means the follwing:

1/ BBC wants to meassure feedback on this topic/story more easily. Is it the right time to pull the trigger so to speak.

2/ BBC is embedded and just wants to increase the database of truther's emails and IPs to hand it to some covert agency to send us into gulags next year

3/ The author himself wants some feedback/info

You are the judge what's the more probable option here..

I have seen more evidence to prove that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon than evidence proving that one did. In order to believe that Flight 77 hit the Petagon, one must want to believe it.

Anonymous for now.... | 05.17.06 - 8:05 pm | #

To play Devil's advocate...

The same argument can be used against you.

example:

I have seen ENOUGH evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon. for anyone who believes it didn't, they must want to believe it didn't.

Did anyone catch Glenn Beck's interview today with Dave VonKleist from In Plane Site? Beck, a veritable
d..., (rhymes with tick), tried to belittle and humiliate VonKleist but only served to reveal his own lack of an IQ. While Dave attempted to present his case in a civilized and professional manner, dum dum pranced about spouting idiotic remarks about conspiracy theorists and area 51. Glenda finishes off the interview by calling VonKleist a nutjob. The only redeeming moment occurred at the end: Beck reveals to audience and all that his own CNN cameraman has some suspicous theories about the World Trade Center. The camera swings around to reveal the dude dead in the headlights. Lol. Guess who probably won't be working for CNN tomorrow?

I posted this on another thread:

Randi Rhodes on Air America just played a clip from Harball where Chris Matthews made a comment about how close to the ground the plane was and said it looked like it was on the ground. He had a guest on (who's name I missed) who said he talked with a pilot who commented that was some amazing flying monouver. Anyone hear this?

Along with this:

Randi Rhodes just got done breaking down Hani Hanjour's pilot skills. She stated He had trained @ Jet Tech who notified the FAA that his pilot skills were very bad and that they could not believe he had a commercial license. They also told the NY times that, to this day they can not believe it was him who flew the jet into the Pentagon.

Turn on Air America.

Hahaha! Part of the new video is timestamped 9/12! They're not even trying.

Did anyone catch Glenn Beck's interview today with Dave VonKleist from In Plane Site? Beck, a veritable
d..., (rhymes with tick), tried to belittle and humiliate VonKleist but only served to reveal his own lack of an IQ. While Dave attempted to present his case in a civilized and professional manner, dum dum pranced about spouting idiotic remarks about conspiracy theorists and area 51. Glenda finishes off the interview by calling VonKleist a nutjob. The only redeeming moment occurred at the end: Beck reveals to audience and all that his own CNN cameraman has some suspicous theories about the World Trade Center. The camera swings around to reveal the dude dead in the headlights. Lol. Guess who probably won't be working for CNN tomorrow?
RJ | 05.17.06 - 8:35 pm | #
PLEASE get that audio. i HATE Glenn Beck, i would LOVE to hear this.

Come gather round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
Youll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin
Then you better start swimmin
Or youll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance wont come again
And dont speak too soon
For the wheels still in spin
And theres no tellin who
That its namin.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Dont stand in the doorway
Dont block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
Theres a battle outside
And it is ragin.
Itll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And dont criticize
What you cant understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin.
Please get out of the new one
If you cant lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin.

Lies, its all lies, everything they say!

On BBC2 now - special report on 9/11 conspiracy.
Tommy Payne | 05.17.06 - 5:47 pm | #

??
give us some report please..
Tono Stano | Homepage | 05.17.06 - 6:18 pm | #

Last night BBC's Newsnight, arguarbly the most reputable news programme in The UK, did a special report on 9/11 conspiracies, with the main focus on the recently released Pentagon tapes.

Their attention was drawn to the subject after a experiencing a record number of downloads of the Pentagon video, uploaded onto their website yesterday.
It was a suprisingly fair piece, which included interviews with both the fella from Judicial Watch and Dave Vonkeist (apologies about the spelling).
What was noticable, was both a lack of name calling and the impartialiality of the reporter, something that seems to be lacking whenever I have seen US reports.
They said that highlights of the show will be available for download on their site later today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

It's nice to finally have some media attention, though it is upto us to ensure that it continues in the same vein.
I encourage you to post comments/feedback on the Newsnight website (and the main BBC forum also), but suggest that you focus attention on other aspects of 9/11, as well as the Pentagon.

"Jon, I respect your posts, but I don't understand this position you've taken on the Penta-plane. I cannot suspend my disbelief enough to accept all of the miraculous, coincidental, physically-unbelievable, and incompentence-related factors that had to converge to allow a 757 to do what it is alleged to have done on that day."

It's really very simple. People look at me like I'm an idiot if I say something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. People don't listen to anything else I have to say if just one thing slips from my mouth that they perceive as insane. I would rather have people listen to what I have to say than write me off as a "tin-foil hat wearing Conspiracy Theorist nutjob".

On top of that, there is enough evidence to suggest that Flight 77 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon. On the other side of the argument, there are no photos or videos in existence to show us Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. That reason, in and of itself, is why I don't spend any time on that particular subject. The "What". I can't prove one way or the other what hit the Pentagon.

The "What hit the Pentagon" argument is NO different than the "Magic Bullet Theory". People have debated FOR YEARS as to whether or not that bullet was able to do what it did. Whether or not Oswald was the "Lone Gunmen". Whether or not someone was in the "Grassy Knoll". I would rather focus on who benefitted from JFK's assassination. Once you figure out the "Who Dunnit" part, everything else falls into place. On top of that, you have a suspect as opposed to a theory.

I'll take a suspect over a theory any day.

Thanks for your reply Jon. I understand that position and when talking with the uninitiated I stick to the WTC buildings and the lack of intercepts on all 4 flights. But I did a survey with all the folks I know who've researched this stuff (co-workers, friends, activists) and none of them believe a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Which brings me to DHS. I repeat my earlier request: Perhaps you can take all the criticisms of the official account - start with Griffin's arguments and Jack White's photo analyses - and refute point by point. Perhaps you've already done so elsewhere.

In other words, prove to me a 757 hit the Pentagon. Any 757. My mind is open enough to be convinced by evidence.

HERE'S THE FUCKING DEAL WITH ALL THIS BITCHING ABOUT ZIONINSTS!!!!

THEY AINT GOING ANYWHERE

ISRAEL ALREADY HAS NUKES

SO YOU FUCKERS ARE GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT
____________________----

look just blame "corrupt parts of the mossad"_____as well as pnac

when you make a statement implicating "the jews" or "zionists" you are just hurting about 100 million goodhearted peoples'feelings

very few in those groups have anything to do with this

plus even if they are totally wrong for stealing that land from the palestinians----they have already got it---they aint leaving000000

so lets have world peace for all