"You've been 'Pentaconned'"...

[SidDithers]

Article by Nick Chou profiling the CIT of Pentacon fame. And he shows them for the loons they are.

Do You Believe a Passenger Jet Hit the Pentagon on 9/11? These Men Say You've Been 'PentaConned!'

<snip>

"I understand why people have certain feelings about this government," Walter says. "There are things this administration did that I'm not pleased with, but facts are facts. I was on the road that day and saw what I saw. The plane was in my line of sight. You could see the 'AA' on the tail. You knew it was American Airlines."

Marquis and Ranke simply refused to believe Walter saw what he saw. "They were saying things like, 'Are you sure the plane didn't land and they set off a bomb?' They kept coming up with all these scenarios.

"Some of those guys were young and nice and disaffected their government," Walter concludes. "And some of them were crazy."

http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/features/pentaconned/1

Follow-up articles here:

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/breaking-news/pentagon-flyover-hysteria-rock/
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/politics/911-truther-wackiness-now-most/

Sid

[wildbilln864]

1. More Bush's ass kissing opinions , eh?

No thanky. :eyes:

[jberryhill]

8. You think Obama is a no-planer, Bill? /nt

[wildbilln864]

9. no. nt

[jberryhill]

12. So if Barack Obama believes there was a plane at then Pentagon, then he's another OCTabot shill?

Is that it?

Why, Bill, do you suppose that Barack Obama and Joe Biden both believe that the US was attacked by foreign terrorists on 9/11?

They are rabid Bush lovers, right?

Just another couple of Bush ass kissers?

[Grateful for Hope]

13. Appeals to authority

particularly "authority" that may or may not know the truth about 9/11, do nothing to convince us that the official story is true.

I personally could care less what they do or don't believe on this subject. I also doubt that they would publicly admit having questions about the official story. The RW would, of course, have a field day with that if they did.

However, I do agree that calling those of you who buy into the official story "Bushbots", etc. will need to change. I personally have never used those terms, and, I have never thought they were that appropriate (although, they WERE appropriate for at least one poster here who is no longer among us). Perhaps it would be good for this forum if name-calling on ALL sides stopped. From what I see on other forums, it is the behavior of those who appear to defend the official line (NIST reports, etc.) that is most noticed and commented on.

[jberryhill]

17. I'm not interested in convincing you of anything....

What I'm interested in are pretend "Democrats" using 9/11 truth as a tool for something else entirely.

And they've already started:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32AB8SxK21

[Grateful for Hope]

20. Just don't try to connect us here

with those pretend "Democrats" you seem so concerned about. Like I said, I have never participated in denigrating you guys by calling you "shills", etc. There are others here who have also never done it. I hope that those who have will cease to do it.

I also hope that those here who consistently smear those questioning the official 9/11 story will also cease and desist.

I have always felt that doubt was the beginning of wisdom,

and the fear of God was the end of wisdom.

----Clarence Darrow

[SDuderstadt]

21. Hope.....merely questioning the "official story" is one thing...

I think, if you'd check, we mostly take issue with goofy alternative theories. I, personally, have never taken issue with someone who merely "questions the official story", EXCEPT when they willfully ignore facts and question things which are fairly easily settled, just not in the favor.

[Realityhack]

19. I think you basicly agree with the point of the prior post.

The Bushbot Bush shill etc. terminology that a lot of people here spout is moronic (I understand you don't).

[Grateful for Hope]

24. I really didn't need to have your intepretation

but, thanks anyway.

[Realityhack]

25. I wasn't trying to be an a hole hope.

I just thought I would try to point out where I thought people were agreeing but perhaps talking past each other. I was trying to help with a civil discourse. I am sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention.

[wildbilln864]

15. nope...

you're just being silly. I doubt they've looked very closely.

[jberryhill]

16. You doubt they looked very closely?

Joe Biden's been the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and you doubt he's looked very closely into a terrorist attack on the United States?

[wildbilln864]

22. I doubt he's looked very close at...

the questions and objections of the truth movement.

[Realityhack]

23. Which ones?

Some of them he almost certainly has.

Others, well lets just say I don't think he spent much time on the reptilian conspiracy either.

[jberryhill]

26. Then you didn't watch the confrontation video between Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth

...and Barack Obama, in which he told them that he's familiar with their stuff and doesn't agree with it.

[wildbilln864]

27. Id sure like to know what parts he doesn't agree with. nt

[Twist_U_Up]

2. cause name calling is all ya got. I hope you know....

most people see right through this and you for that matter.

[BuyingThyme]

3. The government is pushing the missile/pentagon story.

Nobody else could have twice announced the coming videos of planes hitting the pentagon only to show no planes doing anything.

Things like that don't happen by accident.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Nice try....

of course, you're ignoring the fact that the video from the surveillance camera was recording at one frame per second, while the plane was traveling 530 mph. Do some calculations and you'll find the plane was traveling 760 feet per second or about the length of 2 1/2 football fields. Given the speed of the plane and the slow recording speed of the video, what, precisely, would you expect to see??

[BuyingThyme]

5. Too bad your response has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

Were you intelligent enough to understand what twice occurred, you'd understand that the government twice told the media that they were about to release videos of the plane hitting the Pentagon. But when they released the videos, no planes at all.

Why would they do that if not for the fact that they wanted to hype the silly missiles theories?

(This time, try to come up with a response that in some minimal way is responsive the what I've posted here.)

[SDuderstadt]

6. Look at the video again, and you see a fleeting glimpse of the plane...

which is what you'd expect to see. If you keep questioning my intelligence, you can have this "conversation" by yourself.

[Realityhack]

7. No.

The government said it would release the videos of the plane hitting.
Then it did.

Did you expect a high quality high speed camera film of the impact or something? What they released is exactly what you would expect, a spot of plane and then the explosion.

Your personal theory that they somehow wanted to push missile theories is unfounded. In fact it seems more than a touch paranoid.

[wildbilln864]

10. "a spot of a plane"!? wtf?

can you show us that spot becaused I've missed it thus far. :popcorn:

[SDuderstadt]

11. Look at the second still image below, Bill

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200022.html


Hint: you haven't "seen" it before because, either you didn't look for it or, more likely, you've discounted it because it disproves your goofy claims.

[Flatulo]

14. You can also make out the coil of smoke which was issuing from

the starboard engine (which was corraborated by eyewitnesses).

[Realityhack]

18. That is blatant willful ignorance.

Throw as many cute emotions out there to try to insult people as you want. You just look childish.

The still photos from that video showing the plane are easy to find. They must be on hundreds of web sites. If you chose to only pay attention to web sites that skip those frames it is your own fault.

I am not doing your google search for you (though someone else above did). You seriously need to educate yourself before you go claiming things don't exist that do, or that a video doesn't show something it does.