If it was a missile where's the plane? And, BTW, Where's John Kerry???

[HamdenRice]

This is a post about logic -- how we know things. I am not primarily posting about what we know, but what kinds of questions are most relevant to learning the truth.

Yesterday, as everyone knows, the Defense Department posted video of what it claims is flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. The announcement that video would be released was made early in the day, before in fact the video was widely available. A number of 9/11 truth movement "debunkers" on DU and elsewhere seemed confident that the video would clearly show a jumbo jet crashing into the Pentagon; in anticipation, they began posting snarky comments that the "tin foil hatters" would dismiss this gleefully anticipated evidence which was expected to be clear pictures showing the event, because anyone who doubts the official story is clearly so illogical and mentally over the top that they could incorporate any such evidence into their warped world view.

What we got instead was pretty much the same video that has been around on the internet for years. The most salient feature of this video -- and this has been its salient feature for years -- is that there is no plane in any frame of the video. Whatever happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, the video does not prove that a plane flew into it. If anything, if you are willing to believe the video and your eyes, it appears that something much smaller than a large passenger aircraft crashed into the Pentagon. That does not confirm the "no plane" theory. But it also does not confirm the official theory.

Deprived of what they gleefully anticipated as being an all out 9/11 truth movement bashing, some debunkers have taken a fall back position: If (as the video blatantly suggests) no large passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon, where is flight 77?

The main point I would like to make in this post is that this question is not really relevant to the analysis of the video. It is certainly an important question in the broader analysis of what happened on 9/11, but it does not directly bear on the analysis of the video.

Let me give an absurd hypothetical to explain why. Suppose Karl Rove were found murdered one day, let's say September 11, 2006. That afternoon, President Bush made a speech to the nation in which he claimed that he had conclusive video proof that John Kerry was the killer. Meanwhile John Kerry has disappeared, presumably a fugitive. But Bush refuses to release to video. "Karl Rove Truth Theories" proliferate on websites across the internet, as well as "Karl Rove Truth Debunkers."

After a wait of several months, the Bush administration finally releases the video. The video clearly shows Newt Gingrich, not John Kerry, shooting Karl Rove. CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien solemnly intones, "you cannot actually see John Kerry murdering Karl Rove, but this video should put to rest those crazy conspiracy theories that suggest that John Kerry did not kill Karl Rove."

Truth movement bloggers and posters suggest that the video clearly shows that John Kerry did not kill Karl Rove.

Would it be a relevant response by the debunkers to ask, "Well if that's not John Kerry on the video where was he on 9/11/2006 and how has he just disappeared?"

[mirandapriestly]

1. Thanks so much for articulating

the thoughts swirling in my head in response to the red necky ignorance I've been reading on DU in response to this video. "I knew someone who died" and "I knew someone who said they saw the plane" are their "proof".
The questioners of the Bush admin. on this issue make so much more sense than the "accepters".

[HamdenRice]

4. I knew someone who died ....

Yes, it amazes me how many responses had nothing to do with the video.

[KJF]

2. Good post, much appreciated

For the record: I think American 77 hit the Pentagon.

[HamdenRice]

5. Funny thing is, so have I

Generally, I have always been very skeptical of the claim that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. But as of yesterday, if that video is the best proof the government can offer to "quel conspiracy theories," I have been more receptive to the alternative Pentagon theories.

[KJF]

6. It's not the best proof

Many of the arguments advanced by the no-planers are not right - number of walls the plane passed through (2 not 6), substance of walls (brick, mostly, not concrete), size of hole (90+ feet, not 16-18 feet), etc. www.911review.com has a list of common errors here:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html
Also, quite a lot of debris was photographed.

If you ask me, the fakey-looking videos may well be faked, but that doesn't mean the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane - they're just jerking us off. Neither do Hani's poor piloting skills, lack of check-in time or absence from the Dulles video mean the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

[Grateful for Hope]

3. This is an excellent post

I am amazed that the debunkers are not asking why a video that shows no evidence of a plane was held back until Moussaui's trial was over, instead of hurrying in to smear those who question the video.

From what I have seen, the responses have definitely not been relevant, as you so articulately point out.

[LSK]

7. i was wondering the same thing

While I dont see any plane hitting the Pentagon, one has to wonder where is Flight 77 then??