ToeKnee said:
It is strong, but not strong enough. There is no hard evidence to conclude that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. That is my point. But...the media has also been forced to come up with excuses for the collapses of the three towers due to "fire damage." While the corporate media has taken the time try and discount what has happened at the Pentagon; they have not taken the time to air anything about explosives in NYC.
Your logic, or your understanding of the facts here, is faulty. Hence Laura's suggestion that you take the time to do some further research.
You claim that there is no "hard evidence" to conclude that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, but neither is there "hard evidence" that one did. Equally, there is no "hard evidence" that the WTC towers were not brought down by planes and fire, but neither is there "hard evidence" they were.
What there IS, in BOTH cases, is a LACK of evidence to support the official government line that planes and fire brought down the WTC towers and that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and it is this LACK of evidence which supports the conspiracy theories that No Boeing hit the Pentagon and plane impacts and fire brought down the WTC towers.
At the Pentagon, there was hard evidence of only ONE engine, i.e. there was a LACK of another engine or damage from it, suggesting that a twin engined 757 did NOT hit.
At the WTC, there was hard evidence of the towers collapsing at near free fall, i.e. there was a LACK of evidence of resistance from the floors of the towers that should have ensured that their collapse took a LOT longer.
Again, there is a LACK of evidence to support the government story of what actually happened in New York and Washington on 9/11, both at the WTC and the Pentagon. As such, the statement that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon is AS VALID as the claims that the WTC towers were not felled as a result of plane impacts and fire.
The claim by certain 9/11 researchers, Mike Ruppert for one, that the "no Boeing at the Pentagon" theory is damaging to, and divides, the 9/11 truth movement does not stand up to scrutiny. Knowing what we know about CoIntelPro, it is very likely that this claim is actually part of an operation by government agents, or those in some way in their employ, to do exactly what they claim the "no boeing at the pentagon" theory is doing - divide the 9/11 truth movement.
As for the corporate media. I am not aware that it has given any more airtime in attempting to debunk conspiracy theories about the Pentagon than it has done to debunk conspriacy theories about the WTC collapses etc. Generally, the mainstream media simply ignores or ridicules ALL conspiracy theories equally. Of course, there is the fact of our Pentagon Strike flash, which was seen by vastly more people than any other 9/11 video or dissertation. It was this fact that baited the Washington Post out of its lair in an attempt to do some damage control. Loose change, they could ignore because of its relatively limited exposure.
As far as we are concerned, anyone who tries to steer 9/11 researchers away from exposure of the Pentagon attack, has either succumbed to the manipulations of Cointelpro, or are part of the Cointelpro operation themselves.
Indeed, as we have written in our books, our reasearch shows that there were two groups involved in the 9/11 attacks. An American contingent and an Israeli one. The Israeli contingent came out of the 9/11 attacks as the dominant group and with a very distinct advantage over their American partners in crime. You could call it an old-fashioned double-cross.
Suffice to say that it is the Pentagon attack and the lack of a Boeing 757 at that site, that holds the threat of exposing the Israeli contingent. This is why most of the efforts of the Cointelpro operation is dedicated to preventing investigation of events at the Pentagon. Because it would expose them.
It also gives an insight into where the real power resides in American politics.
Joe
