Friday, May 12, 2006

The Pentagon Again

This part of the film actually interests me the least because it is the most disputed part among the 9/11 "Truth" movement; which means it's too wacky for people who think the WTC was brought down in a controlled demolition.

But... Dylan and company make a big deal out of their theories on the Pentagon. This section runs from 12:20 to 30:00, or about a quarter of the film. I caught this bit at 23:01:



Believe it or not, Avery wants to know( 23:00):

Why are the cable spools in front of the hole completely untouched?


Well, my first answer involves your eyesight, Dylan. I don't know about you, but I see three cable spools on the right, two of which look like they're sitting in a hole, but really have part of them chopped off and all of which are facing in different directions. In the middle is a single spool that has also obviously been chopped up by the passage of the jet. There's one spool to the left, which is knocked over onto its side. So you've gotta be a little touched to claim they're untouched.

Later, comes a really stupid bit (29:46):

"And finally, why do satellite photos taken four days before 9-11 show a white marking on the front lawn, marking almost the exact trajectory of whatever hit the Pentagon four days later."

It's stuff like this that makes me continue to wonder about these guys; debunking them is almost too easy. They have dedicated about 15 minutes "proving" it could not have been a plane, and about 1 minute "proving" it was a shoulder-fired missile, and about 1 minute proving it was a C-130 transport (perhaps with the optional pod configuration). And a little bit proving it was a helicopter and some other nonsense too. And then to clinch it all for us they show an American Airlines 757 crashing into the side of the Pentagon. But it was following the line on the grass, which is the important thing!

I mean, what are they on? The airplane animation sequence in this picture is actually a marvelous job and it's so effective that it completely undermines their argument. They show Hani Hanjour banking and rocketing in towards his target, clipping the light poles and then blasting into the side of the Pentagon. And it really looks like a great graphic representation of what must have happened. So why include it in the film? It's not as if these guys are presenting an honest depiction of anything else, so why are they sabotaging themselves here?

5 Comments:

At 12 May, 2006 10:16, Blogger Realist06 said...

There's nothing about a shoulder-fired cruise missile in the movie. Stop claiming this. You started out pretty good on this blog with some reasonable critiques but have quickly disintigrated into smarmy comments, hearsay, and baseless crap like this. Stop it!

 
At 12 May, 2006 20:35, Blogger pyro4444 said...

Do you really think a plane hit 5 light posts, didnt even hit the ground and disapeared into a hole smaller than the plane its self? Those spools of wire could have been moved by the explotion couldnt they have? Pff its total garbage, the plaine couldnt even have disentergrated because jet fuel cant even burn that hot, and all the fuel was obviously burnd off at crash as you can see form the 5 frame video released. Also the suspected highjacker couldnt even fly a small 2 passanger plane not to mention a Huge 747. So why dont you try to prove that wrong?

 
At 15 June, 2006 03:57, Blogger ballnose said...

realist06 says, "There's nothing about a shoulder-fired cruise missile in the movie." True, but they suggested it was a cruise missile (which can be fired by "shoulder"). Stop arguing semantics and see the bigger picture.

pyro4444 says, "the suspected highjacker couldnt even fly a small 2 passanger plane not to mention a Huge 747." That's just not true sir. He had a pilot's license already. He could fly average or a little below average according to the flight school (did you even watch the movie?), he just sucked at landing by himself. Flying a plane is relatively easy. Once in the air, an average pilot could steer the plane even if he couldn't land it, especially if he never intended on landing it.

I know it's not as exciting for you to believe the rag heads did it, but come to the light, believe the obvious truth and get a life.

 
At 18 September, 2006 10:49, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

'Proving' and posing alternative explanations are two different items. Nice try but you have done nothing to discredit a team that is posing other explanations. You trying to 'prove' them wrong has failed based upon your assumption they are trying to 'prove' something. You guys are terrible at this supposed debunking game.

 
At 05 March, 2007 09:02, Blogger hooch said...

but you offer no resistance to the Loose Change theory?
you just discredit what anyone says about their opinions?

explain the fact that half of the people and testimonies used in the video WERE NOT CREDITED. they had no validity and their testimony is based on their opinion, or many parts were left out by dylan and his fact loving crew.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home