posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 02:08 AM
There are a few of us here that believe 9/11 was an inside job, but the Pentagon was a sort of built-in defense mechanism of the whole day, revolving
around the tapes, and I'll explain.
You can look at 9/11 from many different angles and see foul play, whether it be from all the intelligence warnings and no investigations, or the
anomalies of the hijackers themselves (ie, a few on records as being trained at military facilities, hijackers living with FBI informants, living in
extremely close proximity to intelligence offices, Atta protected from FBI by SOCOM, etc.), or what happened at the WTC, or Flight 93 or NORAD's
reactions or the wargames, the FEMA exercise in Manhattan on 9/10, or any number of things that just add up to give the impression that something that
day was horribly wrong, and not just because a bunch of Muslims randomly flew planes into some of our buildings.
Well, the Pentagon seems to have been particularly thrown in our faces immediately after 9/11. The earliest theory I remember reading, and I admit it
did snag me, was the no-757 theory for the Pentagon. There are some interesting issues, and I wouldn't mind being shown how a 757 made the
photographed hole just as well as the next person, but there are a lot of other issues when we look at the bigger picture. And I have to keep in mind
-- if anyone could make a 757 do anything at all, it would be the US military.
What really got to me was the fact that the early stills that were released showed obvious signs of photoshopping. For example,
There is an obvious brightness difference between these two frames that would not have come from the camera itself, as in from the explosion. The
increased brightness in the second image is uniform throughout the entire image, including the backs of objects that would otherwise have been
LaBTop, another member here, has recently posted a link to a presentation showing that many more Pentagon images were either the result of
photo-ops on the site, or else digitally edited after the fact. These are trivial changes, too, like moving cars and firetrucks and all number of
things this way and that all over the Pentagon site, or removing guard rails from images. It can be (and is) shown with only two or three photos that
there are obvious frauds, as photos become mutually exclusive and plainly contradict one another. But the reasons why anyone would make photos so
obviously flawed aren't immediately apparent.
Why would they do this? And why would they released still frames that have so obviously been tampered with? And why would they release frames
that show absolutely nothing in regards to a plane, and yet parade the images as if they bring the whole matter to rest? And why was the
"official story" of the Pentagon set up to be critically attacked so soon?
It seems to me that if they ever needed a quick way to insantly convert so many of us "conspiracy theorists" into diehard skeptics of any
conspiratorial accusations thrown at the government, they would build to a climax within the public's interest and then whip out one or all of the
confiscated videos or classified videos showing the impact.
By egging us on with frames that show jack crap while it's known that they have better vids, and showing us edited frames at that, and
other photoshopped images and various photo-ops that make the official timeline of the Pentagon chronological nonsense, they're encouraging us to
become skeptical of their own assertions of what happened there. Specifically, they're encouraging us to believe something other than a 757 hit that
building. Or at least that's the way I feel, as does WCIP here at least, and researcher Jim Hoffman. I'm sure there are others, but I don't hang
around the 757 threads very often, and more of us could certainly serve to have this idea kept in mind when dealing with 9/11 investigations. We
don't want to chase the wrong issue and have it backfire in our faces, because this one aspect could end up ruining anyone's chances to settle any
single one of the remaining unanswered questions regarding 9/11. And those abound whether or not you believe 9/11 was an inside job.
I would drop the whole issue, personally, and go with safer lines of inquiry, like more political ties, or the collapses of the WTC, or Flight 93's
crash or any incriminating aspect that we haven't been purposefully and blatantly taunted on.