reply to post by jprophet420
If they are trying to keep it a secret, they aren't going to list it as a reason. Furthermore, I'm not necessarily suggesting that this is the
reason, only that it could very well be the reason, thus the truth movement should move on and focus on the mountain of other evidence. The truth
movement or those claiming to represent the truth movement, suffer from a fundamental flaw of supporting theories and evidence that aren't very
definitive, ultimately allowing itself to be marginalized. If people could focus their attention on the evidence that is definitive and damning, then
the movement could open more eyes and borrow more ears. Unfortunately, until then a large percentage of the people will continue to just ignore the
message all together. If there could be an explanation for something, then we need to move on to the mountain of other evidence and facts that have no
Look, I am absolutely convinced of the absurdity of the OS and I certainly believe that there is much more to the story than what we are being told,
even that the government could be complicit in the attacks. However, this doesn't mean that I'm going to whole-heartedly believe in every or any
theory that the so-called "truth movement" puts forward. Instead, I'm going to seek the truth, wherever that truth may be, even if it ultimately
proves me wrong. For instance, if the government tomorrow, opens it's files and proves everything I have been saying for the past 10 years wrong, I
would be more than happy to embrace a new theory and admit that I'm wrong. Why? Because I simply want the truth.
Lets look at the Pentagon attack for a minute...
If the government has some kind of active technology to mitigate a missile attack on government buildings such as embassies or important government
buildings like the White House and Pentagon, then they surely wouldn't want to expose this technology and any flaws that it may or may not have. It
would compromise the security of all other critical government sites that may or may not have the same technology.
We already know for a fact that the government takes extreme measures to secure their buildings and critical sites from attacks so it would be
expected that they would have a technology that would protect their infrastructure from missile or explosive attacks, especially on the newly
renovated side of the building that houses the heart of our defense capabilities..
Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that the Pentagon did have a new, secret reactive technology to withstand missile strikes. What could we
expect to see if the building was struck by a missile, such as fast moving aircraft? Well, for starters, we could expect to see very localized damage
and in fact, that is exactly what we saw. We could also expect obliteration of the projectile, which is also what we saw. Furthermore, we could expect
that the government wouldn't admit to said technology and also make moves to suppress any video that could expose the processes of such a
Why would they want to keep this a secret? Because the enemy could develop munitions to compensate for this technology, effectively making it useless
or at the very least, less effective.
So, sure the government could be suppressing the video footage of the Pentagon attack for the reasons of it not being an aircraft that struck the
building. However, it could also be for the reasons presented in this thread. The same goes for the damaged building, which would seem to not show
typical characteristics of an aircraft impact site. This could either be because it wasn't an aircraft or because their was some kind of secret blast
proofing to the building. However, because multiple witnesses saw an airplane and the multitude of other evidence to show that an aircraft was on
course for an impact, such as radar data, it is very logical to suggest that the reasons for the footage suppression aren't because it wasn't an
aircraft but instead the reasons listed in this thread.
Regardless, there is a logical explanation for the suppression of the footage and it doesn't really matter if the government uses this explanation to
account for its actions. The explanation is still viable, thus the argument is not definitive.