National Security Alert - Pentagon Video

So you spent all that time writing up that critique and finding links to counter from the first few minutes of all the same stories we have all heard before.... and didn't watch the rest?

The witnesses [16.06-the start point of the witnesses] and the flight path they sketch are the most important part. The taxi driver bit is useless you can just turn it off before that.

bonkey wrote: »

So...can anyone who's watched it through, or at least further then me, give me a time-point that they feel is worth watching?

Nah . Go and watch it yourself and then come back and do yore thang !!!!

FalseFlagBurner wrote: »

I discovered this forum while doing a search to find feedback on this documentary. It seems like it has been rather well received by the people here who have viewed it so I feel compelled to reply to your "shot" at a debunk.

I'm not trying to debunk anything. I was responding to posters who were advocating that people watch it, without making an argument why it was worth watching. I offered an explanation as to why, within the first few minutes of content, I saw nothing to convince me that this was worth watching through. I explicitly asked that someone who has watched it point me at some part they felt was worth watching.

I don't feel I can comment on the full content of the video at all, given that I haven't watched it. I can only say that the content I've watched thus far has not convinced me that the rest of it is worth watching. I appealed to those who were advocating a discussion on the video to point me at something they felt was worth watching, so that I could watch it and we could then discuss it.

Let's be clear that you have chosen to limit your response to "chapter A" that has been clearly titled "A prima facie case for deception".

I've tried to limit myself to commenting on the content that I've watched, which I've clearly indicated in terms of time. I've no idea how much further the authors continue to make their prima facie case, nor whether or not they include further content which makes my arguments redundant.

So in other words, none of the information that you have addressed was presented as conclusive or irrefutable, and as clearly stated in the "preamble" that you chose not to address, the producers were merely going over some of the general information that inspired the initial questions and suspicions, which they explain is why they launched their independent investigation uncovering the actual evidence presented in the body of the film, which is all that they cite as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a deception. The evidence that you have made a conscious effort to not view.

Thats not entirely accurate.

The case being made was prima facie. I don't argue for a second that the case which will be made in the entirety of "chapter A" should be complete. What I would argue is that the information presented, from which the case is built, should be clearly distinguished between fact and interpretation, assumption, argument, or basically anything that is not fact. Anything which is presented as a statement of fact should be uncontestably true. Anything which is not uncontestably true should, in a perfect world, be dealt with as part of the argument once it is moved beyond the stage of "prima facie".

1. While it's true that the 1st attack on the WTC was not caught on live tv it was captured on camera by an independent source, the Naudet brothers.

2. The filmmakers did not claim that there is reason to believe that the Pentagon attack should have been caught on live tv. What they claimed is the lack of footage and images of the attack left what happened mired in mystery and debate. Surely you aren't questioning this claim are you?

At least we're agreed that the claim made was inaccurate....thats a good start

As for the video content resulting in the issue being mired in mystery and debate...the attacks on both towers were, as you say, captured on film. To argue that a lack of video resulted in mystery and debate, I assume your position is that there is no mystery or debate regarding the towers and what happened to them?

So unless you are arguing that there were NOT dozens of video tapes confiscated you really have no point at all.

But let me save you the time from bothering to try to make this argument by providing you with a source for the rest of pages of the document shown:

http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu1.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu2.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu3.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu4.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu5.jpg
http://www.flight77.info/menu/menu6.jpg

The claim made was that within hours dozens of video tapes from various locations were seized. This claim was made specifically regarding the attacks on the Pentagon.

My argument - which is backed up by the document shown in the video (and which you've been so kind as to link to here) - is that this claim is both false and misleading. It is false, in that the "dozens of videos" were not seized within hours of the attacks, unless you redefine "hours" to mean "weeks". In addition, of the videos identified, it is clear that most do not related to the Pentagon attack at all.


Had the authors wished to stick to fact, then they should have said that within weeks of the attacks, dozens of videos were seized, an unknown quantity of which were related to the Pentagon attacks in some way. Of the five videos identifiable as having being seized on the day, four have been released.

Compare that to what they said, and it should be clear why I feel they're doing more (or less) than merely presenting information./

While you may have a technical point here, it does nothing to address the evidence presented in the documentary for a deception nor does it detract from the overall point the filmmakers were trying to make for a "prima facie" case.

Not having watched it, I'd not presume to comment on whether or not it does anything to address the evidence presented. My point, rather, is that for the purpose of a discussion forum such as this, I didn't see sufficient merit in the first few minutes to just buy into the contentless "watch the video" arguments presented thus far.

I would additionally agree that an individual point such as this does not detract significantly from whatever argument it is contributing to in a larger context. The problem is that - for me at least - it wasn't an individual point. Rather, it was one of a litany of such points....which when taken together begin to suggest that what is being presented as "information" is not - strictly speaking - limiting itself to fact.

The security gate video wasn't officially released until 2006, was not provided from an independent source, nor is it clear footage of the attack or initial physical damage. Most feel that it has only fueled questions and suspicions rather than solving them which holds entirely true to the point the producers were making. If you are arguing that this isn't the case and that the government controlled and provided security video has cleared up all questions regarding the physical nature of the attack, you might have a relevant point here but I have a feeling you might agree that this would be a rather difficult argument to make.

Agreed?

I'm agreed that the security tape was officially released.

Frames from it were originally leaked from an independant source, but either which way...the argument is independence is moving the goalposts. No argument was made in the video (at least in the portion that I have addressed) about the importance of independence.

Similarly, I'm not suggesting that the video has cleared up all questions. I'm merely suggesting that the statement made in the video was false.

Given that you stressed that this was a prima facie argument yourself, I'd like to remind you of that. I'm not saying that the argument is incomplete....I'm saying that the information presented on which the argument is based is inaccurate.

Actually that is exactly what the producers are saying here. There is absolutely nothing directly linking the image of the alleged black box OR the image of the alleged plane part with a serial # to Flight 77 or tail #N644AA.

Indeed, both images were released by the Pentagon in their 2008 released book "Pentagon 9/11" without photographer credit. There is no way to tell that they were even taken at the Pentagon and even if they were, it is impossible to know when they were taken as it could very well have been years after the attack.

The black box of the plane which was recovered as part of the wreckage is positive identification.

The pictures provided by the Pentagon are positive identification.

It is only when one moves the argument to say that when we exclude all information released by official sources and disregard all positive identification from official sources, that there has been no positive identification. This, however, is not what is claimed in the voiceover. It is, therefore, inaccurate, It is presenting a claim as a simple fact, when in fact, its far from same.

Again, the producers did not make this claim as conclusive or irrefutable "proof" of anything,

With respect, I'd like to refer back to exactly what was said:

None have been positively identified as belonging to flight 77 or tail number N644aa.

That is worded as being conclusive. It is presented as a simple fact, when the reality is that the fact is the diametric opposite. The authors could have made the argument that they do not accept any of the positive identification which has been made...but they didn't. They claimed it hadn't been made, period.

I don't think you can succesfully argue the notion that these suspicions did not exist.

I'm not trying to argue any such notion. I'm addressing what the authors presented as information (rather than as argument, or as being conditional in some form) and showing that it is not accurate.

Furthermore the producers most certainly did show a composite image depicting the full extent of the damage at 1:52 and 2:37 as they made this point so it seems as though you are the one being misleading about what was presented.

The image presented at 1:52 and 2:37 is a computer-generated image. It is not in any way identifiable as being composed of images of the relevant part of the building taken at the time. It may be, it may not be. The actual photos of the building taken from the day, as presented in the video between those two time-points, are all of far closer shots, shots obscured by smoke, or (in one case) are faded out as they zoom out.

I find it rather incredible that you would fail to watch the actual evidence for a deception presented in the video while focusing so much attention on the clearly labeled "prima facie" case.

I would again refer you back to the last comment in my post, which you seem to have overlooked.

I watched a short part of the intro, and found it to be very poor. I'm not saying that the rest of the video is poor...I'm saying that the start of it is poor enough that I amn't interested in watching eighty-something minutes of it. In particular, my interest is in the discussion, but as you can see, there's hardly a humming discussion going on, and only one person (before you) was interested enough to provide me with any sort of an idea as to what to look at. When I get time (which I would have had this evening, had I not been replying to you, ironically), I'll look at that part, and see if it changes my opinion.

What's even more notable is how you created the impression of a thorough "debunk" of this prima facie case while actually failing to even address the two most definitive claims mentioned.

I certainly intended no such thing. I stated at the end of that post my conclusions from having watched that short snippet were, and in my followup to Nick further clarified my position. In this post, I've gone out of my way to stress this point...I'm "debunking" nothing. I'm pointing out that what was presented as fact is often misleading and/or inaccurate. If I haven't addressed something in the same timeframe of the video, its safe to assume its because I didn't have any major issue with what was presented or how it was presented. If I haven't addressed something from a later point in the video, its safe to assume its because - as I stated - I stopped watching.

I'd like to hear if you have an argument against the actual evidence for a deception provided in the body of the presentation.

Again, I haven't watched the video, because I found the quality of argument in the first two and a half minutes to be very poor. I'm not inclined to sit through 80 minutes to find out if teh quality improves.

If you'd like to suggest a section that I could look at, I'm more than willing to look at it, either to see if my initital judgement was in error, or to discuss the points raised in that section.

Alternately, you could give the short version of the evidence presented in written form and we could discuss the argument, rather than the video.

I wouldn't expect everyone to be able to quote chapter and verse from the NCSTAR reports, nor to have read them from start to finish, for example, to be able to voice an opinion on the NIST investigations, findings, nor indeed the collapses of WTC 1, 2 or 7. I believe they're a valuable source of information, and can be a useful reference to link to in a discussion....but only for someone willing to make the argument themselves, rather than just say "go read NIST".

Similarly, I don't believe that it is absolutely and positively necessary to watch a video before being able to discuss the arguments made, unless the person/people you're discussing with are unwilling to make those arguments themselves. Maybe I'm odd in that way...many people here seem to be "watch the video, then we'll discuss it", whereas I'm more of the opinion of "lets discuss the topic, and your argument might compel me to watch the video".

There are too many videos out there, and virtually all of them have someone who fervently believes in the brilliance of it. Most of those videos, however, are not worth much if I'm honest...so I tend to find the "discuss first, watch later" to be a very good way of filtering signal from noise.

To repeat...I haven't watched much of the video. I have a sketchy idea of the argument I think it presents. I've found no-one willing to discuss the content in enough detail to convince me that its worth watching. I wouldn't discourage anyone from watching it...but nor would I endorse it in any way.