Now I personally believe a plane did hit the Pentagon, and alot of leading people in the truth movement such as Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman have warned about disinformation relating to the Pentagon attack and the divisive and damaging effect such speculation has on the movement. So I was skeptical about this episode, and almost didn't bother watching it. But I'm glad I did, it was so much better than I thought it would be.
They exposed how Norman Mineta's testimony that suggests a standdown was covered up. They interviewed Charles Lewis about what he heard at LAX. They demonstrated the ludicrous difficulty of the official flight path using a flight simulator. They demonstrated the power of voice morphing technology, which was mindblowing even for me. And the exposing of the 9/11 commission at the end was excellent.
And best of all, no CIT!
Jesse's programs really put the mainstream media to shame. If Jesse could accomplish what he has on a relatively low budget, imagine what Popular Mechanics or the BBC could have done if they actually did their jobs.
But it would have been nice if they interviewed someone in the truth movement or a witness or firefighter or someone who disagrees with no-plane theories to give both sides, and emphasized that the question of what hit the Pentagon is less important than why/how it was hit, like what Dylan did in Loose Change Final Cut.
We know a plane approached the Pentagon - noone denies that. There's no evidence that the plane flew over the Pentagon. No witnesses have come forward saying they clearly saw a plane flying away from the explosion or anything like that. In order for the 'north-side flyover' theory to be true, the damage to Lloyd England's taxi would have to have been staged. Some proponents of no-plane theories have accused Lloyd England of being an accomplice with no evidence whatsoever. Not only is there no evidence that the scene was staged, but it is also implausible that they would be able to stage such a scene in broad daylight within just a few minutes of the explosion. Even if they could stage the scene, and indeed the entire Pentagon attack, what would be the point? Considering the amount of stuff that would need to be faked, it seems ridiculous that they would go through all the extra unnecessary trouble of staging a fake plane crash, and risk jeopardising a highly compartmentalized operation, when they could just crash a plane into the building!
One much simpler theory that isn't discussed much, which seems to fit the evidence and eyewitness accounts better than any other theory and could potentially explain the observed damage and debris anomalies, is the theory that there were explosives of some kind on board Flight 77 that were detonated a split second before impact to weaken the plane and reduce damage to the Pentagon.
Futher Reading...
Is The Missing $2.3 Trillion Really Missing?
"Fake" Phone Calls? What The Evidence Shows
9-11 Review: Pentagon Attack Errors
A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, and one that won’t
Jimd3100's response
Related Info:
TruTV's 'Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura' - 9/11
The fact that Hani Hanjour -- the alleged pilot of the Boeing airplane which crashed into the Pentagon -- could not fly at all is now being challenged by apparent CIA informant Louai al-Sakka, who says that it was actually Nawaf al-Hazmi who piloted the plane. No, HE Couldn't Fly Either
On another note, Neighborhood Rationalist has responded to my earlier debunking effort. I was going to give a detailed reponse to the Hani Hanjour stuff and the thermite stuff, but JM already covered that. So I'll respond to the improbability stuff.
Incidently, I noticed Neighborhood Rationalist, in defence of the 9/11 Commission Report, quoted the 9/11 Commission Report - the very thing we are challenging. This reminds me of the Countering Criticism of the Warren Report document, which at one point says "Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself".
Anyway, when I wrote my earlier post, I was at work lol. So I wasn't able to watch that video I posted about improbabilities before I posted it, if I had I probably wouldn't have done so. I confused it with another video I've seen but can't find in which someone mentions I think about 20 'coincidences' surrounding 9/11 and assigns each one a modest one in ten probability. The conclusion is that the probability of all 20 of those coincidences being 'just coincidences' would be one in ten to the power of twenty.
Edit: I found the video I was on about, turns out it has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, I was thinking of this clip from the documentary The Priviledged Planet, which argues that Earth-like planets are rare in the universe. This is what happens when you research so many different topics! How embarrassing!
Nonetheless, the same method can be applied to 9/11. There are hundreds of coincidences surrounding not just the events themselves but stuff relating to the truth movement (Barry Jennings' death for example), and that number is ever increasing. Even if you were to give each one a modest one in five probability, the probability of there being no conspiracy would still be ludicrously low. So it takes an enormous amount of faith to believe in the official story. Ironic since Conspiracies R Not Us seem to like to claim that we are the ones with faith.
