response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks

[Clinton Huxley]

So, it can't have been a 757 that hit the Pentagon because there is no photo of it, so it must have been a cruise missile, though there's no photo of one.

Ok.

Personally I think the whole thing is a cover up for an ongoing alien invasion. That's at least as plausible as the monstrous castle of spun sugar erected by the "truthers".....

[Trolldor]

Simple point in fact - What happened to the plane and crew that were supposed to hit the pentagon if they did, in fact, not hit the pentagon?

[Galaxian]

Simple point in fact - What happened to the plane and crew that were supposed to hit the pentagon if they did, in fact, not hit the pentagon?

Really guys! No sooner than my having cautioned you against blase ignorant remarks based on lack of attention & dedication to study, than you're at it again. Tut tut
Silly comments/questions such as: "there's no photo of a cruise missile" (well the 5 lousy frames indicate a missile more than an invisible plane). Or, "where did the plane & passengers go?" duh! give you 3 guesses, starting now. Don't you read posts & links?
By the way Clinton; enough of your piss taking, it betrays a lack of deep contemplation of the issue. The reason we don't see either a plane, missile, or flying saucer hitting the Pentagon is because the video surveillance was stolen....all 83 tapes. THAT is the admission of guilt from the FBI. Any but the most biased mind can clearly see that criminals try to cover their tracks.

[Clinton Huxley]

When we see more than an ill-fitting jigsaw of supposition, assertion, non-sequiturs, wishful-thinking and wilful misunderstanding, the issue may require more than a "piss-taking" response. Until then, I'm with Thomas Jefferson.

[GrahamH]

But, the clincher: The FBI admitted the whole thing was an inside job, otherwise, why confiscate all the tapes?

One doesn't automatically follow the other.

Of course it does. Withholding evidence is a criminal offense, & self-implicating as either the perpetrator or an aider & abettor. Remember, they do not have the right to remain silent; a) they are our employees, b) Habeas Corpus is not applicable to a corporation or organization, especially a public one.

On another topic: the level of ignorance on this thread regarding 9/11 is shocking. Just on this page we have crap comments such as: 75 foot hole (it was actually 15 feet), contradictions between supposed witness statements & photographic reality, etc.
Then there are the obfuscations & apologia, such as; surveillance tapes can't be released to the public (they were available for years prior to that), and that the tapes have been released.

The round hole was a bit bigger than the diameter of a 757, around 12 ft. ( A Tomahawk cruise missile is only 1.7 ft diameter)

The tapes covering the impact and approach that show anything have been released.
What tapes, from cameras in which locations, do you claim should be released but have not?
What is the basis for your claim that Pentagon surveillance tapes were available for public viewing prior to 9/11? It sounds a highly improbable claim.

There could be security implication to releasing details of all surveillance at the Pentagon, and no benefit to releasing lots of recordings that don't cover the area of interest.

What is your source for the "83" tapes claim? Numbers, times and locations please.

The above are just "pull out of arse" statements. Now, if you can't be bothered to educate yourselves on this (to me at any rate) rather important subject, do NOT expect me to go to the trouble of doing it for you. Lack of sincerity & dedication is the worst affliction for any student, & can only be cured from within that person's own psyche.

It looks like you are the one making "pull out of arse" statements. You need facts not "psyche".

[Trolldor]

Simple point in fact - What happened to the plane and crew that were supposed to hit the pentagon if they did, in fact, not hit the pentagon?

Really guys! No sooner than my having cautioned you against blase ignorant remarks based on lack of attention & dedication to study, than you're at it again. Tut tut
Silly comments/questions such as: "there's no photo of a cruise missile" (well the 5 lousy frames indicate a missile more than an invisible plane). Or, "where did the plane & passengers go?" duh! give you 3 guesses, starting now. Don't you read posts & links?
By the way Clinton; enough of your piss taking, it betrays a lack of deep contemplation of the issue. The reason we don't see either a plane, missile, or flying saucer hitting the Pentagon is because the video surveillance was stolen....all 83 tapes. THAT is the admission of guilt from the FBI. Any but the most biased mind can clearly see that criminals try to cover their tracks.

Are you done yet? And the video surveillance wasn't be stolen.
Also, again, answer the question. What happened to the plane and all the passengers? There's a reason I want you to write it out.

[Coito ergo sum]

But, the clincher: The FBI admitted the whole thing was an inside job, otherwise, why confiscate all the tapes?

One doesn't automatically follow the other.

Of course it does. Withholding evidence is a criminal offense,

The police almost always "withhold evidence" of a crime from the public when investigating crimes. There is no obligation now, and never has been, for law enforcement to share all the evidence they have with the general public.

& self-implicating as either the perpetrator or an aider & abettor. Remember, they do not have the right to remain silent;

They haven't remained silent.

a) they are our employees, b) Habeas Corpus is not applicable to a corporation or organization, especially a public one.

Habeas corpus has nothing to do with this. Habeas corpus is just the common law law writ that requires law enforcement to bring a person accused of a crime before a judge and to present evidence against that person.

On another topic: the level of ignorance on this thread regarding 9/11 is shocking. Just on this page we have crap comments such as: 75 foot hole (it was actually 15 feet),

The hole in ring E, the outer ring, was about 75 feet. The hole in ring C was smaller 12-15 feet. That's what one would expect given the physics involved.

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... s-pentagon

contradictions between supposed witness statements & photographic reality, etc.

If you claim a contradiction, please do so clearly, and don't just post to scads of lengthy dissertations that we have to wade through to try to glean your point. If there is a "contradiction" between a witness statement and photographic evidence then:

a. quote the witness and identify him or her;
b. post the photo or a link to the photo at issue.

That's how to demonstrate a contradiction. You've not done so. Until you do, it would be irrational to accept your assertions.

Then there are the obfuscations & apologia, such as; surveillance tapes can't be released to the public (they were available for years prior to that), and that the tapes have been released.

The only question is: is there evidence that shows that the plane did not hit the Pentagon or evidence that something else did.

Is there? If so, post it.

The above are just "pull out of arse" statements. Now, if you can't be bothered to educate yourselves on this (to me at any rate) rather important subject, do NOT expect me to go to the trouble of doing it for you.

Well, you see it's your assertion and it is therefore your burden of proof. Do not expect other people to present your argument for you. That's the old "do the research" gambit and the old "if you don't know, then I'm certainly not going to tell you" scam. If you don't want to clearly present your argument in a logical fashion backed up by evidence, then that's up to you, but others need to do your work for you.

Lack of sincerity & dedication is the worst affliction for any student, & can only be cured from within that person's own psyche.

If only we approached the subject with a "sincere desire to know the Truth".... gee...I wonder where I've heard that before....

[Cunt]

THAT is the admission of guilt from the FBI. Any but the most biased mind can clearly see that criminals try to cover their tracks.

THAT is NOT an admission of guilt, any more than you are admitting responsibility for the killings by refusing to release your personal recordings of you singing along to Celine Dion.

Since you don't really have any evidence to support your own position, will you say what evidence it would take for you to abandon that position?

---------

The above are just "pull out of arse" statements. Now, if you can't be bothered to educate yourselves on this (to me at any rate) rather important subject, do NOT expect me to go to the trouble of doing it for you. Lack of sincerity & dedication is the worst affliction for any student, & can only be cured from within that person's own psyche.

Speaking of 'pull out of arse' statements, you have been demonstrated mistaken about your claim regarding the FBI's admission. If you can't admit you were wrong, I will have to conclude that you were lying. Deliberately misrepresenting the facts to support your position.

It doesn't add what I would call strength to your arguments. I just want to make it clear to everyone (as if it wasn't already ) how highly you as a 'truther' value the truth.

[Galaxian]

But, the clincher: The FBI admitted the whole thing was an inside job, otherwise, why confiscate all the tapes?

One doesn't automatically follow the other.

Of course it does. Withholding evidence is a criminal offense, & self-implicating as either the perpetrator or an aider & abettor. Remember, they do not have the right to remain silent; a) they are our employees, b) Habeas Corpus is not applicable to a corporation or organization, especially a public one.
On another topic: the level of ignorance on this thread regarding 9/11 is shocking. Just on this page we have crap comments such as: 75 foot hole (it was actually 15 feet), contradictions between supposed witness statements & photographic reality, etc.
Then there are the obfuscations & apologia, such as; surveillance tapes can't be released to the public (they were available for years prior to that), and that the tapes have been released.

The round hole was a bit bigger than the diameter of a 757, around 12 ft. ( A Tomahawk cruise missile is only 1.7 ft diameter)
The tapes covering the impact and approach that show anything have been released.
What tapes, from cameras in which locations, do you claim should be released but have not?
What is the basis for your claim that Pentagon surveillance tapes were available for public viewing prior to 9/11? It sounds a highly improbable claim.
There could be security implication to releasing details of all surveillance at the Pentagon, and no benefit to releasing lots of recordings that don't cover the area of interest.
What is your source for the "83" tapes claim? Numbers, times and locations please.

The above are just "pull out of arse" statements. Now, if you can't be bothered to educate yourselves on this (to me at any rate) rather important subject, do NOT expect me to go to the trouble of doing it for you. Lack of sincerity & dedication is the worst affliction for any student, & can only be cured from within that person's own psyche.

It looks like you are the one making "pull out of arse" statements. You need facts not "psyche".

I've given you the facts. If people here are too naive to do 2+2=1+1+1+1=7-3, etc, then that's their problem. Evidence has been withheld. Any fool can say the 83 tapes are all highly confidential; even the public facility ones. Any idiot can wave away all paradoxes & ambiguities & suspicious behaviour by the authorities.
You've even had the gall to ask me where the 83 surveillance points info comes from....Well, guess what...I'm not going to tell you. Do your own fucking research. It's actually fairly straightforward in this age of the information super highway.
Now, I notice that glaring offenses to rationality & information gathering from your buddies previous posts have whistled past you. You should have pulled them up for "pulling out of arse" info. But you didn't. WHY? The reason is because you have an axe to grind, & so any info that doesn't challenge you is OK by you, even when it is blatantly absurd. And any data that does challenge your preconceptions or your agenda is to be attacked, even when it is rational.
So you note the diameter of a Tomohawk. AND???? If you are saying it was a Tomohawk, I'd have to question that. I didn't say it was a Tomohawk. All I said was that it wasn't the 757 & was likely a bunker-buster missile. A big part of the evidence is that although several tapes clearly show the entire episode, they have been stolen so as to hide the facts. Are you too naive to see that as evidence tampering?
The lot of you sound like Christian Fundies with a God given Bible that you dare not question. Your God is the establishment status quo.Your Bible is the 9/11 Commission report & NIST & various bullshit drivel from Bush, etc.
I note that some lackadaisical waffler has again said the diameter of the hole was 75 feet. How can anyone possibly teach such a person, who is actually blind to the photographic evidence or is sooo lazy or sooo bigoted as to REFUSE to find out why he is wrong.
Well, I've posted enough links for you to see the diameter of the hole (not that you want to), and Google & YouTube (etc) can actually help you to find more information (not that you want to).
(Just before posting this I note some @#$%&! has displayed total LACK of ability at lateral or investigative thinking!)
When you are too blase about important world events to follow them up; that's YOUR problem, not mine!

[Azathoth]

But, the clincher: The FBI admitted the whole thing was an inside job, otherwise, why confiscate all the tapes?

One doesn't automatically follow the other.

Of course it does. Withholding evidence is a criminal offense, & self-implicating as either the perpetrator or an aider & abettor. Remember, they do not have the right to remain silent; a) they are our employees, b) Habeas Corpus is not applicable to a corporation or organization, especially a public one.

On another topic: the level of ignorance on this thread regarding 9/11 is shocking. Just on this page we have crap comments such as: 75 foot hole (it was actually 15 feet), contradictions between supposed witness statements & photographic reality, etc.
Then there are the obfuscations & apologia, such as; surveillance tapes can't be released to the public (they were available for years prior to that), and that the tapes have been released.

The above are just "pull out of arse" statements. Now, if you can't be bothered to educate yourselves on this (to me at any rate) rather important subject, do NOT expect me to go to the trouble of doing it for you. Lack of sincerity & dedication is the worst affliction for any student, & can only be cured from within that person's own psyche.

Withholding evidence from them is a criminal offence. Withholding evidence in an active criminal investigation from tinfoil hat wearing loons isn't.

[GrahamH]

But, the clincher: The FBI admitted the whole thing was an inside job, otherwise, why confiscate all the tapes?

One doesn't automatically follow the other.

Of course it does. Withholding evidence is a criminal offense, & self-implicating as either the perpetrator or an aider & abettor. Remember, they do not have the right to remain silent; a) they are our employees, b) Habeas Corpus is not applicable to a corporation or organization, especially a public one.
On another topic: the level of ignorance on this thread regarding 9/11 is shocking. Just on this page we have crap comments such as: 75 foot hole (it was actually 15 feet), contradictions between supposed witness statements & photographic reality, etc.
Then there are the obfuscations & apologia, such as; surveillance tapes can't be released to the public (they were available for years prior to that), and that the tapes have been released.

The round hole was a bit bigger than the diameter of a 757, around 12 ft. ( A Tomahawk cruise missile is only 1.7 ft diameter)
The tapes covering the impact and approach that show anything have been released.
What tapes, from cameras in which locations, do you claim should be released but have not?
What is the basis for your claim that Pentagon surveillance tapes were available for public viewing prior to 9/11? It sounds a highly improbable claim.
There could be security implication to releasing details of all surveillance at the Pentagon, and no benefit to releasing lots of recordings that don't cover the area of interest.
What is your source for the "83" tapes claim? Numbers, times and locations please.

The above are just "pull out of arse" statements. Now, if you can't be bothered to educate yourselves on this (to me at any rate) rather important subject, do NOT expect me to go to the trouble of doing it for you. Lack of sincerity & dedication is the worst affliction for any student, & can only be cured from within that person's own psyche.

It looks like you are the one making "pull out of arse" statements. You need facts not "psyche".

I've given you the facts. If people here are too naive to do 2+2=1+1+1+1=7-3, etc, then that's their problem. Evidence has been withheld. Any fool can say the 83 tapes are all highly confidential; even the public facility ones. Any idiot can wave away all paradoxes & ambiguities & suspicious behaviour by the authorities.
You've even had the gall to ask me where the 83 surveillance points info comes from....Well, guess what...I'm not going to tell you. Do your own fucking research. It's actually fairly straightforward in this age of the information super highway.
Now, I notice that glaring offenses to rationality & information gathering from your buddies previous posts have whistled past you. You should have pulled them up for "pulling out of arse" info. But you didn't. WHY? The reason is because you have an axe to grind, & so any info that doesn't challenge you is OK by you, even when it is blatantly absurd. And any data that does challenge your preconceptions or your agenda is to be attacked, even when it is rational.
So you note the diameter of a Tomohawk. AND???? If you are saying it was a Tomohawk, I'd have to question that. I didn't say it was a Tomohawk. All I said was that it wasn't the 757 & was likely a bunker-buster missile. A big part of the evidence is that although several tapes clearly show the entire episode, they have been stolen so as to hide the facts. Are you too naive to see that as evidence tampering?
The lot of you sound like Christian Fundies with a God given Bible that you dare not question. Your God is the establishment status quo.Your Bible is the 9/11 Commission report & NIST & various bullshit drivel from Bush, etc.
I note that some lackadaisical waffler has again said the diameter of the hole was 75 feet. How can anyone possibly teach such a person, who is actually blind to the photographic evidence or is sooo lazy or sooo bigoted as to REFUSE to find out why he is wrong.
Well, I've posted enough links for you to see the diameter of the hole (not that you want to), and Google & YouTube (etc) can actually help you to find more information (not that you want to).
(Just before posting this I note some @#$%&! has displayed total LACK of ability at lateral or investigative thinking!)
When you are too blase about important world events to follow them up; that's YOUR problem, not mine!

Thank you. I note your failure to back up any of the points I challenged.
I have "researched" this stuff, see lots of photos and videos, checked the dimensions of planes, see and heard the dishonest quote mines etc. You conform to the typical profile I have seen of "truthers". Lots of suspicion and posting of links, hearsay and ex-recto assertions, bugger all self-critical analysis.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've given you the facts.

Actually, you've given only unsubstantiated allegations. You said the FBI "admitted" something. They didn't. That's the fact. You have guessed or suggested that they are guilty of something because you think they criminally withheld videotapes. That's a fine allegation, but you've presented no facts to back that up.

If people here are too naive to do 2+2=1+1+1+1=7-3, etc, then that's their problem.

Nothing you've said adds up, that's the problem. You present vague and unsubstantiated assertions and call them facts. You say no evidence exists that a plane hit the Pentagon, but that's wrong. There is evidence. There are dozens of witnesses and wreckage that was confirmed to be of the plane involved, and other evidence, etc. There is no evidence for the contrary assertion that a missile hit the Pentagon, and the holes made in the Pentagon are inconsistent with a missile impact.

Evidence has been withheld. Any fool can say the 83 tapes are all highly confidential; even the public facility ones. Any idiot can wave away all paradoxes & ambiguities & suspicious behaviour by the authorities.

There is plenty of evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Whatever you claim the FBI did with the tapes, even if they set them on fire, doesn't change the fact that the evidence shows flight 77 hit the pentagon.

You've even had the gall to ask me where the 83 surveillance points info comes from....Well, guess what...I'm not going to tell you.

You sound like a nagging wife: "well if you don't know, I'm certainly not going to tell you!"

Do your own fucking research.

We do. You present your own fucking arguments and stop asking everyone else to do your work for you.

It's actually fairly straightforward in this age of the information super highway.

State your arguments in a straightforward fashion and present evidence for your assertions. Don't just direct our attention to amorphous blobs of 911 truther websites and ask us to trod through their screeds until we find the information you claim to be referencing. If it's so fucking simple, and so easily obtainable, and you know it, then just quote the material you're referring to.

Now, I notice that glaring offenses to rationality & information gathering from your buddies previous posts have whistled past you. You should have pulled them up for "pulling out of arse" info. But you didn't. WHY? The reason is because you have an axe to grind, & so any info that doesn't challenge you is OK by you, even when it is blatantly absurd. And any data that does challenge your preconceptions or your agenda is to be attacked, even when it is rational.

You've not presented "data."

So you note the diameter of a Tomohawk. AND???? If you are saying it was a Tomohawk, I'd have to question that. I didn't say it was a Tomohawk. All I said was that it wasn't the 757 & was likely a bunker-buster missile.

What's your evidence for that?

One, the impact is consistent with a 757 impact, pieces of the plane were found on site, and dozens of independent witnesses have confirmed seeing the plane flying toward and into the Pentagon. Evidence found on the scene showed that flight 77 wound up in the Pentagon where the impact was. Pieces of the plane were there.

Two, the medical examiner's office was able to identify remains belonging to 179 of the victims. Investigators eventually identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the attack. The remains of the five hijackers were identified through a process of elimination, and were turned over as evidence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_ar ... 79-1.shtml Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on American Airlines Flight 77. Only one of those who died made it to the hospital. The rest were killed on site, and for some, only pieces of tissue could be found.

A big part of the evidence is that although several tapes clearly show the entire episode, they have been stolen so as to hide the facts. Are you too naive to see that as evidence tampering?

I'm open to your argument. You say that several tapes have been "stolen." How do you know that?

The lot of you sound like Christian Fundies with a God given Bible that you dare not question.

No no. You exhibit all the signs of a Christian fundie, to wit:
1. Go do your research!
2. If you don't know, I'm certainly not going to tell you
3. Mischaracterize evidence - e.g. - claim something that is not an "admission" to be an admission.
4. Ignore evidence that does not support your idea.
5. Refuse to present evidence for claims that you make.
6. Characterize skepticism of your affirmative claims as somehow improper

Your God is the establishment status quo.Your Bible is the 9/11 Commission report & NIST & various bullshit drivel from Bush, etc.

I don't see anyone holding any particular book or source as inviolate. I do see you ask adopting a position based on faith and supposition, while ignoring evidence that counters your position and while ignoring very clear evidence that flight 77 did, in fact, hit the pentagon.

I note that some lackadaisical waffler has again said the diameter of the hole was 75 feet. How can anyone possibly teach such a person, who is actually blind to the photographic evidence or is sooo lazy or sooo bigoted as to REFUSE to find out why he is wrong.

I posted the image of the Pentagon above. Who is claiming that the ring E hole was less than approx. 75 feet? Nobody but you. The next ring in had a smaller hole, and that's to be expected.

Well, I've posted enough links for you to see the diameter of the hole (not that you want to), and Google & YouTube (etc) can actually help you to find more information (not that you want to).

I've posted images of the holes. One is large, the next one is smaller (more along the size of 12 to 15 feet). Both are consistent with an airplane impact.

(Just before posting this I note some @#$%&! has displayed total LACK of ability at lateral or investigative thinking!)
When you are too blase about important world events to follow them up; that's YOUR problem, not mine!

It's your job to substantiate your own arguments, not anyone else's. If you just want to post a claim, and then say "go out there and find the evidence that I found that I say supports my argument" then your simply refusing to meet your burden of proof. That's fine, but don't expect us to do your work for you. That would be like a scientist explaining the Big Bang theory and then saying, "I'm not going to explain to you the evidence that backs up my theory, because if you're too lazy to do the research that I've already done then I'm certainly not going to tell you." In other words, you're dodging.

[Thinking Aloud]

You can actually see the plane's tail fin in one of the Pentagon security videos of the impact.

I'd like to see that.
Can you provide a link?

In typical fashion (having been away for ages) I just chucked out my screenshots the other day. Let me see if I can find it again...

[Coito ergo sum]

The FBI even admitted it!

What did the FBI say exactly?

There were 84 video surveillance cameras in the vicinity that had their tapes quickly confiscated. The tapes were never returned, except for 5 lousy frames from one. That is a de-facto admission of guilt. Only a criminal activity seeks to cover its tracks like that.
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_15.htm
"The government and the defenders of the 'official story' have complained bitterly about all the questioning and 'wild conjecture' put forth in the work of these school teachers and 'unemployed hacks' of the 9/11 truth movement. They have even argued that it is wholly irresponsible to critique the official narrative without first stating the exact details of the counter narrative. But it is not the responsibility of the investigators of a crime to first come up with the detailed specifics of how a crime is pulled off. Any investigation starts by identifying the fact that a crime has been committed. Compiling a list of persons who most benefited from that crime, identifying suspects who had the means, sophistication, and motivation to carry out the crime.

One telling omission in this description of crime scene investigation is the first and most important step: conduct forensic evidence to see if the events can be reconstructed. That investigation was done, and the forensic evidence is clear: flight 77 hit the Pentagon - people saw it happen. Wreckage was found at the scene. People's remains were found at the scene. No evidence of a missile was found at the scene.

Then those suspects are questioned, opportunity to present alibis is given, and suspects are systematically cleared. If a suspect in a criminal investigation gives a story riddled with inconsistencies, lies, nonsensical statements, conflicting testimony, and details that defy scientific logic and available evidence, the suspect cannot defend himself by ridiculing the investigator that he has not come up with a specific and comprehensive counter-narrative.

Quite true, but you will need to identify the inconsistencies, lies, nonsensical statements and conflicts. Give us your best three. The top ones. The real doozies that support your claims.

The devil is in the details - WHAT was inconsistent? Does it refute the forensic evidence? Who lied? Who has made nonsensical statements? What were the lies and statements EXACTLY. Not spin - what did they actually say?

It is the responsibility of the suspect to explain any incriminating details that conflict with his given narrative.

It is the responsibility of the suspect to tell the truth as he remembers it. Quite often with a variety of witnesses, there will be some conflicts as to details. Further, witnesses are not necessarily "suspects." They are witnesses to some or other fact.

In regards to the Pentagon and Flight 77, the government and its defenders could, if they wished, put all the wild speculation as to the specifics of that event to rest.

How exactly? What would satisfy you?

Surrounding the Pentagon, as one would expect with a building of its stature, sit numerous video cameras. On the morning of September 11, they were positioned at an adjacent gas station, on top of neighboring hotels,

They were released. The gas station camera is far away but does show an impact and there was a hotel camera video but it was pointing in a different direction, not directly at the crash site.

mounted atop an array of different lamp posts running along I-395 that encircle the building, and scattered across other buildings and positions within clear view of the Pentagon.

Show us the map identifying where these lamp post cameras were, how far away they were, and what direction they were pointed in. And, give us some evidence that something of import was recorded on them. What are you suggesting happened to the video footage? How do you know?

All of those video cameras recorded the specific event of an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon on the morning of September 11. But the government will release none of those videos.

Proof?

The only thing they have released is a short burst of non-sequential still-frames that shows virtually nothing....

The video cameras recorded what they recorded. The plane was moving fast, and those surveillance cameras don't record at a very high rate of frames per second.

Why would the government release five individual, non-sequential still frames to the public, and not whole video clips of the event? What logical reason, besides suppression of what the full videos would show, can there be for this behavior?

We don't know that the government has refused to release more video clips.

Some have suggested the government perhaps does not want to upset the public with more traumatic footage. Besides the fact that we are all adults who have, by now, seen far worse than a plane flying into the Pentagon, they did choose to release those individual five frames. So again, why those five frames?...
To be clear, full videos do exist. The FBI, by its own admission, has 83 such videos. They confiscated all of them shortly after the impact of Flight 77. "A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon (the Sheraton) may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation.

Well, since you seem to accept that hotel employees watched the video and saw the plane hit the building, then it seems that the plane hit the building, unless those hotel employees are lying.

(Also) the attack occurred close to the Pentagon's heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance, including video monitoring." (Washington Times, 9/21/01)
The FBI also confiscated a video camera from the local Citgo gas station that sits just outside the Pentagon..."

As I understand it, that Citgo video was released.

Here's a very good analysis with several fine videos: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... 911_90.htm
You asked "what made the big hole?". Well, there never was a big hole. The hole was no more than 15 feet across (about 4.6m). There was little other damage from the 6 ton engines, the wings, tail or fuselage. The cable rolls were untouched, the lawn was pristine, there was no sizable debris, gravel was brought in to cover the crime scene, no skid trenches from flying debris, little damage to light poles, etc, etc. I've itemised all this on RDF & Rational Skepticism.
But, the clincher: The FBI admitted the whole thing was an inside job, otherwise, why confiscate all the tapes?

Thanks for the site, and we can all see how it is created to deceive. Look at the first sentence:

Where are the bodies? Supposedly 100 Tons of steel and titanium alloy completely disintegrated, yet, government forensics teams claim to have identified 180+ bodies.

Bodies? Nobody said that "bodies" were found (that word conjuring images of corpses being pulled out of the impact site). No, it was human fleshy bits that were identified through DNA analysis.

You then say, "The FBI admitted the whole thing was an inside job, otherwise, why confiscate all the tapes?" - Because police confiscate video surveillance tapes during investigations all the time. It would be ridiculous of them NOT to take the tapes. And, you say again that the FBI "admitted" something. They did not admit anything. You are claiming that they implicitly admitted something by confiscating the tapes. That's not "admitting" anything. That's your supposition. That's your claim.

[Thinking Aloud]

Here's the Pentagon video I was talking about - you'll all have seen it before... Bear in mind, this is from YouTube, that it's been reprocessed several times getting this far, and I've just made a gif out of it! It's three consecutive frames taken from one of the many versions on YouTube. (Apologies for the size - it may take a minute or two to load.) OK, I suspect it won't persuade many folks who are sceptical, especially since there's a tree on the horizon immediately behind, but to my mind (and I've watched a few versions of this particular video) the tail fin is clearly visible. In one version I saw the AA logo could just be made out (as a pixelly blur admittedly).




This 3D animation was interesting as an overview: