The U.S. Constitution asks of us that we know personal freedom. Freedom is often mistaken for a neglected privilage, when it is truely more a responsibility. Analogous to our character as citizens, the Constitution is meant to be modified as the world changes and our understanding advances. Democracy is responsive to change through a citizenry prepared to read, reason, and react. The 3 R's of citizenship, if you will. The Constitution was written in large part due to a respect for the rights and responsibilities of representation. And it was understood at the time that the populace should be discouraged, by disign, from overly relying upon external authority. Our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, are again both privilages and responsibilities. We take advantage of what others have done to sustain these rights, while we must work to sustain them for the generation to follow. Working to sustain or freedom involves accepting the fact that many people in this country are not free.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918) - Theodore Roosevelt. MORALLY TREASONABLE!!! He is saying that those who would sacrifice the truth in allegiance to an external authority, are not prepared to be citizens of a democracy.

Now lets bring this into the present context. I strongly believe that to accept that there must be no criticism of the 'official version' of 9/11, or that we are to stand by that 'version', right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. I mean to imply that it is the understanding of the individual that carries the truth. Not a document or organization. Citizens are supposed to be able to read and review news and basic documentary evidence, use their reason and knowledge to bring that information into the context of related information, and then act upon what they come to believe is the truth. But a democratic truth is always subject to debate, and so citizens must also be able to adapt in light of a reasonable challenge to their understanding. Unfortunately, the public response to 9/11 has demonstrated that many individuals do not believe that it is possible for them to effectively review any evidence, or come to any alternative conclusions.

And now to a demonstration of my point:





What do YOU see here? You DO see something. Do you see the reason that someone at the Pentagon indicated the first frame of five as "Plane"? What are the elements of that reason that YOU can detect, and what conclusions do YOU draw? Forget the 'versions' and 'authorities' for a minute. Just look! I suggest grabbing the pictures to your desktop, dragging them larger, setting them side by side, and comparing the area near the ticket box that mostly obscures the "Plane". Or you can set them to full screen and tab between them.

Here's what I see. I have examined these picture relative to one another in order to determine what structure is evident in the first. Zooming into both I have found a vapor trail that is distinct in the first image and diffuse in the second. In the first image I also see a structure above and forward of the vapor trail. The presence of the vapor trail is the only reason I assume that structure to be the tail fin of some kind of aircraft. Otherwise I find no evidence of an aircraft in this image. The stuctures appearing directly around the ticket box might at first appear to be part of a plane. However, due to over-exposure the background structure of buildings and trees in the impact image have less contrast than they do in the 'plane' image. If you darken the contrast of the impact image to compensate, you first find that the images look far more alike, and second that all of the structures around the ticket box, are present in both images with the exception of the "tail fin".

So that's the info I've reviewed, and now I must apply what knowledge I have through a reasonable process in order to put this in context and draw my own conclusions, if possible. My first impression of the images, assuming no prior knowledge of the attack, would be that a missle struck the Pentagon. CAUSE THAT"S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE!!! However, the Commission Report states that flight 77 hit the pentagon. So looking at the image again, I consider whether it looks as though a 757 is hitting the pentagon. First of all, when I first saw the pictures I knew that the vapor trail did not originate from a 757. It just didn't look right. And that supposition was, upon some further investigation, found to be based on experience. FACT: Large commercial aircraft don't make sizable vapor trails at low altitude. Maybe a whisp of turbulant air at the wingtips. I've been to the airport and seen this. I've watched television shows about military aircraft and seen this. Its just something we've all seen numerous times. Now secondly, the 'plane', entirely hidden by the ticket box, seems too small to be a 757. I've got pretty good visual and spacial acuity. I'm good at estimating scale relative to depth. And I think I can well imaging the size of a 757. You can see that the Pentagon is only four stories high, and yet if the 'plane' were any more than a story tall, it would be too long to be hidden by the ticket box. 757's are pretty long relative to the height of their tail fin, so the 'plane' does not appear to be long enough to be a 757. And as it turns out these suppositions are widely supported through incredibly basic geomety that results in something like this image.



The analysis done by the creator of this image, as with so many others, suggests that the 'plane' is about 20% too small to be a 757. And this is not rocket science here people. No chemical analysis required. No expert testimony. Just common sense, and some basic math. I mean to suggest that both my intuitive reading of these images, and my research indicate the same thing.

These are not images of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Now, I need take this no further to know that there are some unanswered questions I have for officials at the Pentagon. Questions that some 'official' source should have asked long ago. It appears as though the Pentagon has provided false information. It matters not in this consideration where the 757 went, or what struck the Pentagon. Maybe flight 77 struck just after these images were taken. We may never know. What matters is that the Pentagon released these images in order to respond to a growing controversy about what struck the building, and the images do not appear to well support their story. They prove that some kind of aircraft struck the Pentagon. But they also make it apparent to the curious eye, that something else happened that day that has not yet been 'officially' acknowledged. And ultimately if there is any conclusion that I draw from these considerations it is that I can not trust what the Pentagon tells me. Of course Rumsfeld has an explicit policy of lying to the public in the interest of national security, so I'm not really moving anywhere with this one.

I've tried here to represent the fact that personal analysis is an important part of being an active citizen. I am more likely to ask important questions about things that directly affect my life if I am engaged in examining the information before me with a critical eye. I am also trying to represent the dangers of overly relying upon 'offical' sources that continue to demonstrate that they can not be trusted. Democracy demands independent journalism as a public oversight of government. Oversight can not come from within. Citizens demand answers to the questions they have about the actions of their leaders. Those who rely entirely upon their leaders for the 'truth' are not capable of providing that oversight, neglect their freedom, and erode the democratic principles upon which this nation was founded. - R.C.

I think that the Pentagon is clearly hiding something, quite likely they have even cut out frames from the video, however, we can't get that much from these stills. For all we know the whole video is a good fake.

I mean we can sort of see an outline of a plane, but where the front of the plane is, is not clear. The only thing we can really see clearly is the tail.

When you calculated the size of the plane, did you take in account of the angle of the approach which would foreshorten the plane's profile?

I should also note that the vapor trail could be from the damage the plane sustained when striking several light poles on its way into the Pentagon.

As far as I am concerned, this thing in the video could be flight 77, a missile or some pixels from photoshop. We just don't know.

In my opinion, we can get more information about the plane from the multiple photographs that were taken of the impacted Pentagon wall.

Spooked, you seem to have missed my point just a bit, althought I do appreciate the response. I was trying to make the general point, using a specific example, possibly not the best one, but my favorite, about the fact that we can draw our own valid conclusions from reviewing available evidence. I did not imply that any conclusion was wrong, although I did emphasize my opinion. You might conclude that the images were tampered with, and that might lead you question the official story. You might think the image shows a missle and come to the same conclusion. Or you might think that it could be a 757 and ignore the images all together. But looking at them, and believing that you are able to see something, and decide if it is relevant or useful is key. I may not be qualified to examine the mathematics of a building collapse, but the images of WTC7 collapsing speak volumes. I was responding to those who would have us believe that only experts are qualified to review evidence. We may not see everything they do, but we just might see enough.

Also, several people have analyzed the photos, and taken into account the exact size and trajectory of the plane. Interestingly, I haven't found anyone who has tried to show that the image could be a 757. Its simply assumed. The first image looks bogus to me, unless its specifically a small jet firing a missle. And if thats not what happened, then the images are most likely doctored. I agree that the impact damage is more important and convincing. But thinking that the Pentagon released misleading images is important as well. It demostrates a possible cover up. - R.C.

They actually put that pentagon impact frame up on sign on the fence. It's in a timeline of the attacks. I started laughing and then raving about it as a crowd of somber tourists looked at me in horror.

We can't have real Democracy in this country if people just passively go along with the Official 9/11 Myth and all it's bogus deceptive authorities. Real Democracy only happens when people can think for themselves and express their conclusions, questions and feelings about what's really going on! :yourock:

and can end its dangerous effect of ignorance by media complicty in the coverup.

Ditto on the

You Rock!

One point. I believe the pentagon is fraught with intentionally placed mind controlled eyewitnesses. I think we are better off not not making it a part of the public inquiry.

or do you think it will undermine acceptance of the 9/11 "research" community?

9-11 researchers need to know that it is quite possible that unconsciously the public already knows and that is why they don't want the truth of how 9-11 happened, because after that comes who and why, then the MC comes out.

We are terrified of ourselves, the greatest part, the 86%, and all that is possible there.

I do not make it a part of outreach.

Every now and then I respectfully bring it out and use it try to reduce the anger and hatred the public feels at the fraud. I try to remind them that love is of the unconscious also. I understand MC and feel compassion for those who are controlled by it, even the controllers, although great darkness dwells there.

Our potential for understanding can create forgiveness and that will go farther than ANYTHING when it comes to getting the truth, that and courage.

Thanks for the encouragement. I did spend a while on this one. And while I'm not sure the eyewitnesses had to be the subjects of mind control, I have read at least a hundred eye witness accounts, and I can say for certain that some of them are lying with the intent to deceive. Only a minority say they saw a large passenger plane. Most seem to suggest that the aircraft was something like a smaller military jet, or drone. Of course eye witness accounts are the least reliable evidence to consider. But you have to assume that some of them are accurate. Personally I think that the evidence suggests, but obviously does not prove, that a military aircraft fired a missle into the pentagon just before it crashed. Hopefully we will find out some day. - R.C.

Just got carried away. Maybe 60.

From my experince those who may have been unconsciously influenced to see something that wasn't quite there and are also very sincere or sure of what they saw are often female.

Males will says they saw something that they sort of know wasn't quit there but won't be able to justify their accounting and in the proces of trying to, will show their insincerity. They are saying what they are saying for different reasons than the females.

Interesting question, although you are likely to draw the ire of a femenist of two. Your assumptions about gender may or may not be correct. In either case, here's the data for you to examine.

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

How do you propose that these witnesses could have been influenced? I could only think that the person interviewing them would have had to ask carefully leading questions, or that the people were chosen as witnesses before the event and coached in their response. Its nearly impossible to determine how genuine someone has been without video. Non-verbal communication is where many of these cues are exposed. I'll re-examine the data to see if anything pops out. You should do the same. - R.C.