Political Crossfire Forums

[Norrin Radd]

1) Say the conspiracy is impossible because thousands of people would have to be involved, even if in reality only dozens of people are needed to carry out the goal.

2) Ask questions like, why would the government do that when they could have done something else which would have been much easier. These are irrelevant questions. It is like asking why Hitler invaded Russia, or why Coke introduced NEW COKE. These questions are irrelevant!!!!!!!!!!!!

3) Ridicule the poster by using ROFL's smilies and references to the X-Files and tin foil hats.

4) Demand evidence that only the government has and refuses to release.

5) CLAIM ANYONE WHO SPEAKS AGAINST THE OFFICIAL STORY IS A WHACKO, NUTJOBM LOONY.

6) Deny any evidence presented. I have had people question government documents before, not here at this forum, thank God, but at other forums. Many people will question any information that is not from a well known site, without bothering to check the ORIGINAL SOURCE for the information.

7) Make ridiculous comparisons which are not even reasonable. Comparing apples to watermelons.'

8) Refuse to answer questions.

9) When presented a mountain of evidence they will dismiss all the most important pieces and pick out the weakest link and haarp on that weak link until any sane person would want to puke.

10) Create anger through derogatory comments which ridicule posters and their opinions, driving usually well mannered people to get ticked off.

[Patriot911]

Awwww..... poor widdle Norrin got his feewings hurt again.

1. Is true. All the evidence that would have to be hidden and all the people who would have to keep silent when the official story differs from what they know happened precludes just a couple dozen people being the only involved. Despite what you claim, compartmentalization can't explain it no matter HOW stupid you think people are.

2. Except we know Hitler invaded Russia and Coke created New Coke. These are known facts. When you try and claim a ridiculous theory you can't even come close to explaining or even describing is true fact when it doesn't even come close to being believable, people are going to question why the government would do something so complicated and crazy when their lives are forfit if they are caught.

3. :moon: Because it is so fun. And if you believe for one instant that this is ONLY done by the sane.... I mean non conspiracy people, I suggest you go back and look at CT posts.

4. No, we demand ANY evidence. You got this one backward. It is the 9/11 deniers who want full disclosure from the government and claim they could prove their story if the government gave them what they want. You would think with the scope of the conspiracy theory you have, ONE piece of evidence would be easy to come up with.

5. First sign of whacko nutjob looney is they type in all caps for no apparent reason. ;-)

6. No, this is 9/11 deniers. 9/11 deniers deny all the witnesses outside the Pentagon saw flight 77 fly into the Pentagon. 9/11 deniers deny all the firefighters who saw the damage to WTC 7 and claim it was going to collapse. 9/11 deniers deny all the experts who claim the WTC towers fell like they should have given the circumstances. And from what I've seen, non-cters deny evidence when they have clear evidence that refutes their evidence, even when it comes from a known trusted original source. A prime example is the 9/11 deniers claim that hijackers are still alive as claimed by the BBC. They have articles from the BBC. Yet 9/11 deniers continue to bring up this same story because they eny all the evidence that refutes the BBC story like the fact that no story has surfaced since September 27th 2001 when the FBI came out with the pictures that didn't match the claims of those who said they were the "living hijackers". Denying evidence because you have the means of showing that evidence as faulty is perfectly normal. Denying evidence like the 9/11 deniers do just because it doesn't fit their theory is ludicrous.

7. :roll: Getting a little desperate? It is 9/11 deniers who I've seen compare a small fire inside a wire frame and then standing on it without it collapsing as valid proof WTC 1, 2 and 7 couldn't have fallen due to fire.

8. I answered your questions. You ran away from mine because you would have been shown to be a liar one way or the other. ;-) Nice try though.

9. No, that is 9/11 deniers again. You seem very confused. Tin foil hat on too tight?

10. Geee..... just like your original post on this thread. It is nice to see you going out of your way to create anger through derogatory comments which ridicule posters and their comments. :rofl: Hypocrite!

[MG1962]

1) Say the conspiracy is impossible because thousands of people would have to be involved, even if in reality only dozens of people are needed to carry out the goal.

You have to admit that some conspiracies do need a cast of thousands to be pulled of. The Moon hoax even requires help for nations that would get great pleasure out of seeing the US embarrased. Depending what version of 911 you subscribe to the answer is the same. On the other hand, some such as Pearl Harbor and Oaklahoma bombing would require very small groups of people to pull off

2) Ask questions like, why would the government do that when they could have done something else which would have been much easier. These are irrelevant questions. It is like asking why Hitler invaded Russia, or why Coke introduced NEW COKE. These questions are irrelevant!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not really. One of the guiding principles of life is the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid. The less complex a plan, the better chance of success

4) Demand evidence that only the government has and refuses to release.

But in some instances, enough evidence has been released. Again to bring up the the Moon hoax issue. There simply isn't anymore data to release. On the other hand, the TWA conspiracy is interesting, some information has not been released, and there seems no reasonable reason why, especially as I believe the release of the information would quickly clear up the unexplained.

5) CLAIM ANYONE WHO SPEAKS AGAINST THE OFFICIAL STORY IS A WHACKO, NUTJOBM LOONY.

Honestly, I dont know what forums you deal with. But sadly there are a large portion of CT people who, to put it politely, are insane. Claims of holographic aircraft, nuclear weapons in the towers, secret bases buried three miles below the Earths surface are stuff of X files and emotional imbalances

6) Deny any evidence presented. I have had people question government documents before, not here at this forum, thank God, but at other forums. Many people will question any information that is not from a well known site, without bothering to check the ORIGINAL SOURCE for the information.

But sometimes CTs make huge mountains out of small mole hills. Example claiming the existence of the Norwood plan, proves 911 was a conspiracy.

And sometimes it can be interpretation. You and I have argued the Pearl Harbor thing. Using almost identical documents, including orginal sources, we simply come to different conclusions. Neither answer is any more valid than the other, they are mere opinions after examining the evidence.

7) Make ridiculous comparisons which are not even reasonable. Comparing apples to watermelons.'

I am not sure what you mean here

8) Refuse to answer questions.

And that door swings both ways. I am still waiting for our friend who made claims about walking buildings to respond. I know he wont cause I have busted him cold on the source of the information. On another thread, a hatch job was done on the Catholic and Protestant Churches. I called the poster on this - a week later I am still waiting for his response.

9) When presented a mountain of evidence they will dismiss all the most important pieces and pick out the weakest link and haarp on that weak link until any sane person would want to puke.

Come on - CT people dont do this?

10) Create anger through derogatory comments which ridicule posters and their opinions, driving usually well mannered people to get ticked off.

I can show a list of posts, where I have cornered a poster on something, and they start in on the abuse. To me it suggests I have won, because they have nothing left to argue. The other thing. Sometimes insults can be unintention. Something is said with a sense of irony that does not translate into the written word. I know from experience how easy it is to make that mistake

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: When presented a mountain of evidence they will dismiss all the most important pieces and pick out the weakest link and haarp on that weak link until any sane person would want to puke.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. Especially if you are dealing with a chain of logic.

[NAB]

Would this be considered a retalitory topic? Too funny. You made my day. :lol:



Note to self: Make sure you add a Number 11 on your own topic about overuse of !!!, ????, and bold/enlarged text to "enhance" point.

[MG1962]

Quote: Would this be considered a retalitory topic? Too funny. You made my day.

A pre-emptive retalitory strike :shock:

[Chymical]

NAB's Thread > This Thread

> = Pwns

[NAB]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: Would this be considered a retalitory topic? Too funny. You made my day.

A pre-emptive retalitory strike :shock:

My birds were in the air long before his defenses picked them up. They obviously took out a large portion of his infrastructure based on the apparent weakness of the counter strike. :lol:

[MG1962]

Quote: My birds were in the air long before his defenses picked them up. They obviously took out a large portion of his infrastructure based on the apparent weakness of the counter strike.

No hang on, wouldn't your strike be a counterstrike against his first strike. The fact that yours launched first shouldn't matter :roll:

Or am I missing something important here lol

[NAB]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: My birds were in the air long before his defenses picked them up. They obviously took out a large portion of his infrastructure based on the apparent weakness of the counter strike.

No hang on, wouldn't your strike be a counterstrike against his first strike. The fact that yours launched first shouldn't matter :roll:

Or am I missing something important here lol

Yes you are missing something VERY important here. Check the post time of my thread (yesterday afternoon US time). It was the First Strike. :wink:

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote:

5. First sign of whacko nutjob looney is they type in all caps for no apparent reason. ;-)



Thanks for the laugh.

[Free Thinkr]

Norrin Radd wrote: 10) Create anger through derogatory comments which ridicule posters and their opinions, driving usually well mannered people to get ticked off.
I found this one amusing. If you thought the point was so weak, you'd be hard pressed to become angry, regardless of the conduct. For example, a certain poster, let's call him "Askher," makes tons of unfounded and ludicrous assertions, peppered liberally with insults and ridicule. I just laugh, though, because the points are so weak and the posts so sophomoric as to be pathetic. You get ticked off, not because you or your points are ridiculed, but because you know the ridicule sticks; you believe it's false, but you can't really substantiate your belief, and thus you become frustrated.

[Norrin Radd]

Free Thinkr wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: 10) Create anger through derogatory comments which ridicule posters and their opinions, driving usually well mannered people to get ticked off.
I found this one amusing. If you thought the point was so weak, you'd be hard pressed to become angry, regardless of the conduct. For example, a certain poster, let's call him "Askher," makes tons of unfounded and ludicrous assertions, peppered liberally with insults and ridicule. I just laugh, though, because the points are so weak and the posts so sophomoric as to be pathetic. You get ticked off, not because you or your points are ridiculed, but because you know the ridicule sticks; you believe it's false, but you can't really substantiate your belief, and thus you become frustrated.

I can only speak for myself. My frustration comes from people who will refuse to consider that well respected men don't usually risk their careers in order to tell the people about government wrong doing, without very good reasons.

As to TWA 800 and the OKC bombing, both had numerous well respected people risk their careers, reputations and a lot of "other" evidence which points to a coverup. The made up story that was released claiming is the most obvious piece of evidence and if this "make believe" story doesn't make a person question the "official" story, then I am dealing with a person who is closed minded.

The ATF responded immediately, claiming, "Rumors that employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) had evacuated the Murrah Building prior to the April 19th bombing are entirely false." Lester D. Martz, Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas ATF office, stated in a May 23rd press release: "I strongly suspect that these malicious rumors are fueled by the same sources as the negative rhetoric that has been recently circulating about law enforcement officers. The facts are that ATF's employees in Oklahoma City were carrying out their assigned duties as they would any work day, and several of them were injured in the explosion."

Moreover, claimed Martz, "Several ATF employees were actually heroes on April 19th." His press release then went on to describe this ill-devised apocryphal tale of heroism:

ATF's Resident Agent in Charge Alex McCauley was with a DEA agent in the elevator when the bomb exploded. The elevator dropped in a free fall from the eighth floor to the third. The two men were trapped in the smoke-filled elevator .... On their fourth attempt, they managed to break through the doors and escape from the elevator. The agents made their way to the stairwell and brought with them 10 or 15 people they found along the way ....

The above story was released in a press release and the next day repeated on CNN, SEE.......

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no25/vo11no25_prior_knowledge.htm

The story above was quiickly proven false and disappeared, so much for our free press.

What really frustrates me is people who constantly take the government's word for almost every piece of information even when it is obvious they are lying.

TWA 800 is a great example of people who refuse to admit an obvious truth.

The CIA animation of TWA 800 showed the airliner climbing 3,000 feet after the fuel tank exploded and the cockpit had been blown off the plane. Boeing released a disclaimer stating they had nothing to do with the production of the animation. I have never met a single person who believed that was possible.

Later, the NTSB released their own animation showing that the plane asccended 1,700 feet, instead of 3,000, after the fuel tank blew. Of course everyone knows this is impossible as well. If you know anything about lift and center of gravity, you know this is impossible.

This is just one example, there are more.

There used to be a time when people had common sense and used logic, but this seems to have been replaced with people who waste their time asking the wrong questions.

[johnflesh]

Theorist and debunkers are one in the same. Neither has the truth in their hands or there would be:

1. no conspiracy threads, ever.
2. theorists would be laughing at debunkers due to all the relavant things like indictments, hearings, and prosecution.

Theorists and debunkers are extremist. Honestly though, IMO, they are needed as to keep each other, governments, and ideals in check.

#11 should be:

Debunkers spend most of their time in conspiracy forums after claiming through word association, screen names, and the like; to be patriotic.

[paulmarkj]

I don't see the logic in:

johnflesh wrote: Theorist and debunkers are one in the same. Neither has the truth in their hands or there would be:
1. no conspiracy threads, ever.

If I know the thruth about something doews not stop someone else making up a lie.

johnflesh wrote:
Theorists and debunkers are extremist. Honestly though, IMO, they are needed as to keep each other, governments, and ideals in check.


(Just as an aside: If ideals are kept in check by conspiracy theorists, then God help us all. There are many CT I know who want to be rid of the current authorities and replace them with God know what - I have no doubt there will be plenty of 'honest' men to fill the vacuum.)

johnflesh wrote:
Debunkers spend most of their time in conspiracy forums after claiming through word association, screen names, and the like; to be patriotic.

What does being a CT/debunker have to do with being patriotic/unpatriotic? There is no logic there.

[Free Thinkr]

paulmarkj wrote: What does being a CT/debunker have to do with being patriotic/unpatriotic? There is no logic there.
Nothing whatever. In the CT's mind, they like to pretend that they're warriors for justice, and everyone else is a mindless sheep who can't help but bleat government propaganda. This is a theme they pick up from their CT sources, who provide it as a means to shield their potential subscribers from the notion that, *gasp*, people might consider their theories and find them wanting.

[Norrin Radd]

Free Thinkr wrote: paulmarkj wrote: What does being a CT/debunker have to do with being patriotic/unpatriotic? There is no logic there.
Nothing whatever. In the CT's mind, they like to pretend that they're warriors for justice, and everyone else is a mindless sheep who can't help but bleat government propaganda. This is a theme they pick up from their CT sources, who provide it as a means to shield their potential subscribers from the notion that, *gasp*, people might consider their theories and find them wanting.

If history should have TAUGHT US ANYTHING, IT IS TO QUESTION EVERYTHING the government tells us.

[Patriot911]

Norrin Radd wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: paulmarkj wrote: What does being a CT/debunker have to do with being patriotic/unpatriotic? There is no logic there.
Nothing whatever. In the CT's mind, they like to pretend that they're warriors for justice, and everyone else is a mindless sheep who can't help but bleat government propaganda. This is a theme they pick up from their CT sources, who provide it as a means to shield their potential subscribers from the notion that, *gasp*, people might consider their theories and find them wanting.

If history should have TAUGHT US ANYTHING, IT IS TO QUESTION EVERYTHING the government tells us.

If the education system should have taught us anything, it is to question everything and then use ALL the facts at hand to come to a logical conclusion.

The government says WTC7 fell due to structural damage and fire. Firefighters on the scene confirm that the building suffered massive damage and had very large fires. They were convinced the building was going to collapse on their own and was not worth the risk of trying to save. The NIST has a logical explanation for the collapse. Video tape with audio close to the collapse has no audio record of explosives going off.

The government says WTC 1 and 2 fell due to structural damage and fire. Firefighters in and around WTC 1 and 2 do not believe they heard explosive charges going off in the towers immediately before and during the collapse. Seismic evidence from several sources do not show explosive charges going off. Investigations found no residue of explosives. Cleanup workers who have dealt with buildings brought down by controlled demolition didn't see any signs of controlled demolition. The structural engineer who designed the building says the building fell exactly as one would expect once a collapse was started and didn't need explosives to start / continue the collapse.

The government says flight 77 flew into the Pentagon. They pulled pieces of flight 77 out of the Pentagon and matched the DNA. Hundreds of witnesses saw a large, two engined commercial airliner slam into the building.

The government says flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. Local rescue workers say the plane crashed their. Numerous witnesses say the plane crashed there. NTSB says the plane crashed there. DNA evidence says the plane crashed there.

In every single instance you have an expert third party corroborating the government's version. Questioning the government is fine. It is good. It is your patriotic duty. Ignoring the evidence in order to keep questions alive based on lies, misinformation and non-expert opinion is, imho, being childish and intellectually dishonest.

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: paulmarkj wrote: What does being a CT/debunker have to do with being patriotic/unpatriotic? There is no logic there.
Nothing whatever. In the CT's mind, they like to pretend that they're warriors for justice, and everyone else is a mindless sheep who can't help but bleat government propaganda. This is a theme they pick up from their CT sources, who provide it as a means to shield their potential subscribers from the notion that, *gasp*, people might consider their theories and find them wanting.

If history should have TAUGHT US ANYTHING, IT IS TO QUESTION EVERYTHING the government tells us.

If the education system should have taught us anything, it is to question everything and then use ALL the facts at hand to come to a logical conclusion.

The government says WTC7 fell due to structural damage and fire. Firefighters on the scene confirm that the building suffered massive damage and had very large fires. They were convinced the building was going to collapse on their own and was not worth the risk of trying to save. The NIST has a logical explanation for the collapse. Video tape with audio close to the collapse has no audio record of explosives going off.

The government says WTC 1 and 2 fell due to structural damage and fire. Firefighters in and around WTC 1 and 2 do not believe they heard explosive charges going off in the towers immediately before and during the collapse. Seismic evidence from several sources do not show explosive charges going off. Investigations found no residue of explosives. Cleanup workers who have dealt with buildings brought down by controlled demolition didn't see any signs of controlled demolition. The structural engineer who designed the building says the building fell exactly as one would expect once a collapse was started and didn't need explosives to start / continue the collapse.

The government says flight 77 flew into the Pentagon. They pulled pieces of flight 77 out of the Pentagon and matched the DNA. Hundreds of witnesses saw a large, two engined commercial airliner slam into the building.

The government says flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. Local rescue workers say the plane crashed their. Numerous witnesses say the plane crashed there. NTSB says the plane crashed there. DNA evidence says the plane crashed there.

In every single instance you have an expert third party corroborating the government's version. Questioning the government is fine. It is good. It is your patriotic duty. Ignoring the evidence in order to keep questions alive based on lies, misinformation and non-expert opinion is, imho, being childish and intellectually dishonest.

Well, it is easy to take the government's word and the word of government witnsesses as gospel, but if you had done this for either TWA 800, or the OKC bombing, you would have been mislead. Numerous people risked their careers to prove coverups of both of these tragedies, something that hasn't happened with 911.

I don't blame people for not wanting to come forward, since the history of whistlblowers is one of punishment and most of the time what they had to tell us never reaches the people. The Ron Brown whistlblowers are a textbook case of what happens to whistleblowers.

Maybe the government's story concerning the collapse of the towers and building 7 is correct. Maybe a commercial airliner did fly into the Pentagon. Maybe the hijckers had no connection to the US government, or factions thereof.

However.............

It would be very difficult to convince me that the most powerful military in the world was not capable of protecting the Pentagon 34 minutes after we knew we were under attack. It would be difficult to convince me that something, or someone, didn't prevent our military from doing their job.

If you choose to belive that NORAD and our military are inept bunglers, then that is your choice, but I know better.

There are many so called coincidences that are just oo numerous to simply dismiss. If the government has nothing to hide, then it should release all the video related to teh Pentagon attack. Is this too much to ask? What possible National Security issues would be risked by this action? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to put the Pentagon aspect to rest?

Researching TWA 800 and the OKC bombing proved to me that the government is capable of monumental lies. It covered up two tragedies where hundreds of Americans lost their lives. So why should I believe them this time?

[Patriot911]

Norrin Radd wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: paulmarkj wrote: What does being a CT/debunker have to do with being patriotic/unpatriotic? There is no logic there.
Nothing whatever. In the CT's mind, they like to pretend that they're warriors for justice, and everyone else is a mindless sheep who can't help but bleat government propaganda. This is a theme they pick up from their CT sources, who provide it as a means to shield their potential subscribers from the notion that, *gasp*, people might consider their theories and find them wanting.

If history should have TAUGHT US ANYTHING, IT IS TO QUESTION EVERYTHING the government tells us.

If the education system should have taught us anything, it is to question everything and then use ALL the facts at hand to come to a logical conclusion.

The government says WTC7 fell due to structural damage and fire. Firefighters on the scene confirm that the building suffered massive damage and had very large fires. They were convinced the building was going to collapse on their own and was not worth the risk of trying to save. The NIST has a logical explanation for the collapse. Video tape with audio close to the collapse has no audio record of explosives going off.

The government says WTC 1 and 2 fell due to structural damage and fire. Firefighters in and around WTC 1 and 2 do not believe they heard explosive charges going off in the towers immediately before and during the collapse. Seismic evidence from several sources do not show explosive charges going off. Investigations found no residue of explosives. Cleanup workers who have dealt with buildings brought down by controlled demolition didn't see any signs of controlled demolition. The structural engineer who designed the building says the building fell exactly as one would expect once a collapse was started and didn't need explosives to start / continue the collapse.

The government says flight 77 flew into the Pentagon. They pulled pieces of flight 77 out of the Pentagon and matched the DNA. Hundreds of witnesses saw a large, two engined commercial airliner slam into the building.

The government says flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. Local rescue workers say the plane crashed their. Numerous witnesses say the plane crashed there. NTSB says the plane crashed there. DNA evidence says the plane crashed there.

In every single instance you have an expert third party corroborating the government's version. Questioning the government is fine. It is good. It is your patriotic duty. Ignoring the evidence in order to keep questions alive based on lies, misinformation and non-expert opinion is, imho, being childish and intellectually dishonest.

Well, it is easy to take the government's word and the word of government witnsesses as gospel, but if you had done this for either TWA 800, or the OKC bombing, you would have been mislead. Numerous people risked their careers to prove coverups of both of these tragedies, something that hasn't happened with 911.

Sorry. Don't buy it. First off, they weren't "government witnesses". Nice way to try and pawn them off as unreliable or tainted, but your attempt is as transparent as cellophane. Firefighters are now "government witnesses" when they lost 300 of their own? Give me a break. You'll have to do much better than this garbage to try and prove the witnesses should not be believed.

Norrin Radd wrote: I don't blame people for not wanting to come forward, since the history of whistlblowers is one of punishment and most of the time what they had to tell us never reaches the people. The Ron Brown whistlblowers are a textbook case of what happens to whistleblowers.
Yet we've had whistleblowers for numerous government projects that the government was actively trying to keep hidden. Things such as the phone record lists, Abu Graib, etc. etc. Your claim that there are no whistle blowers because they are all afraid rings as hollow as claiming firefighters and witnesses on the highway are all government witnesses.

If I had proof of a 9/11 coverup, I would expose it asap because of the scope of the crime and what all is involved. I can't be the only one in the United States that feels this way no matter what you claim.

Norrin Radd wrote: Maybe the government's story concerning the collapse of the towers and building 7 is correct. Maybe a commercial airliner did fly into the Pentagon. Maybe the hijckers had no connection to the US government, or factions thereof.

However.............

It would be very difficult to convince me that the most powerful military in the world was not capable of protecting the Pentagon 34 minutes after we knew we were under attack. It would be difficult to convince me that something, or someone, didn't prevent our military from doing their job.
Even when you have your facts wrong? When you start with bad facts you end up with bad assumptions. NORAD was informed of flight 77 at 9:24. Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon at 9:37. That isn't 34 minutes. That is barely more than 10.

The interceptors took off at 9:30, but did not arrive in Washington in time to shoot down Flight 77 even if that were possible. By 9:30, flight 77 was over Washington DC. What causes more damage, an airliner crashing into a building or shooting down an airliner over a populated area?

Norrin Radd wrote: If you choose to belive that NORAD and our military are inept bunglers, then that is your choice, but I know better.
Were mistakes made? Yes. Are they inept bunglers? No. That again is your characterization of what you think others think. It wasn't NORAD's job to patrol civilian airspace or to be on guard against attacks from within civilian airspace. It was their job on 9/11 to protect the US from outside threats. This has since changed.

Norrin Radd wrote: There are many so called coincidences that are just oo numerous to simply dismiss. If the government has nothing to hide, then it should release all the video related to teh Pentagon attack. Is this too much to ask? What possible National Security issues would be risked by this action? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to put the Pentagon aspect to rest?
Yes, I've seen the so called list of coincidences. Most of those "coincidences" are such a stretch that one wonders how even a die hard CTer can call it a coincidence.

And once again, releasing the Pentagon videos would do NOTHING to quell conspiracy theorists such as yourself. If the pictures showed conclusive proof they would be called forgeries. We both know this to be true. Sitting their and blowing smoke up our collective rear ends by trying to convince us it would put the Pentagon aspect to rest is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at rationalizing the ignoring all the evidence you already have in favor of claiming there is better evidence.

Norrin Radd wrote: Researching TWA 800 and the OKC bombing proved to me that the government is capable of monumental lies. It covered up two tragedies where hundreds of Americans lost their lives. So why should I believe them this time?
Using two unproven conspiracies to prove a third is ludicrous. You are building your theories on sand. It is no wonder they can't stand up to inspection.