Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Loose Change Forum > The Pentagon > If A 757 Hit The Pentagon...


Posted by: Killtown Oct 19 2006, 02:18 AM
then why is it so hard to prove that?

blink.gif

Posted by: George Hayduke Oct 19 2006, 05:32 AM
:crickets chirp quietly, the wind rattles the palmettos, the second hand ticks mechanically:

Posted by: Russell Pickering Oct 19 2006, 08:11 AM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 19 2006, 07:18 AM)
then why is it so hard to prove that?


Killtown,

Now would be a great time for you to present the details of your research to start some discussion. The boards are all clear.

Russell

Posted by: Method Oct 19 2006, 08:58 AM
I don't think it is. All one would have to do is watch the "tape" that the "government" released that clearly "shows" a "plane" "hitting" the "Pentagon".



rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Killtown Oct 19 2006, 11:47 AM
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Oct 19 2006, 01:11 PM)
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 19 2006, 07:18 AM)
then why is it so hard to prove that?


Killtown,

Now would be a great time for you to present the details of your research to start some discussion. The boards are all clear.

Russell

It's just kinda odd that why have to rely on ordinary private citizens like Russ (sorry Russ, "extrodinary" wink.gif ) to try to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon. Of course Russ is proving it still wasn't how the official story says, but regardless, we have to go to people like him to see if a 757 crashed there.

Personally if a big airliner crashed somewhere, it should be self-evident right away IMO.

Posted by: Popeholden Oct 19 2006, 11:54 AM
it was immediately self-evident...to the people who were there.

it's pretty self-evident to me, as well, since i've seen the same photos of aircraft wreckage that you have, i've read quotes like this:

QUOTE
"It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"


Allyn E. Kilsheimer

lemme guess, he was in on the plot?

Posted by: George Hayduke Oct 19 2006, 12:39 PM
QUOTE (Popeholden @ Oct 19 2006, 04:54 PM)
Allyn E. Kilsheimer


Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the Pentagon's project manager who contracted London-based AMEC to do "renovations" to the Pentagon that would be completed in early Sept. 01. Before the attack AMEC did both the fortification, that's right, fortification of the Pentagon's West Wing, installing blast proof windows and refortifying areas so it could withstand a missile attack. AMEC was then contracted to clean up after the wing it had spent months supposedly fortifying was blown up on Sept. 11. AMEC folks are the ones running around in space suits at the Pentagon. AMEC was strangely enough also contracted to do "renovations" to Silverstein's WTC. Those renovations were also scheduled to be completed in early Sept. 01. After the attacks, AMEC was contracted to do cleanup there as well.

AMEC is on my short list of suspects.

Kilsheimer is in bed with AMEC, as was Silverstein. Both Kilsheimer and Silverstein are liars. And yeah, like Silverstein he went on the record and lied to cover his ass.

Next eyewitness please. Oh, and you might want to avoid PNAC signatory Gary Bauer who claimed to have seen a Boeing hit the Pentagon. He's on my long list of suspects.

Keep trying. The gov't surely expects results for whatever it is paying you.

Posted by: Russell Pickering Oct 19 2006, 01:08 PM
George,

QUOTE
Keep trying. The gov't surely expects results for whatever it is paying you.


Are you intentionally disrespecting the welcome post I made?

We are not going to play "who's the agent".

You just made a 100% unfounded accusation with zero evidence to support it.

Russell

Posted by: gelignite Oct 20 2006, 12:50 AM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 19 2006, 07:18 AM)
then why is it so hard to prove that?

blink.gif

As a matter of fact, it isn't hard to prove at all. Between the eyewitesses on the ground, the plane parts found at the crash site (consistent with that of a 757), and the DNA recovered from the crash site (consistent with that of the AA77's passengers), we can, at the very least, deduce that a 757 crashed into the building.

Posted by: Killtown Oct 20 2006, 12:59 AM
QUOTE (gelignite @ Oct 20 2006, 05:50 AM)
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 19 2006, 07:18 AM)
then why is it so hard to prove that?

blink.gif

As a matter of fact, it isn't hard to prove at all. Between the eyewitesses on the ground, the plane parts found at the crash site (consistent with that of a 757), and the DNA recovered from the crash site (consistent with that of the AA77's passengers), we can, at the very least, deduce that a 757 crashed into the building.

Wow, and to think our gov't has to rely on geocities websites to prove their story!

Tell me, is it impossible that 757 parts can be planted? Is impossible witnesses can be mistaken, fooled, or even actors? Is it impossible that the DNA was just said to have been found there, but really wasn't?

I mean seriously which of the evidence you provided would the Perps not try to include in their faking of an airplane crash?

Posted by: gelignite Oct 20 2006, 01:29 AM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 20 2006, 05:59 AM)
QUOTE (gelignite @ Oct 20 2006, 05:50 AM)
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 19 2006, 07:18 AM)
then why is it so hard to prove that?

blink.gif

As a matter of fact, it isn't hard to prove at all. Between the eyewitesses on the ground, the plane parts found at the crash site (consistent with that of a 757), and the DNA recovered from the crash site (consistent with that of the AA77's passengers), we can, at the very least, deduce that a 757 crashed into the building.

[...]

Tell me, is it impossible that 757 parts can be planted? Is impossible witnesses can be mistaken, fooled, or even actors? Is it impossible that the DNA was just said to have been found there, but really wasn't?

I mean seriously which of the evidence you provided would the Perps not try to include in their faking of an airplane crash?

Is it impossible? Of course not. But we're dealing with the facts at hand in the context of that which is likely (or with that which is least likely, as the case may be). And in the absence of conclusive proof to the effect that 757 parts were planted, witnesses were mistaken (fooled, or even actors), and that the DNA was just said to have been found there but really wasn't, we have little choice than to take these things into account.

If, that is, we are to remain intellectually honest in our endeavors.


Do you have any such evidence to present?

Posted by: Killtown Oct 20 2006, 01:31 AM
QUOTE (gelignite @ Oct 20 2006, 06:29 AM)
Is it impossible? Of course not. But we're dealing with the facts at hand in the context of that which is likely (or with that which is least likely, as the case may be). And in the absence of conclusive proof to the effect that 757 parts were planted, witnesses were mistaken (fooled, or even actors), and that the DNA was just said to have been found there but really wasn't, we have little choice than to take these things into account.

If, that is, we are to remain intellectually honest in our endeavors.


Do you have any such evidence to present?

So there is conclusive proof that none of the parts were planted, none of the witnesses were fooled or actors, and the DNA wasn't just said to have been recovered there?

Posted by: gelignite Oct 20 2006, 01:46 AM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 20 2006, 06:31 AM)
QUOTE (gelignite @ Oct 20 2006, 06:29 AM)
Is it impossible? Of course not. But we're dealing with the facts at hand in the context of that which is likely (or with that which is least likely, as the case may be). And in the absence of conclusive proof to the effect that 757 parts were planted, witnesses were mistaken (fooled, or even actors), and that the DNA was just said to have been found there but really wasn't, we have little choice than to take these things into account.

If, that is, we are to remain intellectually honest in our endeavors.


Do you have any such evidence to present?

So there is conclusive proof that none of the parts were planted, none of the witnesses were fooled or actors, and the DNA wasn't just said to have been recovered there?

You're answering my question with another question. Such is not the basis for a fruitful discussion.

I'll ask it again.

Do you have any evidence to the effect that 757 parts were planted, witnesses were mistaken (fooled, or even actors), and that the DNA was just said to have been found there but really wasn't?

I'll say it again.

In the absence of such evidence, then these are the facts at hand (i.e., the existence of eyewitness testimony, AA77 passenger DNA, 757 plane parts found at the crash scene, etc.) which must be taken into account. The onus is not upon me to prove a negative. If you're going to assert that the DNA was somehow "planted", for instance, then you should be able to back up your assertion with some sort of evidence to that effect.

Simply raising the notion as a possibility doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Killtown Oct 20 2006, 02:53 AM
QUOTE (gelignite @ Oct 20 2006, 06:46 AM)
I'll say it again.


Can you say it one more time?

Posted by: Calcas Oct 20 2006, 07:30 AM
QUOTE (gelignite @ Oct 20 2006, 06:46 AM)
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 20 2006, 06:31 AM)
QUOTE (gelignite @ Oct 20 2006, 06:29 AM)
Is it impossible? Of course not. But we're dealing with the facts at hand in the context of that which is likely (or with that which is least likely, as the case may be). And in the absence of conclusive proof to the effect that 757 parts were planted, witnesses were mistaken (fooled, or even actors), and that the DNA was just said to have been found there but really wasn't, we have little choice than to take these things into account.

If, that is, we are to remain intellectually honest in our endeavors.


Do you have any such evidence to present?

So there is conclusive proof that none of the parts were planted, none of the witnesses were fooled or actors, and the DNA wasn't just said to have been recovered there?

You're answering my question with another question. Such is not the basis for a fruitful discussion.

I'll ask it again.

Do you have any evidence to the effect that 757 parts were planted, witnesses were mistaken (fooled, or even actors), and that the DNA was just said to have been found there but really wasn't?

I'll say it again.

In the absence of such evidence, then these are the facts at hand (i.e., the existence of eyewitness testimony, AA77 passenger DNA, 757 plane parts found at the crash scene, etc.) which must be taken into account. The onus is not upon me to prove a negative. If you're going to assert that the DNA was somehow "planted", for instance, then you should be able to back up your assertion with some sort of evidence to that effect.

Simply raising the notion as a possibility doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

According to killtown, you're just another Gubmit stooge.

No, he has no evidence. All of the evidence you mention is faked and we'll all just have to take his word for it.

Posted by: gelignite Oct 20 2006, 10:17 AM
QUOTE (Calcas @ Oct 20 2006, 12:30 PM)
According to killtown, you're just another Gubmit stooge.

No, he has no evidence.

I thought not.

Posted by: George Hayduke Oct 20 2006, 10:40 AM
Hmm, its been pretty much proven that the CIA planted plane parts at at least one plane wreck in order to get patsies blamed for things they didn't do:

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1855852005


Posted by: eddykola Oct 20 2006, 02:56 PM
I don't belive Killtown exists.


Isn't it possible that he is just a robot made to annoy us?

It's not hard to proove a 757 hit the pentagon, you just find it hard to belive one did.


Despite the facts.

Posted by: Lyte Trip Oct 20 2006, 04:14 PM
People keep forgetting that the initial biggest point of contention in regards to 9/11 was the pentagon.

The entire truth movement was spawned from questions about what happened at the pentagon.

As a result the spin has been harder on this aspect than any other.

Bottom line......if it don't fit you must acquit!

user posted image



Posted by: Calcas Oct 20 2006, 04:24 PM
This is practically impossible to explain away. There were hundreds of eyewitness accounts to the crash. Note that many of these witnesses specifically mention seeing a huge American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon.

http://tinyurl.com/ksnb9
http://tinyurl.com/ojcwl

I've never heard even ONE eyewitness acount state they saw the airliner "after" any kind of flyover.

LIHOP or MIHOP sounds feasible. But, to argue that AA 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, IMHO, reduces credibility.

Posted by: Calcas Oct 20 2006, 04:26 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Oct 20 2006, 09:14 PM)

Bottom line......if it don't fit you must acquit!


The same faulty reasoning that got a murderer aquitted.

Posted by: Lyte Trip Oct 20 2006, 05:01 PM
QUOTE (Calcas @ Oct 20 2006, 09:24 PM)
This is practically impossible to explain away.  There were hundreds of eyewitness accounts to the crash. Note that many of these witnesses specifically mention seeing a huge American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon.

http://tinyurl.com/ksnb9
http://tinyurl.com/ojcwl

I've never heard even ONE eyewitness acount state they saw the airliner "after" any kind of flyover.

LIHOP or MIHOP sounds feasible.  But, to argue that AA 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, IMHO, reduces credibility.

Wrong.

There are dozens of eyewitnesses to the plane.....NOT the impact.

There was a C-130 that flew over the pentagon within seconds and Keith Wheelhouse claims it "shadowed" the AA jet.

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/11-27-05/discussion.cgi.30.html

We know that a plane flew over but here's the likely deal with eyewitneses in general:

1. Most were regular honest people that saw a plane and not the impact.


2. Some were regular people that simply embellished their account to claim they saw the impact or the AA markings to make their account more important or tell the reporters what they expected to hear. This is typical eyewitness behavior and would probably be even more prevelant during an event like 9/11.

3. Others are straight up planted witnesses that are lying through their teeth. (PNAC member Gary Bauer? GOP USA founder Bobber Eberle?)


Bottom line.......most eyewitnesses were interviewed after the fact and already knew what the media said happened so very few were interviewed without a predetermined mindset.

Anybody on the other side that saw a plane flyover would not be published as an eyewitness and their report of what they saw would be confused with the C-130 and blown off as unimportant and therefore never published.







Posted by: Calcas Oct 20 2006, 05:34 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Oct 20 2006, 10:01 PM)
Anybody on the other side that saw a plane flyover would not be published as an eyewitness and their report of what they saw would be confused with the C-130 and blown off as unimportant and therefore never published.

Wrong.

"Anybody on the other side...."

Who's side?

How about ANYBODY period who didn't have a dog in this fight?

ANYBODY? Joe Citizen. Anybody.

You're telling me that not one media outlet would print anything that wasn't the Gubmints official story?

And this would have been immediate...without time for any official spin doctors from *censoring* anything.

It boggles the mind to think that there were hundreds who witnessed the plane flying at a very high speed, very low, directly at the Pentagon (while few, admittedly witnessed the actual impact) then heard or saw the explosion but NOT ONE saw the same plane fly past it.

Come on...there are better, more intriquing and possibly true scenarios surrounding what may have happened that day.

But I still say that sticking to the "No plane at the Pentagon" theory undermines one's credibility.


Posted by: Lyte Trip Oct 20 2006, 05:53 PM
You are missing the point.

Let me explain it for you in detail......

There was a C-130 flying around within seconds and some even reported it "shadowing" the AA jet BEFORE impact.

The C-130 has now been officially acknowledged as fact and was seen by many people.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta10.html

I suggest that the flyover plane was a similar color to the C-130.

If anyone on the other side of the pentagon saw a plane fly over the pentagon....they might call and report it.......but they would be told that they saw the C-130 and that there was an AA jet that hit the pentagon.

Case closed.

They would believe it and it would be the end of the story.

They were on the other side so they didn't see an impact so their account wouldn't be considered important anyway.


But we have much evidence that the "AA jet" flew on a path that makes it impossible to hit the light poles.

Using doubles of planes (or hijackers) to confuse the account is a typical strategy used in false flag operations of deception.


Posted by: eddykola Oct 20 2006, 05:53 PM
In LC recut.

Will it still suggest a plane never hit the pentagon?

Posted by: Lyte Trip Oct 20 2006, 05:55 PM
QUOTE (eddykola @ Oct 20 2006, 10:53 PM)
In LC recut.

Will it still suggest a plane never hit the pentagon?

I have no idea.

Dylan will do whatever he wants.

I really don't know how much he has been paying attention to the evidence.

Posted by: Calcas Oct 20 2006, 06:06 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Oct 20 2006, 10:53 PM)
You are missing the point.

Let me explain it  for you in detail......

There was a C-130 flying around within seconds and some even reported it "shadowing" the AA jet BEFORE impact.

The C-130 has now been officially acknowledged as fact and was seen by many people.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta10.html

I suggest that the flyover plane was a similar color to the C-130.

If anyone on the other side of the pentagon saw a plane fly over the pentagon....they might call and report it.......but they would be told that they saw the C-130 and that there was an AA jet that hit the pentagon.

Case closed.

They would believe it and it would be the end of the story.

They were on the other side so they didn't see an impact so their account wouldn't be considered important anyway.


But we have much evidence that the "AA jet" flew on a path that makes it impossible to hit the light poles.

Using doubles of planes (or hijackers) to confuse the account is a typical strategy used in false flag operations of deception.

I'm not missing the point.

There are mountains of evidence that AA 77 did, in fact, crash into the Pentagon.

Eyewitness reports, PHYSICAL evidence of the aircraft, DNA from passengers, the recovery of the FDR, etc etc etc.

Your story "suggests" that people confused a C-130 which is a Military turboprop with a civilian 757 airliner (traveling at 400 kts+, wheels up, etc) is *ahem* hard to swallow. My kids can tell the difference.


Posted by: esopxe Oct 20 2006, 11:10 PM
If a plane hit, then why is there no frigging video of it!

If there is nothing to hide, then show some f*cking video of the plane hitting the Pentagon!!!


Who agrees with me on this?

Posted by: Lyte Trip Oct 21 2006, 01:24 AM
QUOTE

Eyewitness reports, PHYSICAL evidence of the aircraft, DNA from passengers, the recovery of the FDR, etc etc etc.


All easily planted particularly since the perpetrators are the ones who released this evidence!

QUOTE
Your story "suggests" that people confused a C-130 which is a Military turboprop with a civilian 757 airliner (traveling at 400 kts+, wheels up, etc) is *ahem* hard to swallow.  My kids can tell the difference.


Proving that you did NOT get the point.

I did not claim that they confused a C-130 with an AA 757.

I am claiming that they are confusing the C-130 with the plane that flew over the pentagon.

I don't think the flyover plane was a C-130.

But I do think it was the same color.

I only think this because EVERY non-published random eyewitness account that we found in the area said so.

NONE of them said it was silver with red and blue stripes.



Posted by: gelignite Oct 21 2006, 01:24 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Oct 21 2006, 06:24 AM)
QUOTE

Eyewitness reports, PHYSICAL evidence of the aircraft, DNA from passengers, the recovery of the FDR, etc etc etc.


All easily planted particularly since the perpetrators are the ones who released this evidence!

Do you have anything along the lines of proof that the evidence was planted? Because if you don't, then we must take this evidence into account. It's not enough to simply say, "It could have been planted". Show where, how and who planted evidence... show me a smoking gun along these lines, and maybe we'll talk.

It doesn't any make sense, in any event. If, for instance, the government "planted" the DNA evidence found at the crash scene, then why did they not also plant DNA samples which could be shown, conclusively, to have come from those whom they say hijacked the planes? Why this reliance upon process of elimination in order to make the determination, thus giving elements within the Truth Movement yet anther tidbit upon which to seize?

Why would they plant aircraft components within the building that can be shown (according to LC 2, anyway) to have come from a plane Not A 757?

Think about that for a moment. On the one hand, the "Truthers" will imply that a Skywarrior crashed into the Pentagon, and, on the other, they assert that any evidence found at the crash site was "planted". In other words, the government planted evidence which contradicts the official story.

Could someone please explain the logic which underlies this kind of up-is-down, black-is-white, topsy-turvy, dogs-and-cats-living-together scenario?

Posted by: Killtown Oct 21 2006, 01:39 PM
Can someone who believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon show me a video, or photo of it happening that you can recognize at least recognize the aircraft as a large AA plane?

Posted by: Forester Oct 21 2006, 06:50 PM
What a lot of people are demanding is a nice detailed close circuit tv tape or a bystander made video camera recording of the plane hitting the Pentagon. That may not exist. The cameras around the Pentagon were not high speed cameras and you would need a high speed camera to catch a clear image of a 500 mph plane hitting the building. All we should expect to see is a high speed blur..which we have.

Does it clearly show a plane?..Not really. Does it clearly NOT show a plane? The answer once again is no.

I believe that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon because of one reason..the simpler the conspiracy the more acceptable it is. If flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and instead landed somewhere secret, passengers and pilots killed, plane melted into scrap, that would involve a lot of people to pull of and hide. The more people involved in this conspiracy, the more likelyhood of a whistle blower.

Also, if the conspirators would go through the trouble of hiring hundreds or thousands of people to carry out and hide this conspiracy, wouldnt they also have the initiative to fabricate a video showing a clear image of a plane hitting the building? We've got lots of clear images of the planes hitting the WTC..but not the Pentagon. It just doesnt make sense that they would have not thought of these things and covered their tracks.

It is my belief that 2 planes hit the WTC, one crashed in PA, and one hit the Pentagon. This was carried out by extremist Muslems led by Osama Bin Laden. And all attempts at identifying, disrupting, or even prudently responding to the attacks was stopped by the Bush administration.

America is a great country and we have the best military in the world. There is no way 4 hijacked planes do so much damage, with zero response, unless there was inside help.

Posted by: Momoka Oct 21 2006, 07:03 PM
QUOTE (esopxe @ Oct 21 2006, 04:10 AM)
If a plane hit, then why is there no frigging video of it!

If there is nothing to hide, then show some f*cking video of the plane hitting the Pentagon!!!


Who agrees with me on this?

If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what did? A missile?

How does a missile leave a 90-foot hole on one side on the Pentagon, and make a perfectly round 16-foot hole on the other side? How does it lose all that mass without exploding? And if it went "boom", how did it go on to make such a nice, round hole?

Why is there no video of a missile hitting the Pentagon?

Why would the conspirators use a missile and say it was a plane? Why wouldn't they use a plane and say it was a plane? Wouldn't that make more sense? If they could fly two planes into the World Trade Center, why couldn't they get a third plane for the Pentagon? Were they overbudget?

And if it wasn't a missile, and it wasn't a plane, then what was it? And why wasn't it a plane?

If something not a plane hit the Pentagon, why is it so hard to proove?

Momoka
-Just asking questions.

Posted by: Killtown Oct 22 2006, 12:02 AM
QUOTE (Forester @ Oct 21 2006, 11:50 PM)
1) The cameras around the Pentagon were not high speed cameras

2) I believe that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon because of one reason..the simpler the conspiracy the more acceptable it is.

1) Link?

2) So wouldn't it be in the govt's advantage to do a "complicated" conspiracy so it will be less "acceptable"?

Posted by: Killtown Oct 22 2006, 12:03 AM
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 22 2006, 12:03 AM)
If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?

Would it matter after the fact?

Posted by: Momoka Oct 22 2006, 12:21 AM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 22 2006, 05:03 AM)
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 22 2006, 12:03 AM)
If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?

Would it matter after the fact?

YES.

The claim that something not a plane hit the Pentagon has to be testable for it to have any validity. If no one can say what "really" happened, then there's no alternative theory, and the entire 9/11 Truth movement falls apart.

NO MATTER HOW FLAWED THE PREVAILING THEORY, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A BETTER ONE.

Even if you proove the government is lying and the mainstream account is wrong, that doesn't proove you right unless your theory is better. If you can't provide a plausible alternative to a plane hitting the Pentagon, then the mainstream view wins by default.

Telling me that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon is all well and good, but until you tell me what did, you can't win the argument.

A missile couldn't have hit the pentagon, because a missile doesn't leave a 90 foot hole on one wall, and a 16-foot hole in another. Missiles explode. Boom.

QUOTE

2) So wouldn't it be in the govt's advantage to do a "complicated" conspiracy so it will be less "acceptable"?


No. The more complicated a conspiracy is, the harder it is to keep it a secret. You want to MINIMIZE anamolies, not maximize them.

Posted by: Killtown Oct 22 2006, 12:40 AM
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 22 2006, 05:21 AM)
1) YES.

2) No. The more complicated a conspiracy is, the harder it is to keep it a secret. You want to MINIMIZE anamolies, not maximize them.

1) So if it's proven a 757 didn't hit there, why would it matter what did?

2) Well that wasn't my question, but who's going to squeal? And would the public believe him?

Posted by: Momoka Oct 22 2006, 12:50 PM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 22 2006, 05:40 AM)
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 22 2006, 05:21 AM)
1) YES.

2) No. The more complicated a conspiracy is, the harder it is to keep it a secret. You want to MINIMIZE anamolies, not maximize them.

1) So if it's proven a 757 didn't hit there, why would it matter what did?

2) Well that wasn't my question, but who's going to squeal? And would the public believe him?

1.) Sort of. I'd like to know. But my point was that if you can't tell me what hit the Pentagon, then your theory is untestable, impossible to prove or analyze, and basically worthless. If you don't have a theory, I won't believe you.

Look, have you heard of the either-or fallacy? Creationism thrives on it. You seems to be making the point that if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, it HAD to be a conspiracy. That's not the case. It's fallacious and illogical reasoning. Disproving my argument does not make yours right.

If you want me to believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, you have to PROOVE it. You have to give evidence that supports your theory. If you don't even have a theory, you can not be right.

If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what did? This is IMPORTANT FOR OUR ARGUMENT.

2.) Who's going to squeal? Well, the FBI's in on it. The CIA. The people who spent months and months tying bombs to support poles in the WTC without being noticed. The people who saw the Pentagon plane. The guys who disappeared the plane passengers. The 9/11 commission. NIST. Larry Silverstein. The New York Fire Department. The pilots who were ordered to stand down, and everyone at their bases. Popular Mechanics. John McCain. The Bush administration. I could go on, but I think the point is made. ALL of these people would have to be in on it. All of them would have to have been cool with killing thousands of Americans.

By contrast, FIVE people knew that the Big Dig in Massachusetts was using dangerous and substandard parts to save money, and that conspiracy didn't last three weeks, because Christy Mihos blew the whistle.

And why would the public believe them? You believe it, even without a whistleblower.

Posted by: MinnesotaLover Oct 22 2006, 01:00 PM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 19 2006, 07:18 AM)
then why is it so hard to prove that?

blink.gif

It isn't.

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/

Posted by: Killtown Oct 22 2006, 01:15 PM
QUOTE (MinnesotaLover @ Oct 22 2006, 06:00 PM)
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 19 2006, 07:18 AM)
then why is it so hard to prove that?

blink.gif

It isn't.

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/

Are you trying to prove a 757 hit there, or not?


Btw, that "Flight 93" plume photo, it's not from Flight 93 crashing...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18

Posted by: MinnesotaLover Oct 22 2006, 01:50 PM
QUOTE
Are you trying to prove a 757 hit there, or not?


Btw, that "Flight 93" plume photo, it's not from Flight 93 crashing...


How did you manage to find my usage of the plume photo back in my second post but somehow missed my post that was titled "The Pentagon - why Flight 77 was responsible"?

Posted by: Killtown Oct 22 2006, 01:59 PM
QUOTE (MinnesotaLover @ Oct 22 2006, 06:50 PM)
How did you manage to find my usage of the plume photo back in my second post but somehow missed my post that was titled "The Pentagon - why Flight 77 was responsible"?

It's called "skimming".

If it's so easy to prove a 757 hit there, can't you just show me a photo in which upon looking at it it becomes self evident that a large plane crashed there?

Posted by: MinnesotaLover Oct 22 2006, 02:03 PM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 22 2006, 06:59 PM)
QUOTE (MinnesotaLover @ Oct 22 2006, 06:50 PM)
How did you manage to find my usage of the plume photo back in my second post but somehow missed my post that was titled "The Pentagon - why Flight 77 was responsible"?

It's called "skimming".

If it's so easy to prove a 757 hit there, can't you just show me a photo in which upon looking at it it becomes self evident that a large plane crashed there?

Of course I can. I have done exactly that in my journal, and if you do more than just skim, you'll find it.

Come on. I'm in the middle of studying for two exams next week, working on a project, and trying to keep other things in my life in order right now, and I still find the time to reply to you. See the "why Flight 77 was responsible" post for the photographic evidence you are looking for. And see my most recent post for definitive proof that it could not have possibly been a missile.

Posted by: Killtown Oct 22 2006, 02:27 PM
QUOTE (MinnesotaLover @ Oct 22 2006, 07:03 PM)
Of course I can.  I have done exactly that in my journal, and if you do more than just skim, you'll find it.

Come on.  I'm in the middle of studying for two exams next week, working on a project, and trying to keep other things in my life in order right now, and I still find the time to reply to you.  See the "why Flight 77 was responsible" post for the photographic evidence you are looking for.  And see my most recent post for definitive proof that it could not have possibly been a missile.

Who says it was just a missile that caused the damage? Why couldn't they have used multiple weapons to cause all that damage, including explosive? With all due respect, you debunkers make the grave mistake in only suggesting what ever caused the damage there was caused by only ONE thing whether that be a 757, missile, Global Hawk, etc.


If you got about 10 min, read my article about why they didn't use a 757 to hit the Pentagon. It will at least give you some insights on your future write-ups.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-they-didnt-use-757-to-hit-pentagon.html

Posted by: Killtown Oct 22 2006, 02:30 PM
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 22 2006, 05:50 PM)
1.) If you don't have a theory, I won't believe you.

2.) Who's going to squeal? ...The people who saw the Pentagon plane.

1) so you admit you are biased?

2) What would they squeal about?

Posted by: Momoka Oct 22 2006, 09:54 PM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 22 2006, 07:30 PM)
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 22 2006, 05:50 PM)
1.) If you don't have a theory, I won't believe you.

2.) Who's going to squeal? ...The people who saw the Pentagon plane.

1) so you admit you are biased?

2) What would they squeal about?

1.) Yes. I am biased towards believing THINGS. As opposed to NOT THINGS. I'm biased towards not believing people who can't tell me what they think. You won't fail to convince me with this because yI have an agenda. You'll fail to convince me with this because you don't have anything of which I am to be convinced. You. Have. No. Theory. If you were to provide one, I might believe you.

2.) Is there was no plane, then they didn't see it. That's something to squeal about.

Now, since you actually did provide something I can examine, I'll examine away.

QUOTE

What do you think would be the easiest part of the Pentagon to hit, the huge rooftop that looks like a giant "bull’s-eye" from the sky, or the side of the Pentagon that is only about seven stories tall? I’d say the roof.


No. A plane going straight down is out of control. It'd be easier to fly a plane into the side.

QUOTE

The government conspirators needed to hit the exact section of the Pentagon that was hit and they needed to hit it low to the ground. A Boeing 757, even flown via remote control or computer guidance, would have been too risky for them to use because it is too big and cumbersome to chance its accuracy, especially having to fly what they wanted to hit there super fast so most witnesses on the ground wouldn't be able to see what exactly it was, and a plane that size could cause more damage than they wanted too. They needed to use something very accurate to hit the ground floors of that small section of their building, like a missile or UAV, that also wouldn't cause too much damage to the Pentagon, or hit the ground.


Now who's biased? You pulled that entire paragraph out of your ass.

OF COURSE they could have programmed the plane to fly at a certain angle. The physics are simple. Flying a plane is easier than flying a missile.

QUOTE
no mark was left on the 3rd story wall where a 757's tail should have hit


The tail was fragile aluminum, and not a lot of it. A sheet of aluminum would not punch a hole in a concrete wall, even at 500 miles an hour. It would've been crushed and snapped right off the plane. Same with the wings. That's why the hole isn't plane-shaped. Only the main body of the plane would've actually punched through.

user posted image

Your image. The reason that the wingtips didn't break through the concrete is because the wingtips were light, weak, and partially damaged from the light posts. The hole is what we'd expect a plane to make.

QUOTE
spiraling down and around the Pentagon dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes


Missiles don't move like that. They go up, and drop down. And why would a preplanned missile attack need to do that? Why not just "hijack" a plane that was coming from the right direction to begin with?

QUOTE
the first reports of what crashed there was a helicopter.


That's actuall evidence against you, dude. If this was planned in advance, the guv'ment would've known to say it was a plane. That kind of error is what you'd expect frantic, confused people to make. Not people who had planned it in advance.


QUOTE


It should be self evident enough that the section of the Pentagon hit was hit on purpose. The section hit was the only section in the entire Pentagon that was being retrofitted and it was being retrofitted, of all things, to help bolster it against attack. What are the odds of that?


One in five.

QUOTE
Another coincidence is that side was  the only lawn side that didn't have a parking lot or other things built next to it that would have made it much less accessible for the rescue crews to fight the fires and rescue the injured.


And there's your answer. The plane hit that side because there wasn't a parking lot full of cars in the way.

QUOTE

So now we know why Rumsfeld announced this outrageous news the day before the attacks, but they needed to do a little more than to just bury the story, they needed to bury the evidence and what better way to bury the evidence than to blow up the section that housed the paper trail and people trail who might have been able to figure out where all or some of that missing $2.3 trillion went:


And if he hadn't said it, NO ONE WOULD HAVE KNOWN. Were I Rummy, I'd have sat on the news.

QUOTE
[Zakhaim] was  a contributing author of the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that essentially talked about needing a "new Pearl Harbor" to build up American's military might exactly one year before it happened.


Red card, out of context quoting! The full sentence was bitching about how the military DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH COMPUTERS. Not that it wasn't big enough. Not that it needed to take a more active role in the world. That it didn't have enough computers with internet, and the bureacracy was so slow it'd take another Pearl Harbor to get them off their asses. That's quite a conspiracy, for some computers. Boom, you're getting a Dell.

Posted by: boast Oct 24 2006, 04:28 AM
user posted image

where are the videos? there is no way that the gov't would continue to hold back any video if AA flt. 77 really hit the Pentagon.

Posted by: MinnesotaLover Oct 24 2006, 07:49 AM
Wouldn't the cameras at the corners of the Pentagon be looking straight outward, i.e. not on the lawn where Flight 77 came in?

and btw Killtown, do you still believe that no airplanes hit the World Trade Center?

Posted by: Momoka Oct 24 2006, 10:27 AM
Security cameras only record one frame per second, to save memory (look at the security tapes of a convenience store robbery, for instance). They're not designed to record a 500 mph plane. You'd only see a blur.

Posted by: boast Oct 24 2006, 11:03 AM
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 24 2006, 03:27 PM)
Security cameras only record one frame per second, to save memory (look at the security tapes of a convenience store robbery, for instance). They're not designed to record a 500 mph plane. You'd only see a blur.

can you say for certain that these Pentagon cams record that way other than using the parking lot security cam as an example. I worked for Tower Records for 5 yrs and we had the same type of security cams (well at least the enclosure was the same) and it recorded realtime, 24 fps to VHS. cmon now, this is the home base for the largest military in the world. I would think they have and use modern technology.

Posted by: Popeholden Oct 24 2006, 11:26 AM
QUOTE (George Hayduke @ Oct 19 2006, 12:39 PM)
Keep trying. The gov't surely expects results for whatever it is paying you.

wow, that's pretty insulting.

not just to me, but to me but to Mr. Kilsheimer. you just accused him of lying about picking up body parts in order to cover up government complicity.

you accused me of being paid by the government to lie. which means you just called me a liar. why would you do that?

that's incredibly mean-spirited and disrespectful.

what is wrong with you?

Posted by: Popeholden Oct 24 2006, 11:41 AM
QUOTE (boast @ Oct 24 2006, 11:03 AM)
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 24 2006, 03:27 PM)
Security cameras only record one frame per second, to save memory (look at the security tapes of a convenience store robbery, for instance). They're not designed to record a 500 mph plane. You'd only see a blur.

can you say for certain that these Pentagon cams record that way other than using the parking lot security cam as an example. I worked for Tower Records for 5 yrs and we had the same type of security cams (well at least the enclosure was the same) and it recorded realtime, 24 fps to VHS. cmon now, this is the home base for the largest military in the world. I would think they have and use modern technology.

well if you look at the video they did release, it's recording a frame every so often, not a continuous stream.

and i've heard the pentagon used mainly live security, meaning men with guns walking around protecting the building.

Posted by: Reggie_perrin Oct 24 2006, 11:41 AM
QUOTE (Popeholden @ Oct 24 2006, 04:26 PM)
QUOTE (George Hayduke @ Oct 19 2006, 12:39 PM)
Keep trying. The gov't surely expects results for whatever it is paying you.

wow, that's pretty insulting.

not just to me, but to me but to Mr. Kilsheimer. you just accused him of lying about picking up body parts in order to cover up government complicity.

you accused me of being paid by the government to lie. which means you just called me a liar. why would you do that?

that's incredibly mean-spirited and disrespectful.

what is wrong with you?

Is some ACTUALLY suggesting that the camera system around the pentagon wasn't technologically advanced enough to catch the plane hitting it? hahahaha fuck me, what era do you think we live in? the plane hitting the pentagon would have been captured by numorous cameras , why they havn't released a clear one is bizzare to say the least.

There is the theory that they are encouraging conspiricy theories and when these theories hit boiling point they'll release a clear tape of the plane hitting the building and use it to then discredit all the other huge anomolies of what happend that day.

It will then be used ad nueseum by straw man builders whenever debating 9/11.

Posted by: Killtown Oct 24 2006, 11:44 AM
I tell you what "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon under Hani Hanjour's control" crowd, show me ONE photo or video that shows this AA 757 either approaching the Pentagon or about to hit it.

Posted by: Popeholden Oct 24 2006, 12:00 PM
QUOTE (Reggie_perrin @ Oct 24 2006, 11:41 AM)
Is some ACTUALLY suggesting that the camera system around the pentagon wasn't technologically advanced enough to catch the plane hitting it? hahahaha fuck me, what era do you think we live in? the plane hitting the pentagon would have been captured by numorous cameras , why they havn't released a clear one is bizzare to say the least.

being technologically advanced is not the issue here, killtown. a lot of cameras only capture single frames every so often. the cameras at ATMS, for instance. why do they do that? because they save all of them, and recording live video and saving it requires a lot more space than saving single frames.

in saying that the pentagon crash would have been captured by numerous cameras, you're making a pretty big assumption:

that there were numerous cameras pointed at that wall. if you were aiming security cameras, why would you aim them at a lawn and a wall?

wouldn't you aim them at, say, entrances?

ETA:

and killtown, why do you need a video or picture of something happening to believe that it happened?

Posted by: Reggie_perrin Oct 24 2006, 12:16 PM
QUOTE (Popeholden @ Oct 24 2006, 05:00 PM)
QUOTE (Reggie_perrin @ Oct 24 2006, 11:41 AM)
Is some ACTUALLY suggesting that the camera system around the pentagon wasn't technologically advanced enough to catch the plane hitting it? hahahaha fuck me, what era do you think we live in? the plane hitting the pentagon would have been captured by numorous cameras , why they havn't released a clear one is bizzare to say the least.

being technologically advanced is not the issue here, killtown. a lot of cameras only capture single frames every so often. the cameras at ATMS, for instance. why do they do that? because they save all of them, and recording live video and saving it requires a lot more space than saving single frames.

in saying that the pentagon crash would have been captured by numerous cameras, you're making a pretty big assumption:

that there were numerous cameras pointed at that wall. if you were aiming security cameras, why would you aim them at a lawn and a wall?

wouldn't you aim them at, say, entrances?

ETA:

and killtown, why do you need a video or picture of something happening to believe that it happened?

every inch of the pentagon is under servailence day and night, it's the US military head quarters for frigs sake, a camera would have almost definatly have caught the plane hitting clearly, stop trying to be arkward for the sakes of it, you'd have te be one hell of a gullible person to think it wasn't caught on camera.

This traffic camera would have picked up it up for one.

user posted image

Posted by: boast Oct 24 2006, 12:21 PM
user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

these are the security cams at the Naval Annex looking directly at the walt of the Pentagon that was allegedly hit by AA flt 77. out of all these cams and the ones on the Pentagon, not one of them captured even a blur of a jet? cmon now!

Posted by: Popeholden Oct 24 2006, 12:27 PM
why would a camera on another building be pointed at the pentagon?

i'm willing to bet the traffic camera also captures single frames.

why's it so hard to believe the crash wasn't captured on camera?

why do you need it to be on camera to believe it happened?

Posted by: Momoka Oct 24 2006, 02:12 PM
Why would a security camera NOT take single frames? What possible use for taking up all that storage space, other than recording a 500 mph plane, would that serve?

Posted by: IVXX Oct 24 2006, 02:28 PM
QUOTE (Popeholden @ Oct 24 2006, 05:27 PM)
i'm willing to bet the traffic camera also captures single frames.

Actually here on Long Island, NY the DOT cameras are a live 24 hour feed of major Island roadways. Even got the nice little cable channel of 24 hour weather and traffic to "know before you go." I highly doubt that traffic camera is only taking one frame every 5 seconds.

Posted by: Momoka Oct 24 2006, 02:31 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213&q=9%2F11%2C+Pentagon

Note the car framing by.

(Pause at 1:26, and you can just barely see the tip of the plane)

QUOTE

Actually here on Long Island, NY the DOT cameras are a live 24 hour feed of major Island roadways. Even got the nice little cable channel of 24 hour weather and traffic to "know before you go." I highly doubt that traffic camera is only taking one frame every 5 seconds.


But is it recorded at 24 fps? Or just broadcast that way? It's not the camera that's the problem, it's the recording space.

Posted by: IVXX Oct 24 2006, 02:58 PM
QUOTE (Momoka @ Oct 24 2006, 07:31 PM)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213&q=9%2F11%2C+Pentagon

Note the car framing by.

(Pause at 1:26, and you can just barely see the tip of the plane)

QUOTE

Actually here on Long Island, NY the DOT cameras are a live 24 hour feed of major Island roadways. Even got the nice little cable channel of 24 hour weather and traffic to "know before you go." I highly doubt that traffic camera is only taking one frame every 5 seconds.


But is it recorded at 24 fps? Or just broadcast that way? It's not the camera that's the problem, it's the recording space.

Well I have to say I don't know if it's recorded or not. I was just pointing out it a live feed. I do have a problem with this storage space issue though when I can get 30,000 songs on an iPod thats smaller than a pack of cigarettes. I also have a problem with the "cost of storage." Does the government have that much problem with money??

Posted by: Lyte Trip Oct 24 2006, 03:25 PM
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 24 2006, 07:58 PM)

Well I have to say I don't know if it's recorded or not. I was just pointing out it a live feed. I do have a problem with this storage space issue though when I can get 30,000 songs on an iPod thats smaller than a pack of cigarettes. I also have a problem with the "cost of storage." Does the government have that much problem with money??

Exactly.

This is the pentagon we are talking about.

You know? The place that is famous for spending $500 on a hammer, $600 on a toilet seat, and $7,600 on a cofffee maker!

To suggest they skimp on their own security is preposterous.

Posted by: IVXX Oct 24 2006, 03:31 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Oct 24 2006, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 24 2006, 07:58 PM)

Well I have to say I don't know if it's recorded or not. I was just pointing out it a live feed. I do have a problem with this storage space issue though when I can get 30,000 songs on an iPod thats smaller than a pack of cigarettes. I also have a problem with the "cost of storage." Does the government have that much problem with money??

Exactly.

This is the pentagon we are talking about.

You know? The place that is famous for spending $500 on a hammer, $600 on a toilet seat, and $7,600 on a cofffee maker!

To suggest they skimp on their own security is preposterous.

And did that parking lot camera only grab one frame every five seconds or were we just shown five frames with five second gaps and told that's what it does??

Posted by: Killtown Oct 24 2006, 04:10 PM
So many buildings surround the Pentagon. One of them must have had a camera pointing in the vicinity to catch a recognizable 757 approach, spiral down, and hit it.

I'll be awaiting that photo/video.

Posted by: MinnesotaLover Oct 25 2006, 08:07 AM
Yes, and I'll be waiting for your explanation of how no plane hit the World Trade Center. Talk about outlandish opinions!

I'd like to stress a little patience too. The Citgo footage was finally released last month. The Sheraton Hotel footage will be released next month. Perhaps next year they will release all these videos in question?

I might add that the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination was not PUBLICLY released until 1975, 12 years after JFK's assassination.

Posted by: Killtown Oct 25 2006, 12:20 PM
QUOTE (MinnesotaLover @ Oct 25 2006, 01:07 PM)
1) Yes, and I'll be waiting for your explanation of how no plane hit the World Trade Center. Talk about outlandish opinions!

I'd like to stress a little patience too. The Citgo footage was finally released last month. The Sheraton Hotel footage will be released next month. Perhaps next year they will release all these videos in question?

2) I might add that the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination was not PUBLICLY released until 1975, 12 years after JFK's assassination.

1) Easy, 767's can't 100% penetrate steel skyscrapers.

2) Allowing enough time to fab it.

Posted by: mainstreammedia Oct 25 2006, 12:33 PM
Please...

Pot, may I introduce you to mr. Kettle...
On a scale from 0 to 10 Killtowns NPT gets 8 on "outrageusness"
Thermite, controlled demolition and whatever else some of you are pushing is a 7½...

Posted by: Killtown Oct 25 2006, 12:35 PM
QUOTE (mainstreammedia @ Oct 25 2006, 05:33 PM)
1) Pot, may I introduce you to mr. Kettle...

2) On a scale from 0 to 10 Killtowns NPT gets 8 on "outrageusness"
Thermite, controlled demolition and whatever else some of you are pushing is a 7½...

1) ???

2) Ah, you think it's "outrageous", so it must not be true?

Posted by: mainstreammedia Oct 25 2006, 12:46 PM
1. It seems ironic that people who themselves are peddling some pretty farfetched theories accuse you of promoting something "outlandish"

2. Not necessarily untrue, but unlikely.


According to the "Mainstreammedia scale out unlikeliness":

OCT: 5-6
Thermate/CD: 7½
NPT: 8
Pod-theory: 8½
Mossad: 8½
Deathrays/Kibbler elves: 9

Posted by: Momoka Oct 25 2006, 12:49 PM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 25 2006, 05:20 PM)
QUOTE (MinnesotaLover @ Oct 25 2006, 01:07 PM)
1) Yes, and I'll be waiting for your explanation of how no plane hit the World Trade Center.  Talk about outlandish opinions!

I'd like to stress a little patience too.  The Citgo footage was finally released last month.  The Sheraton Hotel footage will be released next month.  Perhaps next year they will release all these videos in question?

2) I might add that the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination was not PUBLICLY released until 1975, 12 years after JFK's assassination.

1) Easy, 767's can't 100% penetrate steel skyscrapers.

2) Allowing enough time to fab it.

1.) Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting no planes hit the towers?

2.) So, why are you asking for a video, then, if you're just going to dismiss it as fabricated?

Posted by: Terrorcell Oct 25 2006, 08:19 PM
QUOTE (esopxe @ Oct 21 2006, 04:10 AM)
If a plane hit, then why is there no frigging video of it!

If there is nothing to hide, then show some f*cking video of the plane hitting the Pentagon!!!


Who agrees with me on this?

85 video camera's at the Pentagon all failed to capture AA77 hitting the Pentagon. Since the government will not release all 85 video's, there is only reason to believe that they are trying to supress evidence. From that it is easy to conclude that if the video taped evidence supported the government's version of events they would have released it to the media immediatley.

But then again what do I know, I'm still waiting to see footage from the 12+ camera's that captured the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah building in 1995.

Posted by: Terrorcell Oct 25 2006, 08:20 PM
QUOTE (mainstreammedia @ Oct 25 2006, 05:33 PM)
Please...

Pot, may I introduce you to mr. Kettle...
On a scale from 0 to 10 Killtowns NPT gets 8 on "outrageusness"
Thermite, controlled demolition and whatever else some of you are pushing is a 7½...

Can I give a 10 to whoever came up with the NORAD was confused for nearly two hours story?

Posted by: SCReuter Oct 27 2006, 01:43 AM
QUOTE (Reggie_perrin @ Oct 24 2006, 05:16 PM)

every inch of the pentagon is under servailence day and night, it's the US military head quarters for frigs sake,  a camera would have almost definatly have caught the plane hitting clearly,  stop trying to be arkward for the sakes of it, you'd have te be one hell of a gullible person to think it wasn't caught on camera.

You've presented nothing more than an assumption.

Bottom line is none of you "Truth Seekers" factually know that another security camera would have captured the attack, let alone a clear image of American Airlines Flight 77.

Really, for five years your group was so positive that the Citgo Gas Station would've caught everything on video, yet we all know how that turned out.

QUOTE (Reggie_perrin @ Oct 24 2006, 05:16 PM)

This traffic camera would have picked up it up for one.

[Image Removed]

I could be wrong here, but from my understanding, VDOT's traffic cameras don't record 24 hours of footage 7 days a week. They merely provide a live feed of the roadways from multiple angles.

Posted by: IVXX Oct 27 2006, 01:54 AM
QUOTE (SCReuter @ Oct 27 2006, 06:43 AM)
Bottom line is none of you "Truth Seekers" factually know that another security camera would have captured the attack, let alone a clear image of American Airlines Flight 77.

True but then again no debunkers know it wouldn't have either.

Posted by: Popeholden Oct 27 2006, 02:51 AM
then it's not evidence, and it shouldn't even be brought up.

Posted by: SCReuter Oct 27 2006, 02:53 AM
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 27 2006, 06:54 AM)
QUOTE (SCReuter @ Oct 27 2006, 06:43 AM)
Bottom line is none of you "Truth Seekers" factually know that another security camera would have captured the attack, let alone a clear image of American Airlines Flight 77.

True but then again no debunkers know it wouldn't have either.


Well, there is Jacqueline Maguire.

She's examined every security tape the Pentagon has in possession and claims none of them (except for the two already released, of course) show Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon.

And before anyone says she's in on the conspiracy, Maguire has proven to be credible with the recent release of the Citgo Gas Station footage and soon-to-be-released Doubletree Hotel video.




Posted by: SCReuter Oct 27 2006, 03:32 AM
http://www.trafficland.com/findacamera/findacamera.php?city=WRG#

Allow the Washington Region map to load and then click on the second purple circle just under "110".

There's your live shot of the Pentagon's southwest wall. If you were watching this on the morning of September 11, 2001, you may have seen one or two frames of the hijacked airliner.

Posted by: Reggie_perrin Oct 27 2006, 06:40 AM
user posted image
This shows one of the Sheraton cameras in relation to the flight path.

user posted image
This shows a low view from the Sheraton across the roof of the Navy Annex. Why they claim not to have this video now I don't know.

Posted by: MinnesotaLover Oct 27 2006, 07:35 AM
Notice how your first picture shows a flight path going above the hotel, and the camera is facing DOWNWARD????

Posted by: SCReuter Oct 27 2006, 07:43 AM
1. Why would Sheraton's surveillance cameras be pointed toward the sky or at the Pentagon?

2. A security tape from the Sheraton National Hotel was never even confiscated. Conspirators just assumed one was.

(It was actually the Doubletree Hotel that the FBI took a video from.)

Posted by: Momoka Oct 27 2006, 08:32 AM
QUOTE (Reggie_perrin @ Oct 27 2006, 11:40 AM)
user posted image
This shows one of the Sheraton cameras in relation to the flight path.

The plane was in the air. Camera's facing the ground, dude.

Posted by: MinnesotaLover Oct 27 2006, 01:03 PM
user posted image

NOTICE HOW THOSE TWO LINES DON'T INTERSECT??

Posted by: beebop Nov 6 2006, 02:21 PM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 19 2006, 07:18 AM)
then why is it so hard to prove that?

blink.gif

If a missile or something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon and contained explosives then why is THAT so hard to prove?

The front wall of the first floor was missing for approx 90 feet. If this was caused by explosives then all of that concrete should be lying on the ground in front of the Pentagon in various sized chunks. That is not the case, therefore no explosive power within the building caused the front wall to be destroyed. The force then MUST have been on the outside of that wall and caused the wall to move inward. This is consistent with a large aircraft such as a 757 impacting that wall.

As for the security cameras on the Sheraton, why would they point a security camera at the Pentagon at any time? They spent money on security cameras to provide video of their own property, they are not in the business of providing security to the Pentagon. Thus the cameras would be pointed at locations of interest to the security personell of the Sheraton!

Posted by: beebop Nov 6 2006, 02:29 PM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Oct 21 2006, 06:39 PM)
Can someone who believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon show me a video, or photo of it happening that you can recognize at least recognize the aircraft as a large AA plane?

Show ME a list of all the air crashes that took place in 2001 and make a note next to each one for which there is a video of it happening.

The aircraft that went off the end of the runway in Toronto this year is a good example. That is a very busy area, lots of light industry. Most likely a lot of secirity videos in the area. The plane left the end of the runway, went through the fence and down into a ravine next to a major highway.

Can you find a video of that?

How about the one that crashed into Queens a few months after 9/11?

How about the Concorde crash. Certainly there must be video of it hitting the ground after all it was a huge flaming beacon in the sky as it took off and attempted to come around again.

Posted by: Killtown Nov 11 2006, 04:15 PM
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 6 2006, 07:29 PM)
How about the Concorde crash. Certainly there must be video of it hitting the ground after all it was a huge flaming beacon in the sky as it took off and attempted to come around again.

There was video of that!

Posted by: beebop Nov 12 2006, 12:57 AM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Nov 11 2006, 09:15 PM)
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 6 2006, 07:29 PM)
How about the Concorde crash. Certainly there must be video of it hitting the ground after all it was a huge flaming beacon in the sky as it took off and attempted to come around again.

There was video of that!

Of it hitting the ground?

First I heard of it!

There is a video of it flying and stills of it in the air but AFAIK, none of it hitting the ground which IS what is being asked of for flight 77.

Posted by: Forester Nov 17 2006, 10:57 PM
i am still waiting for killtown to supply evidence that parts from a 757 were planted, the dna evidence was planted, eyewitnesses were actors or paid to say they saw the plane, etc.

as to the video of the plane...there is a very good chance that a high quality video of a plane crashing into the pentagon does not exist. most security cameras are very few frames per/second and it would be very hard to see one capturing a clear image of a 757...at 500 mph...moving through the air.

Posted by: Killtown Nov 17 2006, 11:16 PM
QUOTE (Forester @ Nov 18 2006, 03:57 AM)
i am still waiting for killtown to supply evidence that parts from a 757 were planted, the dna evidence was planted, eyewitnesses were actors or paid to say they saw the plane, etc.

as to the video of the plane...there is a very good chance that a high quality video of a plane crashing into the pentagon does not exist. most security cameras are very few frames per/second and it would be very hard to see one capturing a clear image of a 757...at 500 mph...moving through the air.

All the debris looks light enough to plant by hand and most seen outside is not even burned. There are just scraps of a 757 around and inside the Pent.

DNA evidence. Who says it was recovered at the Pent?

Actors. If you were going to fake a plane crash, wouldn't you have actors there?

How many witnesses said they actually saw the plane hit the building?

Posted by: Forester Nov 17 2006, 11:25 PM
is there any evidence that the parts were planted?

is there any evidence that the DNA was not recovered from the Pentagon?

is there any evidence that there were actors on the scene?

..if i was to fake a plane crash..i would definately plant plane parts, plant dna evidence, and throw in some actors to say they saw a AA 757. but without evidence that i actually did these things....im guilt free.

planting the seeds of doubt is a very intelligent tactic. but without evidence to back it up...it is dishonest.

Posted by: Killtown Nov 18 2006, 12:17 AM
QUOTE (Forester @ Nov 18 2006, 04:25 AM)
1) is there any evidence that the parts were planted?

2) is there any evidence that the DNA was not recovered from the Pentagon?

3) is there any evidence that there were actors on the scene?

4) ..if i was to fake a plane crash..i would definately plant plane parts, plant dna evidence, and throw in some actors to say they saw a AA 757. but without evidence that i actually did these things....im guilt free.

5) planting the seeds of doubt is a very intelligent tactic. but without evidence to back it up...it is dishonest.

1) yes, I just told you.

2) You have to prove it was.

3) There are some very sketchy witnesses, so I'd say yes.

4) Glad you at least see how I see it a bit.

5) I just gave you some.

Posted by: WWIIIDrawsNear Nov 18 2006, 07:53 AM
QUOTE (gelignite @ Oct 20 2006, 06:29 AM)
...And in the absence of conclusive proof to the effect that 757 parts were planted, witnesses were mistaken (fooled, or even actors), ...


QUOTE

Professional Liars
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html
Dave McGowan
"Senoir Analyst, Center for an Informed America"

Although these two lists mercifully omit many of the non-witness accounts that Bart has used to pad his list, and include many purported accounts that Bart has left off, both of the additional lists are plagued by problems of their own. Probably the biggest problem is that a good number of entries are credited to what amount to anonymous sources (people identified by only first name, or by initials, or by pseudonym). Some listings are, incredibly enough, unverified pseudonymous postings to internet discussion groups that appeared months, and even years, after the fact. I would hope that we can all agree here that anonymous, belated boasts of having witnessed one of the most significant events in modern American history do not exactly qualify as actual witness accounts.

By combining the three lists, minus all the filler, I came up with a list of roughly 110 named individuals who have claimed, at one time or another, to have witnessed something flying near, headed towards, and/or crashing into the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. However, nearly three dozen of these individuals held off telling their tales until long after the official version of events had thoroughly penetrated the American psyche, leaving roughly 75 people who claimed, in the hours and days immediately following the attack, that they had witnessed the event. With this more complete witness list in hand, it is time to return to the original question being examined here (as posed by Xymphora): "If the evidence of the crash of Flight 77 is so goddamn clear, why did the operators in the Republican Party feel the need to gild the lily?"

As it turns out, it was actually more of a 'bipartisan' affair, with operatives of both alleged political persuasions joining the lily-gilding party. Consider the following list of self-described witnesses: Gary Bauer, Paul Begala, Bobby Eberle, Mike Gerson, Alfred Regnery, and Greta Van Susteren. Many of them need no introduction, but let's run through the list anyway:
• Gary Bauer: Talking head and former Republican presidential candidate who has been linked to the notorious Project for a New American Century.
• Paul Begala: Democratic Party operative and nominally liberal punching bag on CNN's "Crossfire."
• Bobby Eberle: President and CEO of GOPUSA, a portal of right-wing propaganda.
• Mike Gerson: Director of George W. Bush's speech writing staff.
• Alfred Regnery: President of Regnery Publishing, another portal of right-wing propaganda -- one that has seen fit to bestow upon the world the literary stylings of Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans, and numerous other accomplished liars.
• Greta Van Susteren: Nominally liberal legal analyst for Fox News.
I don't know if the Tattoo theorists are aware of this, but all of the people on that list share at least one thing in common: they are all professional liars. It is their job, individually and collectively, to lie to the American people. On a daily basis. They are, by any objective appraisal, propagandists for the state. So if all of them are selling the same story, in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, it is probably best to assume that they might not be telling the truth.

Let's take a look now at some of the other people that are hawking the same story: Dennis Clem, Penny Elgas, Albert Hemphill, Lincoln Leibner, Stephen McGraw, Mitch Mitchell, Patty Murray, Rick Renzi, James Robbins, Meseidy Rodriguez, Darb Ryan, Elizabeth Smiley, and Clyde Vaughn. And who are they? Allow me to handle the introductions:
• Dennis Clem is a Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
• Penny Elgas sits on the FDIC Advisory Committee on Banking Policy, alongside of Jean Baker, who just happens to be the Chief of Staff at the Office of President George H.W. Bush.
• Albert Hemphill is a Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
• Captain (now Major) Lincoln Leibner is a communications officer for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
• Stephen McGraw is a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney reborn as an Opus Dei priest.
• Colonel Mitch Mitchell serves as a CBS News war spinner military consultant.
• Patty Murray is a United States Senator (D-Washington).
• Rick Renzi is a United States Congressman (R-Arizona).
• James Robbins is a contributor to National Review, a national security analyst, and a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council (I, by the way, have decided that I should refer to myself as a Senior Fellow at the Center for an Informed America).
• I'm not sure exactly who Meseidy Rodriguez is, but his name appears in legal filings concerning Dick Cheney's top-secret energy policy meetings, which probably isn't a good sign.
• Vice Admiral Darb Ryan is the Chief of U.S. Naval Personnel.
• Elizabeth Smiley is an intelligence operations specialist with Civil Aviation Security at FAA headquarters -- which means that she is one of the people who inexplicably failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001, possibly because she was busy watching phantom jetliners crashing into the Pentagon.
• Brig. General Clyde A. Vaughn is the deputy director of military support to civil authorities -- which means that he is another one of the people who inexplicably failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001, possibly because he was also busy watching phantom jetliners crashing into the Pentagon.
Anybody see anyone on that list that they would want to buy a used car from? No? How about Colonel Bruce Elliot or Major Joseph Candelario? Or Lt. Cols. Stuart Artman or Frank "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head" Probst? Still no? Then how about Elaine McCusker, a Co-Chairman of the Coalition for National Security Research? Or retired Naval Commanders Donald Bouchoux or Lesley Kelly? How about Shari Taylor, a finance manager at the Defense Intelligence Agency, or Philip Sheuerman, the Associate General Counsel for the U.S. Air Force?

How about any of the names on this list: Bob Dubill, Mary Ann Owens, Richard Benedetto, Christopher Munsey, Vin Narayanan, Joel Sucherman, Mike Walter, Steve Anderson, Fred Gaskins and Mark Faram? Aside from claiming to have witnessed the attack on the Pentagon, what do these ten people have in common? We'll get to that in just a moment, but first let's hear from Mr. Faram, who is, it will be recalled, the gentleman who captured the two famous shots of the alleged aircraft debris that many investigators have inexplicably spent countless hours trying to match up with images of various American Airlines aircraft fuselages:

I hate to disappoint anyone, but here is the story behind the photograph. “At the time, I was a senior writer with Navy Times newspaper. It is an independent weekly that is owned by the Gannett Corporation (same owners as USA Today). I was at the Navy Annex, up the hill from the Pentagon when I heard the explosion. I always keep a digital camera in my backpack briefcase just as a matter of habit. When the explosion happened I ran down the hill to the site and arrived there approximately 10 minutes after the explosion. I saw the piece, that was near the heliport pad and had to work around to get a shot of it with the building in the background. Because the situation was still fluid, I was able to get in close and make that image within fifteen minutes of the explosion because security had yet to shut off the area. I photographed it twice, with the newly arrived fire trucks pouring water into the building in the background ... Right after photographing that piece of wreckage, I also photographed a triage area where medical personnel were tending to a seriously burned man. A priest knelt in the middle of the area and started to pray. I took that image and left immediately ... I was out of the immediate area photographing other things within 20 minutes of the crash.

To say that Mr. Faram's account of his actions that morning strains credibility would be a gross understatement. Imagine this scenario: you are a reporter for a major news service, and you happen to find yourself, purely by chance, among the first on the scene of the most significant news story in decades -- one that would occupy all of the media's time for weeks to come. Would you be at all surprised to find a triage area already set up and staffed by medical personnel and a priest? And, more importantly, would you just take a quick look around, snap off a few quick photos, and then hurriedly leave the scene, because there was apparently something else to photograph on the other side of town -- like maybe a really important dog show?

Despite the dubious nature of Mr. Faram's account, he did at least provide us with some useful important information -- specifically, that USA Today and Navy Times are both part of the Gannett family of news outlets. Actually, if Faram weren't so modest, he would have noted that Gannett also publishes Air Force Times, Army Times, Marine Corp Times, Armed Forces Journal, Military Market, Military City, and Defense News. In other words, it's just your typical independent, civilian media organization.

Having established that, let's now take a look at who our group of mystery witnesses are (or who they were at the time of the Pentagon attack):
• Bob Dubill was the executive editor for USA Today.
• Mary Ann Owens was a journalist for Gannett.
• Richard Benedetto was a reporter for USA Today.
• Christopher Munsey was a reporter for Navy Times.
• Vin Narayanan was a reporter for USA Today.
• Joel Sucherman was a multimedia editor for USA Today.
• Mike Walter was a reporter for USA Today.
• Steve Anderson was the director of communications for USA Today.
• Fred Gaskins was the national editor for USA Today.
• Mark Faram was a reporter for Navy Times.
Is it just me, or does anyone else detect a pattern here?

Now, it is my understanding that the Tattoo theorists claim, for the most part, not to be 'coincidence theorists.' So, I guess that the question that I have is this: exactly how many Gannett reporters and editors does it take to make a conspiracy? I could accept that maybe two or three of them might have been, purely by chance, in position to witness the attack on the Pentagon. Hell, being an open-minded kind of guy, I might even be willing to go as high as four or five. But ten?! Ten?! What are the odds that ten of the alleged Pentagon witnesses would be from the same news organization?

Perhaps some readers are thinking that maybe there is a simple explanation for this statistical aberration -- like maybe the Gannett building is ideally located to provide a view of the attack, or maybe everyone was riding together on a Gannett ride-sharing bus. But neither of those appear to be the case, since only one of the ten Gannett journalists claims to have witnessed the attack from his office, while all the rest maintain that they just happened to be positioned in various strategic locations near the Pentagon. So unless USA Today staff was holding its annual company picnic on the Pentagon lawn that morning, it seems to me that there is something seriously wrong with this story.

Amazingly enough, no fewer than five of those ten Gannett reporters and editors (Benedetto, Munsey, Narayanan, Sucherman and Walter) were able to specifically identify the plane that they saw as an American Airlines jet, and a sixth (Faram) managed to capture the only known photographic images of something vaguely resembling a twisted piece of wreckage from an American Airlines jet! I have to note here that it's a damn good thing that we had proactive and incredibly observant reporters like the USA Today staff swarming all over the scene of a pending national tragedy. I guess that when you're a seasoned professional, you just have a sixth sense about where to be and when to be there. That's probably why Eugenio Hernandez and Dave Winslow, two Associated Press reporters, were also on the scene to witness the attack. Hernandez, by the way, is a video journalist -- but not the kind of video journalist who shot any actual video footage.

According to Dave Winslow, an AP radio reporter, his being on the scene to witness the attack and then quickly call in a report ensured that "AP members were first to know." I guess he didn't notice that nearly the entire staff of USA Today was loitering around the scene and calling in reports as well.

According to the 'witness' compilations, it wasn't just major media outlets that knew immediately what had happened at the Pentagon. Witness Mark Bright, a Defense Protective Service officer who was manning a guard booth, claims that, "As soon as it struck the building, I just called in an attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental." If true, then I guess his call must have come in right after that of fellow witness and Defense Protective Service officer William Lagasse, who said on ABC's "Nightline" program: "It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it … I got on the radio and broadcast. I said a plane is, is heading toward the Heliport side of the building."

The Christian Science Monitor reported that Fred Hey, a congressional staff attorney and yet another purported witness, had the following reaction to the attack: "'I can't believe it! This plane is going down into the Pentagon!' he shouted into his cell phone. On the other end of the line was his boss, Rep. Bob Ney ® of Ohio. Representative Ney immediately phoned the news to House Sergeant-at-Arms Bill Livingood, who ordered an immediate evacuation of the Capitol itself." And according to the Seattle Times, Senator Patty Murray was meeting with other Senate Leaders when, "From a window in the meeting room, she saw a plane hit the Pentagon."

The Birmington Post Herald held that Pentagon firefighter/witness Alan Wallace "switched on the truck's radio. 'Foam 61 to Fort Myer,' he said. 'We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side. The crew is OK. The airplane was a 757 Boeing or a 320 Airbus." According to another report, local Engine Company 101 also witnessed the attack and immediately radioed in this report: "Engine 101--emergency traffic, a plane has gone down into the Pentagon."

According to yet another report, "Barry Frost and Officer Richard Cox, on patrol in south Arlington County, saw a large American Airlines aircraft in steep descent on a collision course with the Pentagon. They immediately radioed the Arlington County Emergency Communications Center. ACPD Headquarters issued a simultaneous page to all members of the ACFD with instructions to report for duty." In addition, a purported transcription of an Arlington County Police Department log tape reads as follows: "Motor 14, it was an American Airlines plane. Uh. Headed eastbound over the Pike (Columbia Pike highway), possibly toward the Pentagon."

So what we can safely conclude, after reviewing these various accounts, is that - within mere moments of the attack/explosion - all of the following entities knew exactly what had happened at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11: the Pentagon's own police force; the Pentagon's own fire department; the Arlington County Police Department; the Arlington County Fire Department; the Arlington County Emergency Communications Center; the leadership of the United States House of Representatives; the leadership of the United States Senate; the country's national newspaper; and the nation's largest newswire service. In addition, there were, according to the Tattoo theorists, literally hundreds of witnesses on the scene who knew exactly what had happened. And according to John Judge (perhaps the least credible of the Tattoo theorists, with the possible exception of Jean-Pierre Desmoulins), "local news immediately interviewed and broadcast eyewitness accounts of the plane going in."

Posted by: Forester Nov 18 2006, 12:19 PM
-wow...all these federal governmant workers in DC...what are the odds???

-there is no evidence that people saw one thing but told another. there is no evidence they were paid off. how is being influential or important proof of foul play? that logic only works if you distrust all in authority..its called paranoia.

-if the federal governmant says they got dna from the passengers inside the pentagon..it is up to conspiracy theorists to prove they are lyeing. can you imagine a defense attorney claiming dna evidence was planted or non-existant...and a judge not demanding he prove such an allegation??




Posted by: Killtown Nov 18 2006, 02:06 PM
QUOTE (Forester @ Nov 18 2006, 05:19 PM)
-if the federal governmant says they got dna from the passengers inside the pentagon..it is up to conspiracy theorists to prove they are lyeing.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Forester Nov 18 2006, 02:20 PM
i take your smiley faces to mean "you must be crazy to take the governmants word for it". but if you disregard all governmant evidence that doesnt back your theory as being planted or manipulated (without proof)...why should anyone, especially the govt, take you seriously?

imagine if you get into a car accident and your bumper is knocked to the ground, and then the other driver says "you could have pulled that off yourself and thrown it down". you respond by saying "prove that accusation" and he responds with "i dont have to prove anything...you have to prove you didnt rip it off and plant it"

how would you respond??

Posted by: Killtown Nov 18 2006, 02:21 PM
QUOTE (Forester @ Nov 18 2006, 07:20 PM)
how would you respond??

By:

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Terrorcell Nov 20 2006, 11:47 AM
QUOTE (Popeholden @ Oct 19 2006, 04:54 PM)
it was immediately self-evident...to the people who were there.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c3nMENvKow

Posted by: Kingston Nov 20 2006, 03:28 PM
QUOTE (Forester @ Nov 18 2006, 05:19 PM)
-if the federal governmant says they got dna from the passengers inside the pentagon..it is up to conspiracy theorists to prove they are lyeing.

Well, technically we have proved that they are lying. They have no proof whatsoever that they have DNA evidence.

Oh and based on your way of thinking, I could say that I have a clone of Clint Eastwood in my room, and I wouldn't have to do anything to prove it.

Posted by: beebop Nov 20 2006, 06:33 PM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Nov 18 2006, 07:06 PM)
QUOTE (Forester @ Nov 18 2006, 05:19 PM)
-if the federal governmant says they got dna from the passengers inside the pentagon..it is up to conspiracy theorists to prove they are lyeing.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

If a crime lab states it got DNA from a crime scene and any lawyer wishes to state there is doubt that this is true then it is up to that lawyer to show evidence that the dna report is in error or that samples were not taken from that scence.

Is there any evidence at all to even suggest that DNA samples were not in fact recovered from the crash site? Answer, NO , there is not.
Is there any evidence to even suggest that the DNA report is in error? Answer, NO , there is not.

Posted by: Killtown Nov 20 2006, 06:40 PM
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 20 2006, 11:33 PM)
Is there any evidence to even suggest that the DNA report is in error? Answer, NO , there is not.

Yes there is, the FBI said they found it then said they sent it to a military lab that did the Shanksville scene also (the other place where a 757 disappeared). The fact they said they identified 99% of the passengers when at both sites hardly anything is left of the planes is amazing. Coupled with using a "process of elimination" to identify the hijackers sends up red flags too.

Russell may have more to weigh in on this.

Posted by: beebop Nov 20 2006, 06:41 PM
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 12 2006, 05:57 AM)
QUOTE (Killtown @ Nov 11 2006, 09:15 PM)
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 6 2006, 07:29 PM)
How about the Concorde crash. Certainly there must be video of it hitting the ground after all it was a huge flaming beacon in the sky as it took off and attempted to come around again.

There was video of that!

Of it hitting the ground?

First I heard of it!

There is a video of it flying and stills of it in the air but AFAIK, none of it hitting the ground which IS what is being asked of for flight 77.

I'm still interested in knowing about the video of the Concorde hitting the ground.

This was a plane that was a flaming beacon in the sky in an area that is well travelled, there were pictures taken of it in the air and yet AFAIK still there are no pictures or video of it hitting the ground. Anyone in the area with a security camera or a hand held camera had some time to point that camera at the plane yet no video exists of the crash. Yet somehow we are to suppose that there are possibly several videos of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon even though for most of the time that it is over the area it is not particularily out of the ordinary this being quite close to National Airport.

Posted by: beebop Nov 20 2006, 06:46 PM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Nov 20 2006, 11:40 PM)
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 20 2006, 11:33 PM)
Is there any evidence to even suggest that the DNA report is in error? Answer, NO , there is not.

Yes there is, the FBI said they found it then said they sent it to a military lab that did the Shanksville scene also (the other place where a 757 disappeared). The fact they said they identified 99% of the passengers when at both sites hardly anything is left of the planes is amazing. Coupled with using a "process of elimination" to identify the hijackers sends up red flags too.

That's not evidence, that is supposition and a prejudgement of foul play. A pre-judgement of foul play is not evidence of foul play.
Supposing that DNA evidence would be impossible to obtain is not evidence that it is impossible to obtain.

Cremating a body to ash takes about two hours for an adult and that is at a constant temp of about 800 0C

Posted by: Killtown Nov 20 2006, 07:08 PM
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 20 2006, 11:46 PM)
Cremating a body to ash takes about two hours for an adult and that is at a constant temp of about 800 0C

Funny, I didn't see any blood in any of the inside Pentagon pics or in the excavated dirt at Shanks. but then again, neither did the coroner.

Posted by: beebop Nov 20 2006, 10:39 PM
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml

QUOTE
Only one-tenth of a single percent of DNA (about 3 million bases) differs from one person to the next. Scientists can use these variable regions to generate a DNA profile of an individual, using samples from blood, bone, hair, and other body tissues and products.


Blood is NOT required nor would one expect blood to be strewn about at the scene, especially at the Pentagon since blood at that scene would be very exposed to the fire.

Is there any expert opinion that you can cite stating that DNA would be impossible to obtain at either site?

Now do you or don't you have evidence that DNA samples were not collected at the scene or that the DNA report was faked, do you or not?

Posted by: Calcas Nov 20 2006, 11:31 PM
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 20 2006, 10:39 PM)
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml

QUOTE
Only one-tenth of a single percent of DNA (about 3 million bases) differs from one person to the next. Scientists can use these variable regions to generate a DNA profile of an individual, using samples from blood, bone, hair, and other body tissues and products.


Blood is NOT required nor would one expect blood to be strewn about at the scene, especially at the Pentagon since blood at that scene would be very exposed to the fire.

Is there any expert opinion that you can cite stating that DNA would be impossible to obtain at either site?

Now do you or don't you have evidence that DNA samples were not collected at the scene or that the DNA report was faked, do you or not?

You can't use logic with KT.

He is "Certifiable."

He still believes the Cory Litle plane crash wa faked. ninja.gif

*sigh*

Posted by: Killtown Nov 20 2006, 11:49 PM
QUOTE (Calcas @ Nov 21 2006, 04:31 AM)
He still believes the Cory Litle plane crash wa faked.

and?

Posted by: Calcas Nov 21 2006, 12:07 AM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Nov 20 2006, 11:49 PM)
QUOTE (Calcas @ Nov 21 2006, 04:31 AM)
He still believes the Cory Litle plane crash wa faked.

and?

You really don't get it, do you?

No matter what your arguments are, when you also argue something as ridiculous as the "Lytle plane crash was faked"

you completely lose all credibility.


And, I'm not even saying that you had any to begin with.

Seriously, why not the tooth fairy? Do you have any "proof" she doesn't exist?

Does ANYONE take you seriously?

Posted by: Killtown Nov 21 2006, 12:08 AM
QUOTE (Calcas @ Nov 21 2006, 05:07 AM)
No matter what your arguments are, when you also argue something as ridiculous as the "Lytle plane crash was faked"

you completely lose all credibility.

Why is that ridiculous to say? Really.

Posted by: Calcas Nov 21 2006, 12:15 AM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Nov 21 2006, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE (Calcas @ Nov 21 2006, 05:07 AM)
No matter what your arguments are, when you also argue something as ridiculous as the "Lytle plane crash was faked"

you completely lose all credibility.

Why is that ridiculous to say? Really.

Therin lies the issue.

I think it's patholigical on your part. I'll try to be sensitive about this but if you really don't "get" why that is ridiculous than I would suggest you seek help.

I'm serious.

Posted by: Killtown Nov 21 2006, 12:17 AM
QUOTE (Calcas @ Nov 21 2006, 05:15 AM)
I think it's patholigical on your part. I'll try to be sensitive about this but if you really don't "get" why that is ridiculous than I would suggest you seek help.

I'm serious.

All I see is ad-hominem attacks by you. Why don't you explain it to me.

Here's the appropriate thread:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=543

Posted by: Calcas Nov 21 2006, 12:25 AM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Nov 21 2006, 12:17 AM)
QUOTE (Calcas @ Nov 21 2006, 05:15 AM)
I think it's patholigical on your part.  I'll try to be sensitive about this but if you really don't "get" why that is ridiculous than I would suggest you seek help.

I'm serious.

All I see is ad-hominem attacks by you. Why don't you explain it to me.

Here's the appropriate thread:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=543

You can't argue logically with someone who is as "challenged" as you seem to be.

Try this.

Start a poll and ask how many people believe the Lytle crash "even may" have been faked.

This isn't even CT stuff. This is indicative of your whole mindset...

Posted by: Killtown Nov 21 2006, 12:27 AM
go to the appropriate thread, or STFU.

Posted by: Calcas Nov 21 2006, 12:35 AM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Nov 21 2006, 12:27 AM)
go to the appropriate thread, or STFU.

I've been there.

The thread is nuts. Do you think anyone believes it?

Have you ever felt like the "Special ED" kid that is allowed to play with the big boys?

It's funny. We all have an affinity for them. A pity, but kind of a close bond.

But, deep inside, we're all just thankful that we're of sound mind.

Posted by: beebop Nov 21 2006, 12:37 AM
I have pointed out several times now Killtown, that you immediatly cry 'fake' at any and all evidence that even remotely contradicts your own suppositions.

Your suppositions are strict dogma to you and you pathologically defend every one of them. You remind me of strict Biblical fundementalists.

Posted by: Calcas Nov 21 2006, 12:40 AM
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 21 2006, 12:37 AM)
I have pointed out several times now Killtown, that you immediatly cry 'fake' at any and all evidence that even remotely contradicts your own suppositions.

Your suppositions are strict dogma to you and you pathologically defend every one of them. You remind me of strict Biblical fundementalists.

Most religious fundamentalists that I've met I wouldn't consider mentally unbalanced.





Posted by: beebop Nov 21 2006, 12:45 AM
QUOTE (Calcas @ Nov 21 2006, 05:40 AM)
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 21 2006, 12:37 AM)
I have pointed out several times now Killtown, that you immediatly cry 'fake' at any and all evidence that even remotely contradicts your own suppositions.

Your suppositions are strict dogma to you and you pathologically defend every one of them. You remind me of strict Biblical fundementalists.

Most religious fundamentalists that I've met I wouldn't consider mentally unbalanced.

Me neither, I used to be a Baptist.

However KT's strict dogmatic adherence to his suppositions is what reminds me of the fundementalist adherence to the idea that the Bible is the direct and literal word of God. (every single word of each book)

Posted by: Calcas Nov 21 2006, 12:55 AM
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 21 2006, 12:45 AM)
QUOTE (Calcas @ Nov 21 2006, 05:40 AM)
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 21 2006, 12:37 AM)
I have pointed out several times now Killtown, that you immediatly cry 'fake' at any and all evidence that even remotely contradicts your own suppositions.

Your suppositions are strict dogma to you and you pathologically defend every one of them. You remind me of strict Biblical fundementalists.

Most religious fundamentalists that I've met I wouldn't consider mentally unbalanced.

Me neither, I used to be a Baptist.

However KT's strict dogmatic adherence to his suppositions is what reminds me of the fundementalist adherence to the idea that the Bible is the direct and literal word of God. (every single word of each book)

I know where you're coming from.

But, I don't see KT that way.

He sways with the wind. The Lytle crash was "faked" was the ultimate illustration of his delusionary mindset.

NOBODY here will dare get behind him on that one because it sets the whole movement up as being labeled as kooks.

Which makes me curious.

Why does the movement allow him to spout off with his kooky ideas without calling him on it?

Posted by: beebop Nov 21 2006, 01:00 AM
QUOTE (IVXX @ Oct 24 2006, 07:28 PM)
QUOTE (Popeholden @ Oct 24 2006, 05:27 PM)
i'm willing to bet the traffic camera also captures single frames.

Actually here on Long Island, NY the DOT cameras are a live 24 hour feed of major Island roadways. Even got the nice little cable channel of 24 hour weather and traffic to "know before you go." I highly doubt that traffic camera is only taking one frame every 5 seconds.

The issue is not neccessarily the frame rate of the camera but the capture rate of the recording. The realtime viewer may watch a 24 or 30 fps video image but the recording can be set to capture only one frame per second (for eg.) and be reset by a security person to record all frames if something suspicious is noted. That is a hi-tech system. All Pentagon cameras would be pointed at entry points of the Pentagon as their default positions during times when that particular camera is not specifically being monitored by security personnel. Cameras on other buildings would be aimed at the entrances and approachs of those buildings.

Posted by: beebop Nov 21 2006, 01:02 AM
QUOTE (Calcas @ Nov 21 2006, 05:55 AM)
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 21 2006, 12:45 AM)
QUOTE (Calcas @ Nov 21 2006, 05:40 AM)
QUOTE (beebop @ Nov 21 2006, 12:37 AM)
I have pointed out several times now Killtown, that you immediatly cry 'fake' at any and all evidence that even remotely contradicts your own suppositions.

Your suppositions are strict dogma to you and you pathologically defend every one of them. You remind me of strict Biblical fundementalists.

Most religious fundamentalists that I've met I wouldn't consider mentally unbalanced.

Me neither, I used to be a Baptist.

However KT's strict dogmatic adherence to his suppositions is what reminds me of the fundementalist adherence to the idea that the Bible is the direct and literal word of God. (every single word of each book)

I know where you're coming from.

But, I don't see KT that way.

He sways with the wind. The Lytle crash was "faked" was the ultimate illustration of his delusionary mindset.

NOBODY here will dare get behind him on that one because it sets the whole movement up as being labeled as kooks.

Which makes me curious.

Why does the movement allow him to spout off with his kooky ideas without calling him on it?

I don't know !

Posted by: JohnD Nov 23 2006, 01:41 AM
Just something to think about:

There have been many experiments with large groups of people concerning eyewitness credibility. The results were all quite disappointing:

- When people were asked "did you see that red car?" they confirmed it - even if the car was in fact white. So what about asking "Did you see that AA-Jet crash into the Pentagon?" would confuse the witness, so it connects the airplane he/she saw to the question.

- When asked to attentively follow the ball in a soccer game, less than 5% saw the guy in the gorilla costume jumping over the field, even though it was very obvious at second sight. (Edit: Consider even this: A: "Did you see that gorilla guy jumping over the field?" - B: "What? Are you insane?" - consider out of 10 People only one saw the gorilla. He'd be ridiculed to shame.)
Consider that and it may explain why so few saw anything at the Pentagon. The whole approach and crash may have taken just 5-10 Seconds!

So be careful when shouting "liar" at people. And be careful with ALL testimonies. The chance of being accurate is quite low.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 23 2006, 02:43 AM
Perhaps you don't find it suspicious that all the videos haven't been released after 5 years. I do.

ETA: WWIIIDrawsNear; excellent post.

ETA: Someone posted this rescently:

user posted image

Humm....... if you lower the right wing to line up with the damage the right wing did........ the right engine hits the spools..........oops

Even if you move the fuselage over to match the damage the fuselage did, that engine still takes out a couple of spools.................




Posted by: beebop Nov 23 2006, 11:13 PM
Correct interviews of eyewitnesses would not include suggestive questioning such as, "did you see the plane?". It would be , "describe what you saw.". Both police and TV interviewers know to do this.

While if there are few witnesses of an event they may very have divergent reports, when a large number of people witness an event one can get a better sense of what occured by looking for the most common reports.

In the case of the crash at the Pentagon the greatest commonality among witnesses is of a large jet airliner.

Those who wish it not to be flight 77 then either give more weight to the more anomolous reports or attempt to have it be a smaller 737. That is sohistry!

Posted by: beebop Nov 23 2006, 11:25 PM
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
By Jim Hoffman
QUOTE
Post-crash photographs show five large cable spools in front of the impact region of the Pentagon's facade. One of the spools is toppled, while four are standing on their edges. In most of these photographs, the spools appear very close to the facade, making them appear to be obstacles in the low-angled flight path of a jetliner into the Pentagon. Since these photographs were taken from the highway about 500 feet west of the facade, the ground near the facade is highly foreshortened in them. An analysis of the spool positions using photographs from different vantage points shows that the spool nearest the facade was about 30 feet from it. The other standing spools were about 80 feet away from the facade.

I estimate below that the wings impacted the facade at an average elevation of about 8 feet, and that the plane was losing about a foot of altitude for each 20 feet traveled. The four standing spools appear to lie between the paths of the two engines. Assuming that the larger spools were 6 feet in diameter, the flight path would have taken the bottom of the wings and fuselage about two or three feet over the tops of the larger spools. The spool lying on its side is damaged, and may have been hit by debris from the engine that hit the retaining wall.



BTW, 44'6" is the height of the tail from the ground when the 757 is sitting on the runway on its wheels!

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 24 2006, 12:42 AM
beebop:

I'm not buyin you estamate of 30' for the closest spool and 80' ' for the furtherst.

Please show your information and analysis

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 24 2006, 06:22 AM
They're further back than i thought [ 30' - 40' ?]

user posted image

Posted by: behind Nov 24 2006, 08:24 AM
user posted image

http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/asce_en.htm

Posted by: beebop Nov 24 2006, 12:54 PM
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 24 2006, 05:42 AM)
beebop:

I'm not buyin you estamate of 30' for the closest spool and 80' ' for the furtherst.

Please show your information and analysis

It isn't mine. You will note that I gave the link, and credited Jim Hoffman, for the quote..

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 26 2006, 08:12 AM
beebop:

Didn't notice the link. Thanks for mentioning it. Gottalotta good pics.

I can't vouch for the one i posted either. Poor resolution and the 'spools' were covered with black dots.

We need a good hi-rez [good enough to see the spools] aerial pic.

Waterdancer?

ETA: Notice they stop short of the tail hitting the building.

user posted image


behind: Thanx for the photo you posted. Most usefull

Posted by: David C Nov 29 2006, 10:18 AM
I think this picture settles the whole issue.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/160506giantpsyop.htm

It's a blow-up of a frame from the second video released by the government. The nose of the craft is too pointed to be that of a 757.


http://www.airchive.com/airline%20pics/LHR2004/BA%20757.jpg

Posted by: Killtown Nov 29 2006, 02:06 PM
QUOTE (David C @ Nov 29 2006, 03:18 PM)
I think this picture settles the whole issue.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/160506giantpsyop.htm

It's a blow-up of a frame from the second video released by the government. The nose of the craft is too pointed to be that of a 757.


http://www.airchive.com/airline%20pics/LHR2004/BA%20757.jpg

Are you honestly saying that object looks like a nose of a 757? I can't make heads or tails of it.

Posted by: JohnD Nov 29 2006, 06:38 PM
And this object is coming straight in flat to the ground. What the hell?
Where has it been 100 yards before??
Why is the lawn intact?

I can't get used to it.

Posted by: chris sarns Nov 30 2006, 03:21 AM
Heres the official story:

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT - 3.7
The Boeing 757 approached the west wall of the Pentagon from
the southwest at approximately 780 ft/s. As it approached the Pentagon
site it was so low to the ground that it reportedly clipped an
antenna on a vehicle on an adjacent road and severed light posts.
When it was approximately 320 ft from the west wall of the building
(0.42 second before impact), it was flying nearly level, only a
few feet above the ground (figures 3.2 and 3.13, the latter an aerial
photograph modified graphically to show the approaching aircraft).
The aircraft flew over the grassy area next to the Pentagon
until its right wing struck a piece of construction equipment that
was approximately 100 to 110 ft from the face of the building (0.10
second before impact (figure 3.14). At that time the aircraft had
rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated. After the plane had
traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the ground
at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft
struck the west wall of the Pentagon (figure 3.15). Impact of the
fuselage was at column line 14, at or slightly below the second floor
slab. The left wing passed below the second-floor slab, and
the right wing crossed at a shallow angle from below the second floor
slab to above the second-floor slab (figure 3.16)
A large fireball engulfed the exterior of the building in the
impact area. Interior fires began immediately.
The impact upon the west facade removed first-floor
columns from column lines 10 to 14. First-floor exterior
columns on column lines 9, 15, 16, and 17 were severely damaged,
perhaps to the point of losing all capacity. The second floor
exterior column on column line 14 and its adjacent spandrel
beams were destroyed or seriously damaged. Additionally,
there was facade damage on both sides of the impact area,
including damage as high as the fourth floor. However, in the
area of the impact of the fuselage and the tail, severe impact
damage did not extend above the third-floor slab.
Immediately upon impact, the Ring E structure deflected
downward over the region from an expansion joint on column
line 11 south to the west exterior column on column line 18
(figures 3.8–3.10).The deformation was the most severe at the
expansion joint, where the deflection was approximately 18 in.
to 2 ft.
The structure was able to maintain this deformed shape for
approximately 20 minutes, at which point all five levels of Ring
E collapsed from column line 11 to approximately column line
18 (figure 3.12).

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

Posted by: David C Nov 30 2006, 10:16 AM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Nov 29 2006, 07:06 PM)
QUOTE (David C @ Nov 29 2006, 03:18 PM)
I think this picture settles the whole issue.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/160506giantpsyop.htm

It's a blow-up of a frame from the second video released by the government.  The nose of the craft is too pointed to be that of a 757.


http://www.airchive.com/airline%20pics/LHR2004/BA%20757.jpg

Are you honestly saying that object looks like a nose of a 757? I can't make heads or tails of it.

You misunderstood me. I'm saying that it can't be a 757.

Here's the picture before the blow-up. It's on the top right.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/dodvideos.html

It's not blurry at all. It's the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon.
The photo evidence fits these analyses. The person who wrote the second one believes some of the holes in the inner walls were caused by explosions.

http://www.physics911.ca/Dewdney:_The_Missing_Wings
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html

In the first frame of this picture sequence it looks like a small plane firing a missile.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
That explains the explosions.

The person who wrote the first analysis thinks a small plane about the size of a fighter hit the Pentagon. That's consistent with the pictures.
http://www.physics911.net/aircraftoutlined.jpg

Posted by: chris sarns Dec 4 2006, 03:30 AM
David C: Thank you very much

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

Posted by: Killtown Dec 4 2006, 04:39 AM
Some rare Pentagon pics from a "first responder" at youtube link and get a load of last sentence:

QUOTE
"Ken"

I was a responder who arrived on scene just minutes after the crash. I could easily recognize peices of airplane on the grounds outside the heliport lawn. In the days after I was stationed in the morgue where I observed horrible things hourly. Several partial bodies were brought in still belted into thier seats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no4IF_mE9NE

Posted by: phillyphil1 Dec 4 2006, 10:43 PM
show me the videos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sarcasm of show me the money)









______________________________
www.isyourjobworthit.com

Posted by: chris sarns Dec 11 2006, 09:44 AM
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 30 2006, 08:21 AM)
Heres the official story:

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT - 3.7
........... At that time the aircraft had rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated. After the plane had traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft
struck the west wall of the Pentagon (figure 3.15).

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

Oops, another conundrum report:

Flight 77 FDR (JDX)

According to the csv file made from the FDR, the aircraft remained in a right bank right up to supposed impact. It never shows the aircraft banking left after the :44 second. Impact time is :45 after the minute. The FDR hard data has 4 data points within the :44-:45 second time frame for roll angle. It is as follows (positive number represents a right bank, while a left bank is negative, in degrees of bank).

Eastern ROLL
Daylight ANGLE
Time CAPT
(hh:mm:ss) (DEG)
09:37:41 AM -0.7
-0.7
-0.7
-0.4
09:37:42 AM 1.1
1.8
2.5
2.8
09:37:43 AM 3.5
4.6
5.6
6.3
09:37:44 AM 6.3
6.3
6
5.3
09:37:45 AM

A right bank conflicts with the official story that the aircraft needed to be in a left bank in order to account for generator damage. Once again.. the FDR conflicts with the official story.

Posted by: THE DECIDER Dec 11 2006, 05:14 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Oct 20 2006, 09:14 PM)
People keep forgetting that the initial biggest point of contention in regards to 9/11 was the pentagon.

The entire truth movement was spawned from questions about what happened at the pentagon.

As a result the spin has been harder on this aspect than any other.

Bottom line......if it don't fit you must acquit!

user posted image

not to mention, whatever hit it....hit between the first and second floors, and slid underneith the second floor slab....

now if you think about how huge a 757 is , it really sounds kinda crazy...special since the ground showed no marks from the engines...

no holes in the wall for both engins...

why just one engine?

ect ect ect...totally bogous

Posted by: LifeSuxLoveIsWar Dec 11 2006, 05:57 PM
My question still hasn't been answered. Why is there that 'smoke cloud' or whatever it is in the second release of the Pentagon hit, but it is not in the first one? And wasn't there two different copies of the first video? One with what appears to be some fish eyed lens around the corners of the video? And one that didn't have them? Idk. Also, that white thing that emerges in the video is NOT the plane. I thought that this has already been cleared up?

user posted image

The circle object in my opinion is the plane.

user posted image

user posted image


Posted by: chris sarns Dec 12 2006, 06:06 AM
user posted image

Posted by: David C Dec 20 2006, 09:58 AM
In this picture, you can see the tail of the craft that hit the Pentagon.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
In the first picture in this link you can see the path the craft that hit the Pentagon took.
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm

The height of the Pentagon is 77 feet 3.5 inches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon

The length of a 757 is 155 feet 3 inches.
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101

A 757 is twice as long as the Pentagon is high so if we double the height of the Pentagon a little higher than the impact point we get the length of a 757 at the point were the craft in the photo is. Judging from the position of the tail we can estimate the length of the craft behind the box. It's way too short to be a 757. That's what I think anyway. Is anyone here good at math? I think the craft behind the box can't be more than 70 feet long.

Sorry to post so sporadically; I'm doing some stuff on some other forums too and I don't have time to pay much attention here. Does anyone have time to help me out on the thread at this forum?
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507

Posted by: niro Dec 23 2006, 11:09 PM
I cant believe you people are claiming that pentagon only does 1 frame second camera shooting? are you kidding ur selfs you are crasping for straws my friends. Ok my work records 25 frames second at Shopping store we have say about 30 cameras. Now ur trying to tell us that most secure building in world doesnt record live footage and is of poor quality? and that it takes up to much space? im sorry they dont have little pocket money budget like many of you do. Some of the most secure evidence and documents are in that building and ur trying tell us they only gonna record at 1 frame second with low quality camera? these cameras would be state of art cameras and possibly would record well over normal 25 frames a second prob around 200 frames second. Pentagon was designed to stop attacks from both air and ground hense reason they have auto defense missile systems which also on day decide not to work even after 2 towers had been hit which of course they would of been aware of. Pentagon would also have infared cameras and the lot and ur trying tell us that they only have camera that records at low quality and 1 frame second cause to expensive adn they dont have enough hard drive space? can anyone say bullshit? Dont give me this shit they only mainly used security personal instead of cameras how fucking old are you people 2 yrs old? you are throwing all common sense out window to support a theory that just doesnt make sense. Ok if it makes you sleep better at end of night then you keep telling ur self that.

Posted by: LifeSuxLoveIsWar Dec 25 2006, 03:33 PM
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Dec 12 2006, 11:06 AM)
user posted image

The way that dude has it outlined makes it look like it's a jet. I'm not saying that I believe that is what it is, but who really knows. It very well could be a plane. This topic is growing old. Bleh.

Posted by: behind Dec 25 2006, 05:02 PM
QUOTE (niro @ Dec 24 2006, 04:09 AM)
I cant believe you people are claiming that pentagon only does 1 frame second camera shooting?

It is also very hard for me to belive this. It makes no sense.

Posted by: Popeholden Dec 26 2006, 11:29 AM
QUOTE
these cameras would be state of art cameras and possibly would record well over normal 25 frames a second prob around 200 frames second.


do you have any evidence for that claim, or is this speculation?

QUOTE
Pentagon was designed to stop attacks from both air and ground hense reason they have auto defense missile systems which also on day decide not to work even after 2 towers had been hit which of course they would of been aware of.


the pentagon did not have "auto defense missile systems". it was an office building, not a military base. it's located next to a major metropolitan airport.


Killtown: you're not presenting any evidence.

there IS evidence of a plane crashing there...airplane parts on the lawn, for one. if you want to discount that evidence, you have to present evidence that shows that it was faked.

doubting a claim is not the same as proving it wrong.

Posted by: Hetware Dec 26 2006, 12:30 PM
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Dec 11 2006, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE (chris sarns @ Nov 30 2006, 08:21 AM)
Heres the official story:

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT - 3.7
........... At that time the aircraft had rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated. After the plane had traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft
struck the west wall of the Pentagon (figure 3.15).

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

Oops, another conundrum report:

Flight 77 FDR (JDX)

According to the csv file made from the FDR, the aircraft remained in a right bank right up to supposed impact. It never shows the aircraft banking left after the :44 second. Impact time is :45 after the minute. The FDR hard data has 4 data points within the :44-:45 second time frame for roll angle. It is as follows (positive number represents a right bank, while a left bank is negative, in degrees of bank).

Eastern ROLL
Daylight ANGLE
Time CAPT
(hh:mm:ss) (DEG)
09:37:41 AM -0.7
-0.7
-0.7
-0.4
09:37:42 AM 1.1
1.8
2.5
2.8
09:37:43 AM 3.5
4.6
5.6
6.3
09:37:44 AM 6.3
6.3
6
5.3
09:37:45 AM

A right bank conflicts with the official story that the aircraft needed to be in a left bank in order to account for generator damage. Once again.. the FDR conflicts with the official story.

This is correct. The FDR data does not correspond with the observed impact damage on the building or the light poles. I am inclined to believe it is truncated.

Posted by: Avenger Dec 26 2006, 01:30 PM
Truncated? Can you elaborate on that?

Posted by: xredx Dec 26 2006, 02:12 PM
QUOTE (Killtown @ Dec 4 2006, 09:39 AM)
Some rare Pentagon pics from a "first responder" at youtube link and get a load of last sentence:

QUOTE
"Ken"

I was a responder who arrived on scene just minutes after the crash. I could easily recognize peices of airplane on the grounds outside the heliport lawn. In the days after I was stationed in the morgue where I observed horrible things hourly. Several partial bodies were brought in still belted into thier seats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no4IF_mE9NE

If anything, I think this video proves that there was no boeing 757. The biggest part that they showed was of something in some guy's hand.

Posted by: xredx Dec 26 2006, 02:15 PM
I think the smoke is what is coming out of the missile. If you look at the doubletree video, you can see smoking coming out of the flying object as it goes toward the pentagon.

Posted by: niro Dec 26 2006, 04:32 PM
QUOTE (Popeholden @ Dec 26 2006, 04:29 PM)
QUOTE
these cameras would be state of art cameras and possibly would record well over normal 25 frames a second prob around 200 frames second.


do you have any evidence for that claim, or is this speculation?

QUOTE
Pentagon was designed to stop attacks from both air and ground hense reason they have auto defense missile systems which also on day decide not to work even after 2 towers had been hit which of course they would of been aware of.


the pentagon did not have "auto defense missile systems". it was an office building, not a military base. it's located next to a major metropolitan airport.


Killtown: you're not presenting any evidence.

there IS evidence of a plane crashing there...airplane parts on the lawn, for one. if you want to discount that evidence, you have to present evidence that shows that it was faked.

doubting a claim is not the same as proving it wrong.

Ok what makes more sense to you Top secret building with some of most important information in country is kept there if it was in enemy hands be worth millions and millions. Now ur speculating that cameras only do 1 frame/sec recording? and it would chue up to much harddrive space? now who really speculating here me or you? Ow wait you think they mainly use ground troops instead of cameras? now righto how do you know all this? wait ur speculating! Now who logic makes more sense here me or you? very important and secure buildig having good survalance equipment? or chump out so save them selves couple bucks and risk very important information? its common sense really....

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)