| 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? |
| 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 | ||
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". |
| Posted by: Killtown Oct 19 2006, 11:47 AM | ||||
It's just kinda odd that why have to rely on ordinary private citizens like Russ (sorry Russ, "extrodinary"  ) 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:
Allyn E. Kilsheimer lemme guess, he was in on the plot? |
| Posted by: George Hayduke Oct 19 2006, 12:39 PM | ||
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,
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 | ||
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 | ||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||
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 | ||||
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 | ||
Can you say it one more time? |
| Posted by: Calcas Oct 20 2006, 07:30 AM | ||||||
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 | ||
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!  |
| 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 | ||
The same faulty reasoning that got a murderer aquitted. |
| Posted by: Lyte Trip Oct 20 2006, 05:01 PM | ||
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 | ||
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 | ||
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 | ||
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 | ||||
All easily planted particularly since the perpetrators are the ones who released this evidence!
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 | ||||
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 | ||
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 | ||
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 | ||
Would it matter after the fact? |
| Posted by: Momoka Oct 22 2006, 12:21 AM | ||||||
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.
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 | ||
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 | ||||
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 | ||
It isn't. http://911debunker.livejournal.com/ |
| Posted by: Killtown Oct 22 2006, 01:15 PM | ||||
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 | ||
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 | ||
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 | ||||
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 | ||
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 | ||
1) so you admit you are biased? 2) What would they squeal about? |
| Posted by: Momoka Oct 22 2006, 09:54 PM | ||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
No. A plane going straight down is out of control. It'd be easier to fly a plane into the side.
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.
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.  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.
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?
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.
One in five.
And there's your answer. The plane hit that side because there wasn't a parking lot full of cars in the way.
And if he hadn't said it, NO ONE WOULD HAVE KNOWN. Were I Rummy, I'd have sat on the news.
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 |
 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 | ||
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 | ||
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 | ||||
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 | ||||
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 | ||
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 | ||||
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.  |
| Posted by: boast Oct 24 2006, 12:21 PM |
   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 | ||
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)
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 | ||||
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 | ||
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 | ||||
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 | ||
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 | ||
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 | ||||
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 | ||
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 | ||
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 | ||||
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.
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 | ||
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 | ||||
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 |
 This shows one of the Sheraton cameras in relation to the flight path.  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 | ||
The plane was in the air. Camera's facing the ground, dude. |
| Posted by: MinnesotaLover Oct 27 2006, 01:03 PM |
 NOTICE HOW THOSE TWO LINES DON'T INTERSECT?? |
| Posted by: beebop Nov 6 2006, 02:21 PM | ||
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 | ||
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 | ||
There was video of that! |
| Posted by: beebop Nov 12 2006, 12:57 AM | ||||
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 | ||
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 | ||
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 | ||||
|
| 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 | ||
 |
| 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 | ||
By: |
| Posted by: Terrorcell Nov 20 2006, 11:47 AM | ||
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c3nMENvKow |
| Posted by: Kingston Nov 20 2006, 03:28 PM | ||
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 | ||||
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 | ||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||
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 | ||
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
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 | ||||
You can't use logic with KT. He is "Certifiable." He still believes the Cory Litle plane crash wa faked.  *sigh* |
| Posted by: Killtown Nov 20 2006, 11:49 PM | ||
and? |
| Posted by: Calcas Nov 21 2006, 12:07 AM | ||||
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 | ||
Why is that ridiculous to say? Really. |
| Posted by: Calcas Nov 21 2006, 12:15 AM | ||||
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 | ||
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 | ||||
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 | ||
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 | ||
Most religious fundamentalists that I've met I wouldn't consider mentally unbalanced. |
| Posted by: beebop Nov 21 2006, 12:45 AM | ||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||
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 | ||||||||
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:  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
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' ?] |
| Posted by: behind Nov 24 2006, 08:24 AM |
 http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/asce_en.htm |
| Posted by: beebop Nov 24 2006, 12:54 PM | ||
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.  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 | ||
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 | ||||
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:
|
| 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 | ||
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 | ||
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?  The circle object in my opinion is the plane.   |
| Posted by: chris sarns Dec 12 2006, 06:06 AM |
 |
| 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 | ||
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 | ||
It is also very hard for me to belive this. It makes no sense. |
| Posted by: Popeholden Dec 26 2006, 11:29 AM | ||||
do you have any evidence for that claim, or is this speculation?
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 | ||||
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 | ||||
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 | ||||||
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.... |