Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Loose Change Forum > The Pentagon > Fuselage Inside Pentagon


Posted by: dylan avery May 16 2007, 06:02 PM
I was going through some footage for the Final Cut, and stumbled upon this...

user posted image

http://www.loosechange911.com/download/pentagon_fuselage.mp4

Thoughts?

Posted by: ihatecreditors May 16 2007, 11:46 PM
video link doesn't work?

Posted by: Lyte Trip May 16 2007, 11:58 PM
I don't see how any of those pieces are positively identifiable as from an airplane at all let alone fuselage pieces.

The image in your post looks like it is a closeup of a small piece.

Not an actual big slab of fuselage with the hole supposedly being a window.

Do you have a shot of that from farther away so we can get perspective as to how big it is?


Posted by: Shoestring May 17 2007, 05:23 AM
QUOTE (dylan avery @ May 16 2007, 11:02 PM)
Thoughts?

It looks a bit small, so it's hard to tell if it might be plane debris.

Isn't it possible that some plane-like debris could have been planted in the Pentagon before 9/11, in some of the vacant rooms? After all, the area of the building that was hit was being renovated at the time and was mostly empty.

If the perpetrators had got caught planting plane debris, or if people got suspicious, they could have said the debris was going to be used for a training exercise based around a plane hitting the Pentagon, to make it appear more realistic for the participants. Note that there had been at least three exercises in the year prior to 9/11 based around a plane hitting the Pentagon. And there is at least circumstancial evidence suggesting another of these plane-into-Pentagon exercises was scheduled for the day of 9/11. See for example the following short essay: http://www.911blogger.com/node/4654.


Posted by: dylan avery May 17 2007, 09:53 AM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ May 17 2007, 04:58 AM)
I don't see how any of those pieces are positively identifiable as from an airplane at all let alone fuselage pieces.

The image in your post looks like it is a closeup of a small piece.

Not an actual big slab of fuselage with the hole supposedly being a window.

Do you have a shot of that from farther away so we can get perspective as to how big it is?

That's the best I have. The shot before and after should give you enough perspective.

So what does this piece come from Lyte? I'm not trying to go one way or another on this, but that strikes me as a piece of fuselage.

Posted by: Terrorcell May 17 2007, 10:20 AM
QUOTE (dylan avery @ May 17 2007, 02:53 PM)
I'm not trying to go one way or another on this, but that strikes me as a piece of fuselage.

What part of the fuselage do you believe this to be?

I'm not seeing it. I can't say one way or another what the remains originate from so I'm just curious how you came to the conclusion it's a plane.....

Posted by: Lyte Trip May 17 2007, 12:31 PM
QUOTE (dylan avery @ May 17 2007, 02:53 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ May 17 2007, 04:58 AM)
I don't see how any of those pieces are positively identifiable as from an airplane at all let alone fuselage pieces.

The image in your post looks like it is a closeup of a small piece.

Not an actual big slab of fuselage with the hole supposedly being a window.

Do you have a shot of that from farther away so we can get perspective as to how big it is?

That's the best I have. The shot before and after should give you enough perspective.

So what does this piece come from Lyte? I'm not trying to go one way or another on this, but that strikes me as a piece of fuselage.

The shot before and after isn't from any further away so we don't get any better perspective.

It could very well be a planted piece of an airplane.

I just don't believe it is a large piece of fuselage and I don't believe that anyone would be able to definitively tell for sure what piece it is.

That hole does not look like a window and it simply looks like a close up of a small piece of something unidentifiable to me.

Posted by: Lyte Trip May 17 2007, 12:55 PM
The shots from further away don't show the same part that I can see.

The 2 other pieces shown look even less like airplane parts.

Posted by: dylan avery May 17 2007, 12:55 PM
QUOTE (Terrorcell @ May 17 2007, 03:20 PM)
QUOTE (dylan avery @ May 17 2007, 02:53 PM)
I'm not trying to go one way or another on this, but that strikes me as a piece of fuselage.

What part of the fuselage do you believe this to be?

I'm not seeing it. I can't say one way or another what the remains originate from so I'm just curious how you came to the conclusion it's a plane.....

I dunno, TC. Again, I'm not pushing plane or no plane. It just struck me as curious so I figured I'd post it.

Lyte, you may be right, too. Sorry if it sounded confrontational.

Posted by: Lyte Trip May 17 2007, 01:48 PM
I didn't think it was confrontational.

As you know, the physical evidence for a plane inside the building is a joke and IMHO these unidentifiable pieces don't change that.

Did you hear on our Mike Swenson interview how we have a new interview with a first responder?

He saw no plane debris inside and does not believe a plane hit the building.








Posted by: dylan avery May 17 2007, 02:18 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ May 17 2007, 06:48 PM)
I didn't think it was confrontational.

As you know, the physical evidence for a plane inside the building is a joke and IMHO these unidentifiable pieces don't change that.

Did you hear on our Mike Swenson interview how we have a new interview with a first responder?

He saw no plane debris inside and does not believe a plane hit the building.

I did. That's awesome. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Lyte Trip May 17 2007, 02:52 PM
QUOTE (dylan avery @ May 17 2007, 07:18 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ May 17 2007, 06:48 PM)
I didn't think it was confrontational.

As you know, the physical evidence for a plane inside the building is a joke and IMHO these unidentifiable pieces don't change that.

Did you hear on our Mike Swenson interview how we have a new interview with a first responder?

He saw no plane debris inside and does not believe a plane hit the building.

I did. That's awesome. biggrin.gif

Yeah man.

We're getting confirmation everywhere we look.


Posted by: xBIGGSx May 17 2007, 09:56 PM
First off, may I ask where you obtained this photo/video from? And second, I believe that the object is small when compared to scale with the small rock-like debris around it. No matter what the size, due to the condition of which the two pieces are in they will be nearly impossible to identify as part of an airplane from a mere photograph.

Posted by: racerX May 18 2007, 07:42 AM
Do you know where the video was shot? C-Ring? or entry hole?

To me the piece looks like it could very well come from an airplane, especially the way it is riveted together.. thats alot of rivets on a small-ish piece.

Looks like there is some kind of shaft thing sticking out.. so it could be a pivoting part (or something attached to a pivoting part)... door? landing gear door? flap?

user posted image

cant get my head around the assymetrical stuff at the top (edit: after looking at the video again, whatever it is that is pointed by the upper question mark in my pic looks to be something else.. not attached to the part in question.) and bottom of it...

To be honest, only the riveting tells me this is a possible aircraft part.
Knowing the exact location where it was found would help ruling out stuff like the generator, etc..

Posted by: dylan avery May 18 2007, 09:25 AM
To be honest I don't know where this was found. If I had to guess, it's the C-Ring, because after this shot is a shot of the "exit hole". The footage is public domain footage, it's the hour that was shot by the DoD after the attacks. It has the famous clock shot and everything.

Posted by: genghis6199 May 19 2007, 12:22 AM
one thing about it that bothers me is that it seems to be an outer and an inner skin. boeing bodies aren't like that. they have an outer and a poxy plastic inner. this would have to be a doorpiece only. it also seems very 'serious' in it's strength. small tight panelling and rivetting. not usual generic fuselage looking.

Posted by: BillW May 19 2007, 07:23 PM
Dylan, didn't you recently state "A plane hit the Pentagon...get over it!"

Are you moving away from that position?

Posted by: Avenger May 20 2007, 10:14 AM
Why should anybody believe Flt 77 hit the Pentagon? The light pole damage is fake, Lloyd's story is a fabrication, and they lied about the nose cone sticking out of the exit hole.

"The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit." rolleyes.gif

Posted by: dylan avery May 20 2007, 04:04 PM
QUOTE (BillW @ May 20 2007, 12:23 AM)
Dylan, didn't you recently state "A plane hit the Pentagon...get over it!"

Are you moving away from that position?

What? No. Don't put words in my mouth.

Posted by: BillW May 20 2007, 08:59 PM
QUOTE (dylan avery @ May 20 2007, 04:04 PM)
QUOTE (BillW @ May 20 2007, 12:23 AM)
Dylan, didn't you recently state "A plane hit the Pentagon...get over it!"

Are you moving away from that position?

What? No. Don't put words in my mouth.

My mistake then.

Perhaps I got it confused with your comment on the towers.

But, you know it did...and it was AA77.

Posted by: Avenger May 20 2007, 10:10 PM
Whatever, dude. wink.gif You seem worried. Why are you so concerned with what he thinks?

Posted by: xBIGGSx May 20 2007, 10:57 PM
How can anyone with the proper knowledge believe AA-77 hit the Pentagon. I consider this the whole selling point of the truth movement. All you have to do is look and see that there was no impact from the wings and no wings sheered off on the ground.

I don't mean to start an argument, but it just seems to be common sense.

Posted by: Avenger May 20 2007, 11:24 PM
There is damage below the impact hole, but it's too low. It's not consistent with a plane banking left, or not banking at all, for that matter.

Anyhow, the most irritating thing is that some of the biggest smoking guns are at the Pentagon site. So many truthers seem completely oblivious to this. How many times do we have to explain why the damage is fake? It should be clear from the very first light pole. It should be clear from that lame story they gave about the nose cone penetrating Ring C. I have had this same stupid quote in my sig for half a year now. People still say they're up in the air about the Pentagon. Government caught red-handed lying. I mean, what more do you want? Fellow truthers, please wake up!

Posted by: seeker135 May 21 2007, 12:58 AM
Looks like building structural members and perhaps a really effed-up door.

Posted by: Terrorcell May 21 2007, 06:46 AM
QUOTE (BillW @ May 21 2007, 01:59 AM)
QUOTE (dylan avery @ May 20 2007, 04:04 PM)
QUOTE (BillW @ May 20 2007, 12:23 AM)
Dylan, didn't you recently state "A plane hit the Pentagon...get over it!"

Are you moving away from that position?

What? No. Don't put words in my mouth.

My mistake then.

Perhaps I got it confused with your comment on the towers.

But, you know it did...and it was AA77.

laugh.gif

You're funny.



Posted by: raulm60 May 23 2007, 05:32 PM
Hellow everybody, im new here. Sorry for my english, probably it will be crude.

The piece posted by Dilan reminds me another piece of wrekage from the flight 93:


user posted image

by comparison it's clear that the one in the Pentagon is much smaller, and the holes are not windows: the rivets are too big for the size of the piece, you can count how many of them fits along the central hole and along the real window...

But what is it and were it comes from, I don't know, it looks ver much like the piece of an aircraft, probably a plane. On purpose, here you generaly belive that a boeing didn't hit the Pentagon, and that it can be proven? seems like there are so many discussions on the isue inside the truth movement... for me the cuestion is if the maneuvering is posible, and if the lower hole fits somehow with the airplane (the wings could go partially inwards or whatever). If it finally not, any pic of any piece can be in disgarded in principle... but I supose this is not the thread for this.



Posted by: Avenger May 23 2007, 07:48 PM
QUOTE
On purpose, here you generaly belive that a boeing didn't hit the Pentagon, and that it can be proven? seems like there are so many discussions on the isue inside the truth movement... for me the cuestion is if the maneuvering is posible, and if the lower hole fits somehow with the airplane (the wings could go partially inwards or whatever).

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6158

Posted by: Russell Pickering May 27 2007, 03:24 PM
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ May 17 2007, 04:58 AM)
I don't see how any of those pieces are positively identifiable as from an airplane at all let alone fuselage pieces.

The image in your post looks like it is a closeup of a small piece.

Not an actual big slab of fuselage with the hole supposedly being a window.

Do you have a shot of that from farther away so we can get perspective as to how big it is?

Well then........

There's the problem - you don't know what aircraft parts look like.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT May 27 2007, 06:45 PM
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ May 27 2007, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ May 17 2007, 04:58 AM)
I don't see how any of those pieces are positively identifiable as from an airplane at all let alone fuselage pieces.

The image in your post looks like it is a closeup of a small piece.

Not an actual big slab of fuselage with the hole supposedly being a window.

Do you have a shot of that from farther away so we can get perspective as to how big it is?

Well then........

There's the problem - you don't know what aircraft parts look like.

Look who's back!

And surprise surprise he decided to return with snappy sarcasm.

Tell us oh wise one what proof you have of what piece of a plane it is or what type of plane it came from.

If you are claiming those parts are positively identifiable you must have something to back up this claim.


Posted by: Russell Pickering May 28 2007, 02:01 PM
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ May 27 2007, 11:45 PM)

Look who's back!

And surprise surprise he decided to return with snappy sarcasm.

Tell us oh wise one what proof you have of what piece of a plane it is or what type of plane it came from.

If you are claiming those parts are positively identifiable you must have something to back up this claim.

Positive ID is what your looking for? Your guru is teaching you well.

What PROOF do I have that is you making these words appear on the screen?

By now you have so much debris in photos and video that you should try and explain to me how and why they planted it. It is starting to get to the point where at least some portion of reality would kick in for you.

But I know the alternate universe is more appealing to you.

Posted by: Avenger May 28 2007, 02:54 PM
Cop out.

Posted by: Avenger May 28 2007, 03:00 PM
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this is not an engine part, but you did insult him. And when he challenges you, it turns out that you don't know what the hell that thing is yourself.

Posted by: DECIDER911 May 28 2007, 08:42 PM
QUOTE (Russell PoPickering @ May 28 2007, 02:01 PM)

\/


Positive ID is what your looking for? Your guru is teaching you well.

WHAT INVESTIGATION SAYS " AW WE KNOW WHAT IT IS, WHY PROVE IT"
SAYING SOMEONE IS "TEACHING" HIM A TACTIC IS A JREF DISTRACTING TACTIC.. AND IMPLYS LIES, TYPICAL HANNITY TACTIC.


What PROOF do I have that is you making these words appear on the screen?

By now you have so much debris in photos and video that you should try and explain to me how and why they planted it. It is starting to get to the point where at least some portion of reality would kick in for you.

OPERATION NORTHWOODS TALKED ABOUT "PLANTED DEBRIS"...NUFF SAID..

But I know the alternate universe is more appealing to you.

GRAVY? ANTI-SOPHIST?..IS THAT YOU?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT May 28 2007, 11:05 PM
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ May 28 2007, 07:01 PM)
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ May 27 2007, 11:45 PM)

Look who's back!

And surprise surprise he decided to return with snappy sarcasm.

Tell us oh wise one what proof you have of what piece of a plane it is or what type of plane it came from.

If you are claiming those parts are positively identifiable you must have something to back up this claim.

Positive ID is what your looking for? Your guru is teaching you well.

What PROOF do I have that is you making these words appear on the screen?

By now you have so much debris in photos and video that you should try and explain to me how and why they planted it. It is starting to get to the point where at least some portion of reality would kick in for you.

But I know the alternate universe is more appealing to you.

The majority of the people in the movement fully believe that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon because of the evidence.

It is YOU who are living in an alternate reality with your debunked 757 impact conspiracy theory.

Do you require a full explanation as to how the explosives were planted in the towers in order to believe it was a controlled demolition?

If not then why do you have a different standard of proof at the pentagon?

Clearly what few scraps of a plane were found at the Pentagon would be easier to plant than the explosives at the towers and building 7, no?

Or did you decide that you no longer believe in controlled demolition at the towers?

Posted by: AriGold May 29 2007, 08:24 PM
\"The majority of the people in the movement fully believe that the plane didn\'t hit the Pentagon because of the evidence.\"

Lyte, are you serious?

The majority of the people....????

Do you not recall your little poll here a few months back that asked that VERY SAME question?

I believe the results were something like 3 for your opinion (2 of which were no doubt you and Merc) and 65 who voted against you.

And that\'s on THIS board!!!

I think Dylan or one of the mods took pity on you and deleted the thread. But, I\'m sure it could be dug up if need be.

Man, you crack me up.




Posted by: Avenger May 29 2007, 08:39 PM
QUOTE
I believe the results were something like 3 for your opinion (2 of which were no doubt you and Merc) and 65 who voted against you

Maybe a bunch of trolls jumped on it to skew the results.

Posted by: AriGold May 29 2007, 08:40 PM
\"The majority of the people in the movement fully believe that the plane didn\'t hit the Pentagon because of the evidence.\"

Lyte, are you serious?

The majority of the people....????

Do you not recall your little poll here a few months back that asked that VERY SAME question?

I believe the results were something like 3 for your opinion (2 of which were no doubt you and Merc) and 65 who voted against you.

And that\'s on THIS board!!!

I think Dylan or one of the mods took pity on you and deleted the thread. But, I\'m sure it could be dug up if need be.

Man, you crack me up.




Posted by: Avenger May 29 2007, 08:57 PM
QUOTE
Do you not recall your little poll here a few months back that asked that VERY SAME question?

I believe the results were something like 3 for your opinion (2 of which were no doubt you and Merc) and 65 who voted against you.

How would you remember something like that when your join date is May 23rd?

Sock puppet?

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT May 29 2007, 09:08 PM
There is nothing scientific about any "poll" in this forum and it is certainly NOT representative of the truth movement since this place is stacked with jref'ers.

That's WHY the mods deleted it because it was obvious that jref'ers were flooding this board to attack The PentaCon when it was first released. IVXX will attest to that.

How many 9/11 truth conferences have you been to?

We have presented at 2 this year and I have been to 5 total.

In every one of them the event was jam packed with people who fully believe that the official Pentagon story is a joke and NOBODY talked about any ludicrous 757 impact conspiracy theories.

People like Dave Von Kliest, April Gallop, & Barbara Honneger got standing ovations from the entire crowd.

We had people swarming us to ask questions about our new data.

Nobody came up and said........hey guys.....it's clear all of the witnesses in your film were hallucinating because obviously the evidence supports the fact that a 757 hit the building.

Nope. Not one.

Pickering and Hoffman are aberrations in the movement......not the majority consensus.

It's real easy to copy and paste lists of government controlled media accounts without analyzing them or confirming them but that is NOT research.

9/11 was a world wide psychological operation of deception carried out primarily through constant media propaganda.

It is our DUTY as truth warriors to investigate and confirm or deny media reports.

The very second you take media reports or government supplied data at face value you have fallen into their trap.

We investigated and we have proven that the plane COULD NOT have caused the physical damage.

No unconfirmed previously published account is enough to refute the hard evidence that we have provided through REAL investigative journalism.

It's disingenuous to suggest that 3 STAGED covert controlled demolitions were pulled off in downtown manhattan on video for the world to see while simultaneously suggesting that everything physically happened at the Pentagon exactly as reported by the government and the media even though they REFUSE to release video of the event and even though there are so many anomalies, questions, and problems with the evidence or lack of it.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT May 29 2007, 09:17 PM
Plus the poll you are referring to was something to the effect of.....

Should CIT contact Air Traffic Control?


Why would anyone who supports us or not say no to that question?

But of course jref ran with it as if it was proof the entire movement was against us.

Trust me......the response to the data we have presented has been overwhelming.

The north side claim has broken the Pentagon case wide open and the data is so strong that it will only continue to grow.





Posted by: Starbelly May 31 2007, 03:48 PM
To be quite frank, the Pentacon made me realise that a plane DID hit the pentagon. Your north claim is of merit, certainly, and puts the official flight path in doubt. Kudos.

However, all your witnesses saw a plane and one even desribes the actual impact angle. Not one person saw this plane flyover the pentagon. There is absolutely no gain whatsoever from risking flying a plane over the building for people to see from all angles. Nothing to gain at all. The illusion theory put forth in the film is void to all those people standing at the other end of the building and to the side of it.

I will state again though - well done on the flight path. That has raised legitimate questions.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT May 31 2007, 04:59 PM
QUOTE (Starbelly @ May 31 2007, 08:48 PM)
To be quite frank, the Pentacon made me realise that a plane DID hit the pentagon. Your north claim is of merit, certainly, and puts the official flight path in doubt. Kudos.

However, all your witnesses saw a plane and one even desribes the actual impact angle. Not one person saw this plane flyover the pentagon. There is absolutely no gain whatsoever from risking flying a plane over the building for people to see from all angles. Nothing to gain at all. The illusion theory put forth in the film is void to all those people standing at the other end of the building and to the side of it.

I will state again though - well done on the flight path. That has raised legitimate questions.

Yes it is difficult for people who haven't studied the physical damage to understand but it is IMPOSSIBLE for a plane on the north side of the station to have hit the light poles OR cause the damage to the building as meticulously outlined in the ASCE report therefore the only conclusion is that the plane did not hit the building.

So.....if you accept the north of the citgo testimony as valid you must accept the fact that it did not hit the building.

There is no other choice.

Besides.....why would they stage the light poles if the plane hit the building?

(light poles in yellow)
user posted image
user posted image


Images from ASCE report showing trajectory of approach and damage to the building:
user posted image
user posted image

user posted image

So you see there is no way a plane on the north side of the building caused this damage.



Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT May 31 2007, 05:09 PM
Plus......

There isn't much at all on the other side of the Pentagon until you cross over the Potomac river into DC....

user posted image

Here is the view from Scott Cook's office which is the best view possible of the area from the other side of the river:

user posted image

Not much detail is there?

People who saw a plane flying away from the Pentagon would have been told it was simply another plane that was in the area at the time or they may have confused it with regular air traffic from Reagan airport which is right next to the Pentagon.

user posted image

Posted by: Starbelly May 31 2007, 05:13 PM
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ May 31 2007, 09:59 PM)
QUOTE (Starbelly @ May 31 2007, 08:48 PM)
To be quite frank, the Pentacon made me realise that a plane DID hit the pentagon. Your north claim is of merit, certainly, and puts the official flight path in doubt. Kudos.

However, all your witnesses saw a plane and one even desribes the actual impact angle. Not one person saw this plane flyover the pentagon. There is absolutely no gain whatsoever from risking flying a plane over the building for people to see from all angles. Nothing to gain at all. The illusion theory put forth in the film is void to all those people standing at the other end of the building and to the side of it.

I will state again though - well done on the flight path. That has raised legitimate questions.

Yes it is difficult for people who haven't studied the physical damage to understand but it is IMPOSSIBLE for a plane on the north side of the station to have hit the light poles OR cause the damage to the building as meticulously outlined in the ASCE report therefore the only conclusion is that the plane did not hit the building.

So.....if you accept the north of the citgo testimony as valid you must accept the fact that it did not hit the building.

There is no other choice.

Besides.....why would they stage the light poles if the plane hit the building?

(light poles in yellow)
user posted image
user posted image


Images from ASCE report showing trajectory of approach and damage to the building:
user posted image
user posted image

user posted image

So you see there is no way a plane on the north side of the building caused this damage.

No, if you accept the testimony as reliable you accept the part where they state that a plane definetely it the building.

You cant keep some parts and leave out others. Thats dishonest and misrepresenting their account.

There is no witness to this plane flyover. Therefore, there is zero evidence for it.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT May 31 2007, 05:33 PM
QUOTE (Starbelly @ May 31 2007, 10:13 PM)

No, if you accept the testimony as reliable you accept the part where they state that a plane definetely it the building.

You cant keep some parts and leave out others. Thats dishonest and misrepresenting their account.

There is no witness to this plane flyover. Therefore, there is zero evidence for it.

We didn't leave it out.

But since it is physically impossible for both claims to be true it is up to you to determine which claim is correct.

You MUST choose whether you believe the north side claim or the impact claim.

They can not be simultaneously correct.

Because we know that 9/11 was an operation of DECEPTION it stands to reason that it was designed to DECEIVE people into believing the plane hit.

Just like the fact that we know the towers were brought down by controlled demolition even though millions of people watched them go down live on tv and they all believed it was because of the plane. We do not accept that part of their testimony upon closer scrutiny of the facts.

It was a deception.

Posted by: Starbelly May 31 2007, 05:43 PM
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ May 31 2007, 10:33 PM)
QUOTE (Starbelly @ May 31 2007, 10:13 PM)

No, if you accept the testimony as reliable you accept the part where they state that a plane definetely it the building.

You cant keep some parts and leave out others. Thats dishonest and misrepresenting their account.

There is no witness to this plane flyover. Therefore, there is zero evidence for it.

We didn't leave it out.

But since it is physically impossible for both claims to be true it is up to you to determine which claim is correct.

You MUST choose whether you believe the north side claim or the impact claim.

They can not be simultaneously correct.

Because we know that 9/11 was an operation of DECEPTION it stands to reason that it was designed to DECEIVE people into believing the plane hit.

Just like the fact that we know the towers were brought down by controlled demolition even though millions of people watched them go down on video tape and believed it was because of the plane.

It was a deception.

This is just the problem, i am not a structual expert. I cannot access the damage to the building with any real merit. Nor can i determine the manouverability of the plane, as i have no experience in aviation. I am merely stating that there is far too much eye witness accounts stating that they actually saw a strike. There is no one, as of yet, who saw this plane fly over the building. Until i see that, there is no actual evidence of this conclusion. Only speculation.

Thing is, your flyover theory doesnt have to be correct for your North Side claim to have merit. You have done good work, regardless.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT May 31 2007, 05:49 PM
QUOTE (Starbelly @ May 31 2007, 10:43 PM)

This is just the problem, i am not a structual expert. I cannot access the damage to the building with any real merit. Nor can i determine the manouverability of the plane, as i have no experience in aviation. I am merely stating that there is far too much eye witness accounts stating that they actually saw a strike. There is no one, as of yet, who saw this plane fly over the building. Until i see that, there is no actual evidence of this conclusion. Only speculation.

Thing is, your flyover theory doesnt have to be correct for your North Side claim to have merit. You have done good work, regardless.

I see.

So you do not believe in controlled demolition at the towers.

In that case scratch that analogy.

However.....it does not take an expert to understand that it is impossible for a plane on the north side of the gas station to hit the light poles far to the south side of the gas station lined up in the opposite trajectory.

(light poles in yellow)
user posted image

So regardless of whether or not you accept the flyover theory.......the IMPACT theory most certainly DOES require the plane to be on the south side of the station in order to have merit.

There is zero room for error in this regard particularly due to the light poles.

Therefore you can choose to believe the plane was a hologram or magically disintegrated or anything other than the plane flew over but if you accept that the plane was on the north side of the gas station it is impossible to have caused the physical damage.

This is a fact.

Posted by: Starbelly May 31 2007, 06:44 PM
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ May 31 2007, 10:49 PM)
QUOTE (Starbelly @ May 31 2007, 10:43 PM)

This is just the problem, i am not a structual expert. I cannot access the damage to the building with any real merit. Nor can i determine the manouverability of the plane, as i have no experience in aviation. I am merely stating that there is far too much eye witness accounts stating that they actually saw a strike. There is no one, as of yet, who saw this plane fly over the building. Until i see that, there is no actual evidence of this conclusion. Only speculation.

Thing is, your flyover theory doesnt have to be correct for your North Side claim to have merit. You have done good work, regardless.

I see.

So you do not believe in controlled demolition at the towers.

In that case scratch that analogy.

However.....it does not take an expert to understand that it is impossible for a plane on the north side of the gas station to hit the light poles far to the south side of the gas station lined up in the opposite trajectory.

(light poles in yellow)
user posted image

So regardless of whether or not you accept the flyover theory.......the IMPACT theory most certainly DOES require the plane to be on the south side of the station in order to have merit.

There is zero room for error in this regard particularly due to the light poles.

Therefore you can choose to believe the plane was a hologram or magically disintegrated or anything other than the plane flew over but if you accept that the plane was on the north side of the gas station it is impossible to have caused the physical damage.

This is a fact.

The difference between controlled demolition theory is there is video footage to examine, there is seismic records to examine. Quite different from lookin at a hole. To be honest, the CD theory is something i dont lean on anyway as without any structural engineer supporting the CD theory of WTC 1 and 2, there is no professional credibility. Id rather focus on the same kind material 8BigAgent focuses on. Money trail, UAE, Saudi and ISI involvement. Provable stuff. Not debating on the scenary back and forth.

Posted by: Avenger May 31 2007, 07:34 PM
QUOTE
Id rather focus on the same kind material 8BigAgent focuses on. Money trail, UAE, Saudi and ISI involvement. Provable stuff. Not debating on the scenary back and forth.

Then, why are you in the Pentagon forum debating back and forth? And I really don't see much to debate back and forth about. If the plane flew north of the Citgo, then it could not have caused the light pole damage.

Also, I think the physical anomalies are more 'provable' than talking about money trails.

Posted by: Starbelly May 31 2007, 08:38 PM
QUOTE (Avenger @ Jun 1 2007, 12:34 AM)
QUOTE
Id rather focus on the same kind material 8BigAgent focuses on. Money trail, UAE, Saudi and ISI involvement. Provable stuff. Not debating on the scenary back and forth.

Then, why are you in the Pentagon forum debating back and forth? And I really don't see much to debate back and forth about. If the plane flew north of the Citgo, then it could not have caused the light pole damage.

Also, I think the physical anomalies are more 'provable' than talking about money trails.

Ehhh im in the Pentagon section because i feel the missile/no plane strike stuff is hurting the cause. Im hoping it gets dropped, eventually.

You should ask the same question to people to posted in NPT threads who didnt agree with it. By your train of thought, they should only be posting in it when they agree with it or think its worth following.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT May 31 2007, 08:54 PM
Regardless of whether or not you accept the flyover theory.......the IMPACT theory most certainly DOES require the plane to be on the south side of the station in order to have merit.

There is zero room for error in this regard particularly due to the light poles.

Therefore you can choose to believe the plane was a hologram or magically disintegrated or anything other than the plane flew over but if you accept that the plane was on the north side of the gas station it is impossible to have caused the physical damage.

This is a fact.


Posted by: awmatt Jun 1 2007, 04:55 PM
QUOTE

I was going through some footage for the Final Cut, and stumbled upon this...  Thoughts?


It seems the bolt in the lower-left of the photo (going through the red frame member) is 1/4"-20 or 5/16"-18, or similar. They really wouldn't scale with size - any smaller, and the nut would be thinner; any larger, and the whole piece would have to be huge. This corresponds with the hem of the tarp (just over 1" is typical). This places the elliptical hole at just over the size of a 3"x5" index card, too small for a window as found by others. The hole to the left is maybe 4"x7". Perhaps the Pilots could be asked on this one. It does seem that something was contained inside this structure; hydraulics, perhaps? It also seems connected to a larger entity on the right. There must be someone who knows where this goes, or what model of plane it belongs to. I do know two recently-hired employees of Boeing, for what it's worth.

QUOTE

Did you hear on our Mike Swenson interview how we have a new interview with a first responder?  He saw no plane debris inside and does not believe a plane hit the building.


Where can I find this? Thanks.

- Arthur (eagerly awaiting "Final Cut" and "Researcher's Edition" from the corresponding authors)

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Jun 1 2007, 05:24 PM
Welcome to the forum Arthur!

You can download the interview from the archives here:

http://www.revolutionradiolive.com/05-15-07Hour2.mp3

We keep getting more info so we don't have a release date for Researcher's Edition.

But it will be worth the wait!

Posted by: awmatt Jun 1 2007, 08:34 PM
Great, thanks Craig. Hearing your voice now, after Green Day.

I've been doing research on 9/11 for over a year now. Amongst other things, I was introduced to Loose Change by some dorm-mates. One wrote a paper for his class on Building 7. I had seen the French site on the Pentagon in 2004, but dismissed it initially. But after hearing the testimonies from victims, etc., especially Willie Rodriguez, in 2006 when they had been recently released, I became immediately suspicious of the U.S. government and have been increasingly more so every day.

I have one comment about the "Smoking Gun Version". Did you think to tell Sgt. Lagasse that he was wrong (with tact) about the taxi and the lightpoles? How do you think he would have replied? I find this fascinating because it almost helps to sort out which parts of the eyewitness testimonies are correct and which aren't, because you KNOW he's wrong about that because we have pictures. Since he's absolutely sure he sees the plane on the "left side", he just logically makes the connection that the light poles HAD to be in its path as well. This "logic" is the key to manipulation, of course. So I guess you can only believe what people are SURE of.

- Arthur

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Jun 1 2007, 08:44 PM
QUOTE (awmatt @ Jun 2 2007, 01:34 AM)
Since he's absolutely sure he sees the plane on the "left side", he just logically makes the connection that the light poles HAD to be in its path as well.  This "logic" is the key to manipulation, of course.  So I guess you can only believe what people are SURE of.

- Arthur

You get it!

It's so refreshing.

People are trying to discredit Lagasse because he was wrong about the placement of the poles and cab.

As if it's a valid reason to dismiss his entire account!

But he very clearly says that he did NOT SEE the light poles and we know that he could not have seen the taxi cab from where he was located so why would he remember these relatively insignificant details that he did not witness?

How does that affect the accuracy of his placement of the plane which he DID witness?

Particularly since his placement of the plane is so heavily corroborated!

Naturally he would insist that the physical damage (which he clearly has not studied) would line up with where he saw the plane.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Jun 1 2007, 08:57 PM
QUOTE (awmatt @ Jun 2 2007, 01:34 AM)
Did you think to tell Sgt. Lagasse that he was wrong (with tact) about the taxi and the lightpoles?  How do you think he would have replied? 

To answer your question.

Obviously at the end of the interview I decided it necessary to inform him of where the official story places the plane and the poles.

He was clearly getting agitated by that so I thought it best to leave it alone to ensure I would get out of there with my footage!

(Dylan, Russel, Merc, and I were all detained at the citgo for about 2 hours a couple months prior for taking a few pictures so although I had approval this time you could say that I decided to quit while I was ahead!)

At any rate I did have a dialog with Lagasse about that via phone and email after the fact.

He refused to concede anything at the time and basically danced around everything that I presented to him. He was clearly in denial.

Since we released the movie I have talked with him.

He stands by his testimony 100% and said that we have presented him fairly.

But he refuses to admit that he was deceived and even went so far as to say that the ASCE report was WRONG because it was written by a bunch of scientists that "weren't there"!

He was quick to wrap up the post-film release dialog and the Pentagon called me to tell me that I can no longer call them without approval.

This is odd since I never had to have "approval" to talk to them to begin with.

My approval was to film on the property.

Bottom line we know that Lagasse and Brooks are now quite aware of the implications of what they saw and no doubt they will keep quiet from now on out of fear for their livelihood.

I feel bad for that but obviously my biggest concern can not be their jobs.

Posted by: travis Jun 3 2007, 02:19 PM
Hi Dylan, I am a bit confused by this post and its motives. Why would that piece of deformed metal lead you to ask the question is that a fuselage when clear photographic evidence demonstrates no commercial plane hit the Pentagon?
Can you please clarify your position on the Pentagon issue? Do believe based on the evidence that a commercial plane hit the Pentagon?

I apologize if a have miss-understood this post but I need clarification.

Thanks.





user posted image

Posted by: awmatt Jun 3 2007, 03:03 PM
It could've been a non-commercial plane. They've got similar parts too. The part wasn't necessarily existing there from a crash. I think he was just asking for help in identifying it or even its size. Interesting how a thread that asked "thoughts?" lead into so many assumptions being made.

My personal opinion is that the piece is about 20-24" in the upper-right/lower-left direction, and it appears to not have been so much a fuselage casing like the Flight 93 posted wreckage but some part of a plane that would need an enclosed object with levers, perhaps, maybe hydraulics. The holes appear too small for windows, but may exist for lightening the design (especially the right hole) or for passing moving structures. Something on or near this piece seems to have pivoted. This may call a wing location into consideration. It also seems to be somewhat aged steel from the color. Does this observation have any implications?

Any idea what the black tarp might be covering, or why?

- Arthur

Posted by: racerX Jun 3 2007, 03:34 PM
QUOTE (awmatt @ Jun 3 2007, 03:03 PM)
Any idea what the black tarp might be covering, or why?

To me that looks like a regular garbage bag that was dropped there waiting to be used.

As for the size of the part, I think you got it right. When you think of the dirt on the ground, the garbage bag, the rivets and the nut/bolt on whatever it is in the foreground of the video, the size matches with what you said.

QUOTE (awmatt)
Interesting how a thread that asked "thoughts?" lead into so many assumptions being made.


Yep, almost funny...

Posted by: xBIGGSx Jun 6 2007, 10:26 PM
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ May 31 2007, 04:59 PM)
user posted image

So you see there is no way a plane on the north side of the building caused this damage.

Interesting picture, I've never seen the hole on the C-ring and the impact zone together in an ariel shot like this. And quite frankly, I can't see how anything could have punched that hole all the way through without causing more visible damage, especially when looking at that angle it would have had to hit.

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Jun 7 2007, 04:39 PM
Exactly.

The angle is important because the plane would have been strewn all across the facade of the building if it really hit on an angle like this:

user posted image

Instead we have an almost cookie cutter plane shape as if the plane hit straight on:

user posted image
user posted image






Posted by: Captp371 Jun 8 2007, 11:13 AM
Plane??.................doubtful as best as I was at the Pentagon from 9/11 til 9/20.......saw nuttin resembling a plane

Posted by: Craig Ranke CIT Jun 8 2007, 01:22 PM
QUOTE (Captp371 @ Jun 8 2007, 04:13 PM)
Plane??.................doubtful as best as I was at the Pentagon from 9/11 til 9/20.......saw nuttin resembling a plane

Howard?


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