A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

originally posted by: MacK80
90* is completely absurd. That's esstentially Nose up, Nose down, or if counting the wings completely sideways.

No, 90* is hitting something head on at a non-oblique angle and parallel to the ground.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Realtruth
a reply to: Zaphod58


Then let's see all the multiple camera angles from the cameras that were installed, on the top, ground, and the ones from multiple places outside the pentagon.

When trying to see what happened why not lay all the cards on the table?

One angle, one camera speaks volumes.

Can you make a diagram showing where all the cameras were and what areas they covered?

Why would you need him to make you a diagram? not to be crass, but didn't you consider that this is something you can quickly find on google?

here's what a quick search would give you:





needless to say, there are *very many* high quality recordings all of us here have not seen showing this impact. they are currently in the hands of the same federal agencies pushing the laughable and illogical OS narrative.

a reply to: mrthumpy

here's some more from my own ATS uploads. you can see them for yourself with no zoom necessary, obviously facing the same direction as the impact.



1



2



3



4

in your personal opinion, why haven't these tapes been released for public viewing?

HARD MODE: you cannot use "matters of national security" as a reason in your response.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: mrthumpy

here's some more from my own ATS uploads. you can see them for yourself with no zoom necessary, obviously facing the same direction as the impact.

1

2

3

4

in your personal opinion, why haven't these tapes been released for public viewing?

HARD MODE: you cannot use "matters of national security" as a reason in your response.

OBVIOUSLY facing the same direction?

a reply to: mrthumpy

that's right. are you asserting that every single side of the pentagon has several cameras stationed there to monitor OTHER THINGS than the immediate perimeter?

that would be hilarious if you are. you asked someone to "draw you a diagram" of something you can clearly find on google. looks like you're either inept, are sitting on information you're trying to argumentatively trap other members here with, or do not care enough to find out for yourself, so i made it blatant for you.

now, when you don't have a good rebuttal for that, you've jumped onto a new argument altogether, implying that every single camera you see is faced away from the point of impact?

either you have substantial evidence for what you're implying, or you're being willfully ignorant of the facts. please respond with which one of these applies to you so we can move forward from this point.

also, please answer my question.

a reply to: PRSpinster

Funny. I watched a 757 pilot duplicate the flight into the Pentagon on a simulator. His path, was actually a lot smoother than the terrorists that day.

a reply to: facedye

Bottom corner camera, is pointing at a parking area, away from the impact point. Center camera, pointed at the helipad, again, not at the impact point. Camera on top, pointed, again, away from the impact point. The primary security of the Pentagon, was the Pentagon Police force, NOT the cameras.

originally posted by: DickBrisket
a reply to: pale5218

I was at the Pentagon...Did Presidential Security from 1999 to 2004. All the conspiracy theories are B.S. PERIOD. Regardless, all the "Experts" who've been living in their parent's basements polishing their participation trophies will scream otherwise. You know...cause they weren't there and I was. Do not suffer fools.

Well I was right there outside the Pentagon in plain view of the impact site and I did indeed see a MISSILE hit the Pentagon.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: facedye

Bottom corner camera, is pointing at a parking area, away from the impact point. Center camera, pointed at the helipad, again, not at the impact point. Camera on top, pointed, again, away from the impact point. The primary security of the Pentagon, was the Pentagon Police force, NOT the cameras.

you're attempting to misdirect everyone here by expecting them to believe that while the below testimony was taking place, all of the cameras we can see in the photos above were NOT focused on the imminent threat. this is funny, illogical, and makes me highly suspicious of you.



please post any kind of source or cited material so we can all review that together. you talk like you've seen the tapes for yourself. i'm intrigued , and will kindly ask you again to provide the substantive source for what you just said.

To this day, all the footage any where near the Pentagon remains non public. I wonder why they don't want the public to see it.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: mrthumpy

that's right. are you asserting that every single side of the pentagon has several cameras stationed there to monitor OTHER THINGS than the immediate perimeter?

that would be hilarious if you are. you asked someone to "draw you a diagram" of something you can clearly find on google. looks like you're either inept, are sitting on information you're trying to argumentatively trap other members here with, or do not care enough to find out for yourself, so i made it blatant for you.

now, when you don't have a good rebuttal for that, you've jumped onto a new argument altogether, implying that every single camera you see is faced away from the point of impact?

either you have substantial evidence for what you're implying, or you're being willfully ignorant of the facts. please respond with which one of these applies to you so we can move forward from this point.

also, please answer my question.

Just saying something doesn't make it so. How do you know what areas the cameras were covering?

a reply to: mrthumpy

In addition to the unknown aiming direction of the cameras, it was 2001 and the video surveillance of the time was very unlike that of 2017 (analog gear, composite video on coax cables, VHS recorders etc). Never saw the point raised before but were ALL the cameras actually recorded? and bearing in mind that the purpose of the surveillance was to monitor slow moving vehicles in parking areas and persons on foot, not objects moving at 500mph.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Even funnier, at the website Pilots For 911 Truth, a handful of pilots who fly the machine for a living, several years ago, are on record stating they would have a difficult time performing that maneuver described by the official story.

Given the complete absence of any wreckage consistent with a 757, given the fabricated and outrageous data provided in the FDR information, given that several witnesses described an airliner on the wrong trajectory to conform to the official story, AA77 did not strike the pentagon.

a reply to: roadgravel

Yes, if the government has nothing to hide, why is it hiding so much? If the story were solid and beyond doubt, why don't they prove it?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: roadgravel

Yes, if the government has nothing to hide, why is it hiding so much? If the story were solid and beyond doubt, why don't they prove it?

"I don't know what they're hiding but they must be hiding something"

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: DickBrisket
a reply to: pale5218

I was at the Pentagon...Did Presidential Security from 1999 to 2004. All the conspiracy theories are B.S. PERIOD. Regardless, all the "Experts" who've been living in their parent's basements polishing their participation trophies will scream otherwise. You know...cause they weren't there and I was. Do not suffer fools.

Well I was right there outside the Pentagon in plain view of the impact site and I did indeed see a MISSILE hit the Pentagon.

Sure you did.
Can you describe the missile?
Can you explain how all the bodies of the 757 passengers were found inside the Pentagon?
Do you realize that a missile would have provided a very different explosive event?
Do you realize that an airliner filled with Jet-A is much more damaging than any extant non-nuclear armed missile?

a reply to: mrthumpy

you know what's funny about that? you're the only one in this exchange "just saying things."

I've provided you with photographic evidence as well as congressional testimony by a government official to substantiate the claim that the cameras were facing the point of impact.

what have you provided thus far to back up your claims? so far I see absolutely nothing.

care to show me anything that shows the cameras weren't facing the point of impact? if not, then it looks like you're finding yourself in a pretty tough spot within this conversation.

check this out, maybe this will paint a more obvious picture to you: just saying the cameras weren't facing the point of impact doesn't make it so.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: mrthumpy

what have you provided thus far to back up your claims? so far I see absolutely nothing.

I'm not the one making the claims am I?

a reply to: mrthumpy

you're making implications that make you seem extremely sure of yourself, and are trying to be very careful to not make any definitive statements because you know you can't substantiate them.

go ahead. make the claim. outright state what you're denying, then provide sources to back it up.

first you asked someone to make you a diagram of where the cameras were and what they're pointed at. ***directly implying that you don't think they were facing the impact***

then I gave you a multitude of pictures and congressional testimony to show you where they were, and what they were undoubtedly looking at.

then you come back with "how do you know that?" ***implying that you disagree and don't think the cameras were watching the event even though the evidence states otherwise***

then I referred you to the evidence I presented.

now you're refusing to own up to your own implications and tacitly admit that you have no evidence to support your suspicions. you're also not trying to argue against the evidence I presented as well, which is humorous in and of itself.

let's play this game another way: your posts look like you think the cameras were all either not recording footage during a high-risk terrorist hijacking scenario. if this is your belief, please explicitly state as such, and then please provide any supporting information that can back you up on that claim.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: mrthumpy

you're making implications that make you seem extremely sure of yourself, and are trying to be very careful to not make any definitive statements because you know you can't substantiate them.

go ahead. make the claim. outright state what you're denying, then provide sources to back it up.

first you asked someone to make you a diagram of where the cameras were and what they're pointed at. ***directly implying that you don't think they were facing the impact***

then I gave you a multitude of pictures and congressional testimony to show you where they were, and what they were undoubtedly looking at.

then you come back with "how do you know that?" ***implying that you disagree and don't think the cameras were watching the event even though the evidence states otherwise***

then I referred you to the evidence I presented.

now you're refusing to own up to your own implications and tacitly admit that you have no evidence to support your suspicions. you're also not trying to argue against the evidence I presented as well, which is humorous in and of itself.

let's play this game another way: your posts look like you think the cameras were all either not recording footage during a high-risk terrorist hijacking scenario. if this is your belief, please explicitly state as such, and then please provide any supporting information that can back you up on that claim.

You can try and put words in my mouth all you like but I'm not claiming or implying anything. If you have evidence that the cameras would definitely have captured any plane impacting the Pentagon then please present it