Ted Olsen and flight 77 the phone calls that never were.

a reply to: Woodcarver

If some YouTuber says so ....

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: neutronflux


The last five minutes of that last vid I posted, shows the targets being met by other targets.

I asked you to cite if the targets where flying One: at the same altitude to cause confusion?
Two: the safety limits of the jets would allow them to preform maneuvers that could trick the multiple radar stations?
Three: cite jets that came close enough in altitude and direction that could possibly trick multiple radar stations?

a reply to: anonentity

okay, i was all ready to warm up my keyboard and call bovine excrement.
but that was actually pretty cool to read. real or not it is something cool to think about.

thanks for the thread.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

[POST REMOVED BY STAFF]

How are the photos and videos of the wreckage at the pentagon inconsistent with a high speed impact of a jet pushing in to and through three rings of a large building?

Since you STILL haven't posted any photos. Here's a few:




The problem with these parts, is in the next photo:


Look at the lawn. How could a plane fly that close to the ground and leave the grass in that condition?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Look at the lawn. How could a plane fly that close to the ground and leave the grass in that condition?

Considering that most of the plane was inside the pentagon . . . .

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There is no proof a missile hit the pentagon.

There is also no proof of a "large commercial jet plowing into the pentagon.

The entrance hole in to the pentagon is constant with a large commercial jet plowing into the pentagon.

No. No it's not. A commercial jet, plowing into the petagon, would have left a jet shaped hole...not just a hole. Also, there would have been debris...jet plane debris...seats, luggage, tires, engines...where was that debris?

Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement.

More in there is no credible evidence a missile hit the pentagon.

as there is no credible evidence that a large place hit the pentagon either...

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.
By John D. Wyndham (PhD, Physics)

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

Conclusion
Clearly, the main theory, that a large plane such as a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, is by far the most plausible theory compared with the alternative theories. The main theory still has some unanswered questions, but it is much stronger than any of the alternative theories.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Look at the lawn. How could a plane fly that close to the ground and leave the grass in that condition?

Considering that most of the plane was inside the pentagon . . . .

And yet when I ask for proof of that, nobody seems to be able to produce it.

a reply to: edaced4

It would not have left a cartoon cutout. The wings never would have gone through that wall, and they didn't. They are far too fragile.

a reply to: edaced4

The size of the entrance hole....

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth

www.journalof911studies.com...


Hole too small. The photo most often displayed shows a hole too small to admit a 757, however the lower part of the photo is obscured by water spray from a fire truck. This question has been carefully studied. Jim Hoffman has collated photographs from a number of sources, taken prior to the collapse of the front wall, which show that the entry hole is indeed wide enough to admit both motors and at least the lower and heavier parts of the fuselage of a 757. There are marks visible beyond this. He shows that the damage to the building, to objects in front of the building, and to the light poles, more closely matches a 757 than a smaller aircraft,23 and certainly does not correspond with damage that a missile might do. It has been argued that the pole damage was faked but the idea that all five poles could have been knocked over, taken away and replaced with poles which were bent and broken, without anyone noticing is hard to believe. CIT has argued that the poles may have been removed and replaced during the previous night but it is still hard to believe that no-one would have noticed. The area was, after all, surrounded by many people, caught in a traffic jam, with their attention sharply focused. No evidence that damage was faked has ever been produced.
It is not surprising that the marks on the wall are hard to see as that section of the Pentagon had recently been reinforced, including provision of windows nearly 2 inches thick (5 cm) of blastproof laminated glass and the brickwork was backed with steel supports and Kevlar.24 Why was the plane aimed at the reinforced section, which still had few occupants due to the recent renovation? Why did it not hit the relatively weak roof? Would al Qaeda have wanted to minimize casualties? There were auditors in the damaged section who were investigating the loss of trillions of military dollars.25 Most of the auditors were killed, which has led to considerable speculation regarding motive. Who would wish to kill auditors?26

>

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: neutronflux

Allow me to clarify. Please post photographic evidence of flight 77's crash. Plane parts, wreckage, etc.

And btw, this quote:

I have cited sources that there is no reason to believe there is any other related flight 77 video to release in other threads. Is that false.

The truth movement concern over the pentagon surveillance video is a distraction. 

Is completely void of sense in terms of investigation or research.

You are saying there are not photos of the wreckage on the internet? Photos submitted at the Moussaoui trial of the wreckage? No video and photos of bits of wreckage on the lawn? Do you research anything?


Here is a link to a video of a P-51 hitting a runway at high speed.

Reno Nevada P-51 plane crashes into crowd on camera

m.youtube.com...

Nothing recognizable as a P-51 without picking up the book size wreckage? Is that false?

How are the videos and the photos of flight 77 wreckage on the internet not constant with a high speed jet pushing through three rings of a large building? Not constant with a high speed crash where momentum carried the wreckage in to and through a building over 20 acres in size?

However what you just posted are not nearly consistent with the supposed crash at the pentagon...a P51 is not nearly as big as flight 77 (a 757)

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Look at the lawn. How could a plane fly that close to the ground and leave the grass in that condition?

Considering that most of the plane was inside the pentagon . . . .

And yet when I ask for proof of that, nobody seems to be able to produce it.

What a false and biased argument.

The truth movement has out context arguments, or right out lies concerning the damage at the pentagon.

How does flying close to the lawn equal damage to the lawn? When the momentum of the jet and its fuel with going 500 mph into the pentagon.

Back to no evidence?

You have eyewitnesses accounts and trial testimony backed by radar data, backed by flight controller accounts, backed by flight recorder data, backed by capture surveillance video frames, backed by contact damage on an antenna, backed by damage to light poles, backed by damage to trees, backed by contact damage with construction trailers pushed towards the pentagon, backed by an engine clipping a low concrete wall, backed by a large upside down t-shaped entrance hole, backed by wreckage on the lawn, backed by destroyed columns that show width, backed by wreckage wrapped around damage columns that show direction of travel, backed by flight 77 wreckage and personal effects, backed by DNA identification of flight 77 victims, backed by coroner reports, backed by first responder reports?

originally posted by: edaced4

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: neutronflux

Allow me to clarify. Please post photographic evidence of flight 77's crash. Plane parts, wreckage, etc.

And btw, this quote:

I have cited sources that there is no reason to believe there is any other related flight 77 video to release in other threads. Is that false.

The truth movement concern over the pentagon surveillance video is a distraction. 

Is completely void of sense in terms of investigation or research.

You are saying there are not photos of the wreckage on the internet? Photos submitted at the Moussaoui trial of the wreckage? No video and photos of bits of wreckage on the lawn? Do you research anything?


Here is a link to a video of a P-51 hitting a runway at high speed.

Reno Nevada P-51 plane crashes into crowd on camera

m.youtube.com...

Nothing recognizable as a P-51 without picking up the book size wreckage? Is that false?

How are the videos and the photos of flight 77 wreckage on the internet not constant with a high speed jet pushing through three rings of a large building? Not constant with a high speed crash where momentum carried the wreckage in to and through a building over 20 acres in size?

However what you just posted are not nearly consistent with the supposed crash at the pentagon...a P51 is not nearly as big as flight 77 (a 757)

Nice false argument. The argument is how the damage at the pentagon is inconstant with a high speed crash. But thanks for pointing out the P-51 was built for combat, while the 757 is commercial jet that crashed into a large stone building over 20 acres in size?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: edaced4

It would not have left a cartoon cutout. The wings never would have gone through that wall, and they didn't. They are far too fragile.

so they were sheared off before going into the wall?

www.wtc-terrorattack.com...

Fine...so where are the wings. and the wheels. and the tail. and the luggage. and the seats...and etc...

a reply to: subfab


No problem, this is Lady Olsen and hubby in an interview , she is looking more like Barbara. ten minutes in we have Barbara.Its interesting because Barbara knew about the inside operations of the Clintons.Then died in a plane crash sounds familiar.

a reply to: edaced4

They weren't sheared off, they were destroyed. An impact like this isn't going to leave large pieces of wreckage laying around. The wheels were found in the Pentagon, along with passengers still strapped in their seats, parts of the engines, and other debris. The tail went the way of the wings and was destroyed.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

So? Am I a bot as in Robot? A bot as bothersome to your fantasies of conspiracy? Bot as in Bottle?

Do you try to work in one mainstream media cliche phrase a day?

How are the photos and videos of the wreckage at the pentagon inconsistent with a high speed impact of a jet pushing in to and through three rings of a large building?

Since you STILL haven't posted any photos. Here's a few:

The problem with these parts, is in the next photo:

Look at the lawn. How could a plane fly that close to the ground and leave the grass in that condition?

You do know the lawn did not go all the way to the pentagon on 9/11? There was a construction lay down yard in fort of where the jet hit. The 2d picture, the fire truck, and I think a small hill hides the true dept of the picture, and the area at the foot of the pentagon.

I don’t get the obsession with the one Olsen phone call?

Is that the only reported phone call from that flight? And didn’t even phone operator’s attest to the Olsen call?

Funny that the truth movement has to turn from all damage at the pentagon is constant with a high speed large commercial jet impact to a narrative that has nothing to do with the actual physical damage at the pentagon?

Anything to keep the con of the conspiracy alive, so keep conspiracy sites like info wars remain relevant.