757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Allan also said the thought the plane was white.

"The airplane appeared to be a Boeing 757 or an Air Bus 320- white with blue and orange stripes."

Just like all these other people:

Many pilots Id'd it as silver, which is a reflectivity, not a color. - O'Brien and Lagasse among them. People beneath it or to the nort would be more likely to report it as dark. People to the south, east, or at eye-level with it (Wallace at al, northeast of it at eye-level) would see white sunlight. Jamal says white but spec. mentions it being AA with a red stripe. Hubbard says white but with 'maroon' letters. Veronica adds nothing but white, and Reyes cites white with a blue stripe. Oddly enough, AA airliners have red lettering, a red stripe, and a blue stripe, and can appear white in bright light. Only Cindy cites clearly white paing and not sunlight, and he description of the plane is odd in other ways I'm not ready to discuss yet.

Since the firefighters were all at the heliport where the controller in the tower Sean Boger saw the plane on the north side of the citgo station headed right towards them I have 100% faith that if we could get a hold of Allan Wallace that he would confirm what all the other witnesses have told us so far.

Any luck yet on your end? I still haven't tried but I've been meaning to.

The plane was on the north side of the citgo.

No I'm not getting very very sleepy.


[edit on 3-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Alienmojo
Forget all the evidence for a moment. I want to say something about all this. At first I believed the towers were a conspiracy, but after careful reading I decided it wasn't. HOWEVER, I still had a problem with the pentagon crash. I agreed with all the experts who said it WAS a plane..that the hole was as big as it should have been and all that. BUT..and here is the big BUT... how come if they have nothing to hide all the film footage (like from the Citgo gas station) were confiscated? That screams something is being hidden to me. I am the normal citizen who actually believed the government... BUT HOW CAN I??? How can I be expected to believe when so much is being hidden???

Very good questions. For one thing, four videos of the area have been released but terribly recieved - CCTV gate cams (x2), Citgo, Doubletree. They're simply dismissed as forgeries 'cause they don't look great or show what fits peoples' theories, or havee glitchy timelines... but they show to the patient eye the plane's low altitude, its impact, the apparent lack of a flyover, and a shadow that gives us its flight path (south of the Citgo). That's not bad for four crappy videos.

There are allegedly missing views from the Citgo multiplex, and Pentagon building cams that we still haven't seen, plus the VDOT traffic cams that 'weren't recording' (?). There are about 80 more altogether held by the FBI, but probably not many show anything relevant. I say all evidence shows a plane crash, and any video that's legit and pointed the right way would show just that. So why the secrecy? Who knows for sure. Maybe they just love the mystery, seeing people wriggle around shouting 'missile' ... 'flyover' ...'anything but... what the gubmint sez.'

I personally don't believe that this was an act by our government to secure more money and power to fight terrorism here and aboard...all they would have had to do is take down the towers to achieve that...why the overkill?

Others have better answers here than I, but possible reasons include;
- Some legal or political repercussion of a military target being hit - not just terrorism under law enf. jusrisdiction, but a literal act of war to ensure Pentagon involvement in the response
- Psychological motivator to the same people. The reminders, the smoke stains and blood stains, as they plan for the 'New American Century," etc...
- Possibly a last-minute compromise - the loop before descent hints at this - it came in too high and had to drop where it was, indicating perhaps a different plan... (this is kind of presuming RC, which I don't).

why the double post? I know not.


[edit on 3-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

The topography is not flat and there is a maze of highways.

So, when it comes to your "witnesses" its flat enough for them to be able to pinpoint low structures on the other side of a highway and a hill, but when its my witnesses, its too hilly....nice.....

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

The topography is not flat and there is a maze of highways.

So, when it comes to your "witnesses" its flat enough for them to be able to pinpoint low structures on the other side of a highway and a hill, but when its my witnesses, its too hilly....nice.....

Your witnesses?

My witnesses?

What are you talking about?

The point is that it is necessary to plot their actual location and analyze their true point of view before you can determine whether or not it is possible for any specific witness to be able to physically see the alleged impact.

We have done this for virtually ALL previously published witnesses.

You can not take a simple out of context quote and assume whatever you want with zero investigation or scrutiny.

That is not scientific or an accurate way to consider evidence.

If you had even bothered to read the information that you copied and pasted you would have realized that Joseph Candelario's account of the plane in DC skies completely contradicts the official story and supports our claims.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

You can not take a simple out of context quote and assume whatever you want with zero investigation or scrutiny.

That is not scientific or an accurate way to consider evidence.

If you had even bothered to read the information that you copied and pasted you would have realized that Joseph Candelario's account of the plane in DC skies completely contradicts the official story and supports our claims.

This is really interesting I just did a search and see that Joseph Cadelarios account does in fact contradict the official story. Getting interesting.

Press on we are all listening.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


No, I did not take it out of context. I simply pointed out that you play by different rules when it suits you. Yes, I did quote quite a few witnesses, and the majority of them, interviewed on that day, contradict the "CIT" Were some of them off on some of the details, quite possibly, no two witnesses are ever going to have all the details match. But I will continue to trust their statements made that day over someone whose interview techniques I do not know and quite frankly do not trust.

Ive seen to many 9/11 "investigators" use leading questions (that would get bounced in a split-second in a courtroom.

"So, you saw the airliner, right there, on the north side of that gas station that you cant see from here?"

"Uh, well yes....I did......."

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by unclecasey

 

So explain which cruise missile in the US arsenal has a high vertical tail, two underwing jet engines, windows and is as long as a passenger jet? The members of the Pentagon fire department who literally had Flight 77 coming straight at them, would have recognized a missile as opposed to an airliner.

A special build aircraft full of satellite and other guidance.

Any one fly mini hobby planes around the Pentagon to test
out guidance.

A mini airliner with cruse missile electronics, however the work on
digitized topography and would need some flight time en route to
be stable so satellite guidance is still the best.

Any companies we know of build this thing?

This project would be so black its poopoo black.

I am currently looking at a picture of a MQM-107 drone. What is carried under the wings could be mistaken for engines, at a high rate of speed the naked eye only consciously registers in a millisecond or less.

Then the conscious mind can be tricked, when the same basic false story, particularly with different versions, are deliberately fed by the media and US bureaucrats, is told over and over and over..... for many hours, days, months and years. As has been done with 9/11/2001.

Tell the big lie often enough, and some people will never cease to believe it. However, Abraham Lincoln said this, "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Recorded history validates Lincoln has never been proved wrong on that.

And people like Alex Jones, the Loose Change whiners, Therry Meyssan have certainly been telling their BIG LIES...

In fact, thanks for mentioning that Orion. People who believe in 9/11 conspiracies are a living embodiment of Gobbels saying......

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999-
And people like Alex Jones, the Loose Change whiners, Therry Meyssan have certainly been telling their BIG LIES...

Oh it must be true he wrote in caps...

How about supplying something to back up all these baseless claims you always make? We don't care what your opinion is. How about some facts instead of your bitter comments?

I don't understand why someone would get so angry and bitter over someones opinion if they believe that opinion has no base in fact? If the 'truthers' truly are just nuts then why do you feel threatened (expressed in your posts quit well)? People who have a reason to not have the truth exposed act like that...

How about supplying something to back up all these baseless claims you always make? We don't care what your opinion is. How about some facts instead of your bitter comments?

Bitter? Far from it. As for the "baseless" claims, I tend to post more links to more legitimate sources than any conspiracy theorist does.

I don't understand why someone would get so angry and bitter over someones opinion if they believe that opinion has no base in fact? If the 'truthers' truly are just nuts then why do you feel threatened (expressed in your posts quit well)? People who have a reason to not have the truth exposed act like that...

Now there you go, trying to stereotype me. I dont get angry or bitter over stuff I read on the internet. Its the INTERNET for crying out loud. As for feeling threatened...nope dont feel that way either. I just dont have a lot of tolerance for stupid people.

BTW, if you dont care about my opinion, how come I can almost always count on you to put your two cents in, in response to my posts??













and after the stupid people remark....Ill bet youre a bit hot under the collar about now.....

I personally think that a plane did crash into the Pentagon.

The conspiracy is why didnt the world most defended fortress "The pentagon" protect itself?


I also believe that the No plane at the Pentagon is ment to actually cause conspiracies and take the focus away from the Perps and the fact that FLIGHT 93 DIDNT CRASH IN SHANKSVILLE.


I have seem plenty of plane parts at the Pentagon Crash Site.

Back in 2001, I heard of the conspiracy that no plane crashed at the Pentagon and so I entertained the idea. First I thought, How would you get all those plane parts in the building without anyone noticing it. I instantly thought.... Bring in parts in wooden boxes during some contstruction.

In 2001 there was construction being complete at the exact wedge that was struck later in the summer by flight 77. The contruction was to reinforce that particular wedge with blast resitant walls and windows provided by MASONARY ARTS INC. Coincidentally the same company that provides glass and protection fro WTC7 and WTC +2.

I still am leaning towards a real plane struck the Pentagon but am suspicious of the BLAST RESISTANT WALLS being installed at the Pentagon in 2001.


Viracon to Receive Award for Blast Resistant Windows in Pentagon

Window manufacturer Viracon will receive an award today from the Protecting People First Foundation, following the tragic events of September 11. The foundation was set up after the Oklahoma bombing of 2000. It was established to raise awareness of flying glass hazards from terrorist attacks or natural disasters.

Viracon were the manufacturers of the blast resistant windows used in the Pentagon. These windows had only recently been installed in the region affected by the airplane impact and have been credited with saving potentially thousands of lives.

The windows were being installed as part of a renovation operation which had been partially completed by September 11. At the time of the impact approximately 385 of the blast resistant windows were installed in the Pentagon near the crash site.

Originally posted by IvanZana

The conspiracy is why didnt the world most defended fortress "The pentagon" protect itself?

Please explain why you think or know the "Pentagon is the worlds most defended fortress".

To my way of thinking, its just a big office building with alot of military bureaucrats.

I also believe that the No plane at the Pentagon is ment to actually cause conspiracies and take the focus away from the Perps and the fact that FLIGHT 93 DIDNT CRASH IN SHANKSVILLE.

Why would "they" try to divert attention from Flight 93? If it didn't crash in Shanksville, what happened to it, and why?

Thanks.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Please explain why you think or know the "Pentagon is the worlds most defended fortress".

To my way of thinking, its just a big office building with alot of military bureaucrats.

Then perhaps some Pentagon education is in order:

query.nytimes.com...

www.counterpunch.org...

Then there are the computer dbase, the laboratories, etc. etc. etc. in belly of the Pentagon, plus, CIA covert agent planning.

Please allow me to introduce you to the face of one of the trusted insider contractors (PSP executive) involved inside the militiary-industrial complex:

www.warnercon.com...

www.google.com...

[PDF] Paul C. BroughFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Consolidation RDT&E Laboratory Facility, Dahlgren,Virginia. Crystal Houses III Arlington,Virginia ... Pentagon Basement Renovation, Arlington,Virginia ...

www.warnercon.com/resumes/Brough.pdf - Similar pages

Darkblue,

Please tell me you don't believe the spools were actually hit by a megaton Boeing at 500pmh and the spools were thrown to the final upright position.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

The green circle and lines show the theoritical location of the starboard wing and engine a split second before impact with the wall. As you can see the engine easily fits through the opening. Someone asked why the wire spools werent hit by the engines. Well they were, they were originally inside the fenced in area. They were hit by the engines and thrown to thevfinal postions as seen in the picture.




here is the full resolution image:

i128.photobucket.com...

[edit on 5-2-2008 by Realtruth]

Originally posted by darkbluesky

The green circle and lines show the theoritical location of the starboard wing and engine a split second before impact with the wall. As you can see the engine easily fits through the opening. Someone asked why the wire spools werent hit by the engines. Well they were, they were originally inside the fenced in area. They were hit by the engines and thrown to thevfinal postions as seen in the picture.

I only need the above photo to point out your error. You stated a 757 engine made a specific hole. Is that all that allegedly went in and left all the vertical outside supports still standing, without any consideration given to the rest of any alleged 757, including the other engine, taking out them and many external others? That is what others, besides myself, have realistically, repeatedly brought to your attention, and you have equally, unrealistically, repeatedly ignored the obvious of impaction, of one physical object against another.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by darkbluesky

The green circle and lines show the theoritical location of the starboard wing and engine a split second before impact with the wall. As you can see the engine easily fits through the opening. Someone asked why the wire spools werent hit by the engines. Well they were, they were originally inside the fenced in area. They were hit by the engines and thrown to thevfinal postions as seen in the picture.

I only need the above photo to point out your error. You stated a 757 engine made a specific hole. Is that all that allegedly went in and left all the vertical outside supports still standing, without any consideration given to the rest of any alleged 757, including the other engine, taking out them and many external others?

OMG, DBS is such a fool for believing an engine by itself must have hit the wall without the rest of the plane. And again, how about all those super strong invisible steel supports standing there vertically? Where's your lone engine now mr. 757 man?

That is what others, besides myself, have realistically, repeatedly brought to your attention, and you have equally, unrealistically, repeatedly ignored the obvious of impaction, of one physical object against another.

I hereby move that this poster be barred henceforth from using any adjectives whatsoever.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic



OMG, DBS is such a fool for believing an engine by itself must have hit the wall without the rest of the plane. And again, how about all those super strong invisible steel supports standing there vertically? Where's your lone engine now mr. 757 man?

Are those little blue and red arrows pointing to what you refer to as"invisible steel supports" or something else? I said vertical supports and did not specific of what material the supports were made.

Would you mind showing us the hole, with no vertical supports left, large enough to accomodate an entire 757, without parts of it thrown all over the campus lawn before and during explosion?

There is a good view of the campus lawn, and not a plane part appears at that point. Was that photo taken before or after alleged clean up, with all that smoke still quite apparent in the photo.

Originally posted by OrionStars




Are those little blue and red arrows pointing to what you refer to as"invisible steel supports" or something else? I said vertical supports and did not specific of what material the supports were made.

Would you mind showing us the hole, with no vertical supports left

Are we looking at the same photo? blue arrows - yes, supports 18+19 intact. Red arrow: something that looks kinda like column 16 but isn't (facade paneling from above). Yellow points to bits of something dangling down NEAR where columns 15 + 17 are gone. (gravity) The no arrows over the entire left hand side point point to what? Where's column 14? 13? It gets a bit smoky left of that admittedly, but go find other photos of intact columns 10, 11, and 12. Bring them here.

Is this big enough for a 757? Yes, all but the outermost parts, which make up the limited debris there was outside. There is a photo of the campus strewn with scraps of aluminum twinkling in the sun. There are several in fact. You would not have wanted to walk barefoot over it. Why different from THE PICTURE you keep talking about? That one was taken at a great distance and the debris is not plainly visible. That's it.


[edit on 6-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]