Reformed no-757 theorists weigh in here

Once believed no 757 hit the pentagon?
Found that was wrong?

If undecided, skim these threads:
A 757 HIT the Pentagon: Cat Herder Classic Mega-thread! first post may be all you need...
Hardly proof a 757 didn't hit It doesn't get good until mid-page 2.

Come around to reason?

Or never believed it?

Or still believe it?
Say so below:
This one is not for me arguing so post whatever in peace.

Hmmm...... I'd believe it 100% if they'd just release the confiscated videos. What are they hiding?

Same as above in high resolution lol

I have always believed a 757 hit the Pentagon.

There really is no reason to lie about it.

if they hadn't used a 757 on the pentagon.

and something went wrong

you can imagine bush saying "those folks hijacked those planes and they also managed to hijack a global hawk"


yup see ya later George

GwionX

There really is no reason to lie about it.

So by using that logic, then there should be no reason to hide it

I think someone is hiding something, what it is I don't know, but I am certain it is hidden....Cause I *Ain't Seen it*.

No reason to lie, No reason to hide.

Tell me where the wings of the Boeing 757 went (and don't say they were turned into confetti because I shan't believe you. Nor that 154ft 10in wide wings were sucked into a 16-18ft wide hole).

Originally posted by talisman
GwionX

There really is no reason to lie about it.

So by using that logic, then there should be no reason to hide it

I think someone is hiding something, what it is I don't know, but I am certain it is hidden....Cause I *Ain't Seen it*.

No reason to lie, No reason to hide.

I don't think they are "hiding" it. It has been widely reported that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

It isn't until people are urged to "re-learn" the events of 9/11 that all of these kookie theories come into play.

Originally posted by talisman
No reason to lie, No reason to hide.

Or so it would seemm... never underestimate the power of reverse psychology...

Originally posted by micpsi
Tell me where the wings of the Boeing 757 went (and don't say they were turned into confetti because I shan't believe you. Nor that 154ft 10in wide wings were sucked into a 16-18ft wide hole).

okay I won't say that then...

What? I'm not arguing... okay, math corrections allowed for clarity: 124 foot wings into a 98 foot hole.

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

I am not sure if it was a 757 or not, I was not there. It seems that there are conflicting storys (with the light poles and all) I think I'll have to wait to make up my mind.

Originally posted by micpsi
Tell me where the wings of the Boeing 757 went (and don't say they were turned into confetti because I shan't believe you. Nor that 154ft 10in wide wings were sucked into a 16-18ft wide hole).

I take it you haven't had the opportunity to read Caustic's links yet.

Perhaps you should give them a look.

GwinoX

I don't think they are "hiding" it. It has been widely reported that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

It isn't until people are urged to "re-learn" the events of 9/11 that all of these kookie theories come into play.

They are 'hiding it'. We didn't see it. They have footage and pictures and we have only seen some frames of some security camera.

BTW, I am not saying the 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, there is good enough reason to believe it was hit by such a plane.

But......

That doesn't negate the fact that they are hiding something.

They are hiding something. That is obvious. There is something associated with that Attack that they don't want you or I to see.

[edit on 18-3-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
GwinoX

I don't think they are "hiding" it. It has been widely reported that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

It isn't until people are urged to "re-learn" the events of 9/11 that all of these kookie theories come into play.

They are 'hiding it'. We didn't see it. They have footage and pictures and we have only seen some frames of some security camera.

How can you be so sure there is clear video evidence that captures a 757 going 500 mph at the exact instant it hits the pentagon?

I don't think there is... Not from security cameras from around the area. Most of those cameras are fixed on positions that might be a security risk for that business. For instance: On the cash register. By the fuel pumps. At the exit of a parking lot. you get the point.

Furthermore, I know in all of the private sector security systems I have worked with, there is a bit of a time lapse --most Business's choose to have a time lapse to save disk space in their recording archives. Since most gas thieves, or armed robbers don't move at 500+ MPH. This time lapse is more than sufficient to capture the needed data for what the business purchased it for.

If the "alleged video evidence" doesn't show a plane as clearly as a cartoon, the 9/11 deniers are just going to try and twist any footage to fit their agenda anyway. Why fuel the fires of speculation and ignorance?

In the ATS thread, the fit of an image of a Boeing 757 to the video frame image showing a white smoke trail is wrong because the PentaCon witnesses have told us that the plane they saw flew by the north side of the Getgo gas station and so could not have approached along the official path assumed in the analysis. As the plane, according to the pictures drawn by three of these witnesses, approached the wall of the Pentagon almost at right angles instead of the approximate 45 degree angle normally used in analyses of the Pentagon event, this means that there is no foreshortening of the image of the plane available to account for why its nose does not stick out to the left of the pillar at the gas station, despite an obvious tail being silhouetted against the sky near the other end of the pillar. A simple trigonometric calculation using the length of a Boeing 757 and the height of the Pentagon indicates that its nose should have been visible once the position of its other end (tail) has been located relative to the pillar - an anomaly worsened by the less oblique path implied by the PentaCon witnesses. Therefore, the tail that is visible cannot be that of a 757 but of a smaller plane, assuming that the video has not been faked before it was released to the public (a BIG assumption).

The ATS thread still does not explain how a Boeing 757 with a 124ft 10in wingspan could pass though a 16-18 ft hole. The wings did not turn to confetti! The notion that they folded back neatly together with the engines and passed though such a small hole, THEN turning into confetti, is totally ludicrous and demonstrates just how stupid people are when they don't examine their beliefs objectively and critically because they want to believe in a particular scenario. That unsolved problem is fatal to the conclusions of the ATS thread. As for the photographed engine components inside the Pentagon, the fact that it may look that of a 757 is hardly proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The engine parts might have been secretly planted there before people came on the scene. Indeed, that is precisely what one would have expected had the plotters wanted to create the deception that a passenger jet had crashed into the Pentagon - they HAD to plant debris looking like it came from one. So the photos proves nothing.

Originally posted by micpsi
In the ATS thread, the fit of an image of a Boeing 757 to the video frame image showing a white smoke trail is wrong because the PentaCon witnesses have told us that the plane they saw flew by the north side of the Getgo gas station [...]

etc etc

Cat Herder's plane placement in the video, IMO, is one of the few wrong things in there, but NOT for the reasons you state.

I'm not understanding something: the official story puts the aircraft on the North side of the Citgo station. The official witnesses say it came from that direction and hit the light poles.

The witnesses at the Citgo gas station said categorically that it was the the south side, and it can't have been anywhere else due to the direction of flight and their respective locations on the Citgo property (as confirmed by the Citgo CCTV). The problem then is the aircraft could not have hit the light poles.

Thus, there is an immediate conflict in the reports. We have CCTV footage demonstrating where witnesses were when they report what they saw, vs. no video footage of government employees saying that the aircraft approached as per the official story.

I find it rather convenient that the pillar obliterates the view of the aircraft.

The only thing stopping me from saying the official story is correct is the total lack of disclosure of the rest of the CCTV footage. What is being hidden?

There are too many witnesses saying that they saw it hit the building to deny that it did. The question is what is being hidden?

[edit on 18-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

GwionX

First of all the FBI is in possession of 85 tapes.





I have heard the excuse that there was "NO FILM" in some of the cameras etc. Let us be real here, the Pentagon is a place that is going to be monitored, thinking they don't have the footage is a little naeive to say the least.

Furthermore, why are they saying what those Video Cam's reveal. Just release the damn video's so people can make up their own minds. If there is nothing on those other camera's then why hide them?

Now that doesn't make a bit of sense.


Either way.....They are hiding something.

#1. If the Video's show nothing, why not release them?
#2. We know a plane hit, but what else happened? We don't know.

Bush claims to have seen the first building hit the NORTH TOWER IN N.Y before any *PUBLIC* film was released!

IF he saw the North Tower, I am sure he saw the Pentagon. IF this is the case, then why is he allowed and you are not?

I am sure, they have other means of filming events.


[edit on 18-3-2007 by talisman]

when i first looked into the Truthers claims i believed them...but then i looked at the other side of things. So I believe a 757 hit the pentagon. I also believe that the videos that have been released so far are probably the best ones they have. I really doubt there is a clear, high quality video that shows the plane hitting. Since the plane was going so fast I think you'd need a high speed camera.. and I don't think there were any super good quality high speed cameras watching the pentagon.

Originally posted by talisman


#1. If the Video's show nothing, why not release them?
#2. We know a plane hit, but what else happened? We don't know.

Bush claims to have seen the first building hit the NORTH TOWER IN N.Y before any *PUBLIC* film was released!

IF he saw the North Tower, I am sure he saw the Pentagon. IF this is the case, then why is he allowed and you are not?

I am sure, they have other means of filming events.


[edit on 18-3-2007 by talisman]

you forget its an official FBI investigation...they probably should'nt have even released the other three videos.

lizziex3

So, its an investigation. That excuse was used when they had certain individuals on trial, now things have changed and yet they still refuse to show anything.

I already showed that they have 85 video's in their possession.

I am simply asking *IF* these 85 video's show NOTHING then they can't hurt any 'investigation' and they certainly can't hurt anyone by releasing them.

YET THEY ARE NOT RELEASED!

In other words, if there is nothing to hide, why are they hiding them?



[edit on 18-3-2007 by talisman]