It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PentaCon is not a Hoax

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
You see when eyewitnesses remember things inaccurately their accounts are anomalous and stand alone.

To suggest that ALL of these people remember the exact same thing inaccurately particularly in regards to such a simple claim during an incredible event of this magnitude is beyond implausible.

You are not putting yourself in their shoes.

You are not imagining yourself at the pump where Lagasse was located and thinking how drastically different his experience would have been if the official story was true.

I'm sorry but if Lagasse was so ridiculously and impossibly wrong about the placement of the plane either Brooks or Turcious would have DEFINITELY reported the plane on the other side with the vantage point that they had.




posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Sorry craig but you are simply wrong. Flat out wrong. To say that physical evidence is dubious and unreliable shows that your research and motive is completely biased and skewed.

In science, eyewitness testimony is dubious and faulty. And physical evidence is much higher in value that eyewitness testimony. You can argue anything you want, but you absolutely cannot deny this for one second. It's a basic principle of scientific investigation. No one here can in any way deny that.

You can try to claim that because multiple people said it it validates it, but it does not. Sure the more people saying the same thing increases the validity, but it does not out weight physical evidence. It never has and never will.

And then the whole presmis of all your other claims are based on that eyewitness testimony. And there is no doubt from your claims that you are going into this with the pretext of proving their were bombs in the WTC, there was an inside job, etc and trying to match your data to fit that pre-determined conclusion.

Just look at your statements such as physical evidence not being reliable because it involves the purpetrators. You appraoched this with the intent of trying to prove your personal belief of the government officals trying to create this daring caper and looked for evidence to back that up. hence your dismissal of all evidence that says otherwise. Hence your using unreliable evidence to dismiss more reliable evidence. And you rational is that they are part of the conspiracy. This alone shows your research is tainted. The way you use quotes of people saying it was a commuter plane as evidence, but of course don't mention the people saying it was a large commercial plane.

And then like Jack (I assume you are the same person) you try to make up for it with these intimidation techniques.

Maybe you guys are right, but due to your lack of proper methodology and unprofessional research we will never know. You say you can't trust any physical evidence because they government is behind this. But I cannot trust any of your evidence because clearly you are not very honest in your investigation. Now I am not saying your witnesses are fraudulent, but we could argue that you paid them to say it (again hypothetical). You would say that's absurd, but you are doing the very same thing.

And let me repeat for the 100th time, physical evidence is 100x more valid than eyewitness testimony, even if you have a couple of people who's testimony agrees with each other. And that alone doesn't give you the right to just make up the rest of the story which has no evidence to back it up.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Sorry craig but you are simply wrong. Flat out wrong. To say that physical evidence is dubious and unreliable shows that your research and motive is completely biased and skewed.


I have never said such a thing.

I wasn't talking about physical evidence vs. eyewitness testimony in a general sense!

I specifically gave many reasons why IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE the physical evidence is dubious and questionable.

This is a long running discussion in this forum with a LONG history. That isn't because people don't have questions about the physical evidence at the Pentagon.

It's because they DO! And rightly so.

There are so many questions there is no way to address them all in this thread. Although there are many threads about this I will refer you to this one:

Physical evidence showing the plane did NOT hit.

So yes.

I agree with you.

In most scenarios, in general, physical evidence is stronger than eyewitness testimony.

But that simply can not be assumed when investigating a complex world wide psychological operation of deception involving a false flag terror attack.

Particularly when the physical evidence is so questionable and dubious while the claim we make via eyewitness testimony is so simple, strong, and highly corroborated.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


I have never said such a thing.

I wasn't talking about physical evidence vs. eyewitness testimony in a general sense!

I specifically gave many reasons why IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE the physical evidence is dubious and questionable..................






What specifically makes this physical evidence dubious? From your research it seems to be your eyewitness testimony. You certainly can't say because people on this forum question it. That's not research. To save some time, can you just list a couple of the top reasons it's dubious besides the eyewitnesses?

"But that simply can not be assumed when investigating a complex world wide psychological operation of deception involving a false flag terror attack."

Once more, proof that your research is tainted. If all you want is to find something in particluar badly enough, that's all you're going to find. If I wanted to find that this was a racial issue, then I would find nothing but evidence that shows 9/11 was racially motivated.

And more importantly, once you get into trying to complete your story, it just gets even more far fetched. once you start trying to explain how they went from where you are leaving off, it's pretty much impossible. These fly overs, and planted explosives and what not, which basically become conjecture.

Is the findings good an relevant? Absolutely. Does it prove a conspiracy or inside job etc? Absolutely not. It's certainly a better start than anyone else does.

(mod edit to remove unnecessary complete quote of preceding post)

[edit on 10-6-2007 by pantha]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Oh and you can hypothetically suggest we "paid them" to lie about what they saw on 9/11 but I think you know that this doesn't hold water.

1. 2 of them are cops! They would risk their careers and reputations to lie on camera about such an important and significant historical attack.

2. It's on record that Lagasse made the claim back in 2003.

You are not thinking logically or fairly.

You are simply throwing out empty and random illogical claims in a desperate attempt to cast doubt or refuse to accept this information.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

What specifically makes this physical evidence dubious? From your research it seems to be your eyewitness testimony. You certainly can't say because people on this forum question it. That's not research. To save some time, can you just list a couple of the top reasons it's dubious besides the eyewitnesses? ...............



Click on the link to the thread in my previous post to see some of our research into the anomalous physical evidence.

We are the ones who reported the fact that the foundation was undamaged when according to the official story the left engine dug into it.

If the north side claim is accurate it most certainly DOES prove a conspiracy.

If you don't like our hypothesis feel free to come up with your own for what happened to the plane after it flew north of the citgo but we know for a fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a plane on the north side to topple the light poles and damage the building as it was damaged.

Now it's clear to me that you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job so the "world wide psychological operation of deception" claim doesn't hold water for you but you must realize.....that IS what we are trying to confirm or deny with our investigation so it is necessary that we think out of the box.

If it is confirmed then you can NOT assume that all general rules and statistics such as "physical evidence is more reliable than eyewitness testimony" necessarily hold true.

Well it IS confirmed.

The north side claim proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Compounded with all the other absurdities that pile up regarding ALL aspects of the official story this becomes quite clear.

The official conspiracy theory has been debunked.


(mod edit to remove quote of snoopy's complete post)

[edit on 10-6-2007 by pantha]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Oh and you can hypothetically suggest we "paid them" to lie about what they saw on 9/11 but I think you know that this doesn't hold water.

1. 2 of them are cops! They would risk their careers and reputations to lie on camera about such an important and significant historical attack.

2. It's on record that Lagasse made the claim back in 2003.

You are not thinking logically or fairly.

You are simply throwing out empty and random illogical claims in a desperate attempt to cast doubt or refuse to accept this information.


If you re-read that you can see that I most certainly hypothetically suggest you paid them. I saw showing that your arguments can just as easily be used against your own work as you use them against others.

You use one piece of evidence to say another is false. Yet that other evidence could just as easily be used to show that yourse is false. Not saying it is, just showing you how the logic works.

1. No one said they are lying. I don't doubt for a second that they are telling what they think is the truth. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. But regardless, their jobs would be in no danger regardless of anything. But of course one would think that if some all controlling people in the government pulled all this of, they would have those men fired for talking. Or stopped somehow, no?

2. The guy could have given his testimony the day after the event and it could still be faulty. But as to the response being on the assumption that I said they are lying, they could be involved with you guys. Maybe the guy lied before to get attention and now he can get money. Who knows, the number of excuses one could come up with are unlimited.

More importantly, I am not making these accusations against you and clearly stated I wasn't. But I am pointing out how your accusations seem. They seem absurd to you when you try them on yourself, but when you do the same to others you have no problem with it. So for example these guys are cops so why would they risk their jobs? Well, why would scientists risk ruining their jobs and their careers? You could easily come up with 100 reasons could you not? It's a two way street.

I am pointing out that it is YOU who is being unfair here and YOU are the one being biased in your research. You can call them empty all you want, but they aren't. And if you find them illogical, then what does that say for your methods which is what I am using?

Accept information. Good point. Because isn't that all this is about? You wanting everyone to accept this information? It's OK to question the scientists and engineers, but not someone questioning a truther (or whatever title doesn't offend you these days).

And anyways, no one is not accepting the information. Unlike you, we're just not dismissing everything else and seeing ONLY that information.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy

If you re-read that you can see that I most certainly hypothetically suggest you paid them. I saw showing that your arguments can just as easily be used against your own work as you use them against others.

You use one piece of evidence to say another is false. Yet that other evidence could just as easily be used to show that yourse is false. Not saying it is, just showing you how the logic works.


Not quite. There are many reasons to accept their placement of the plane over their belief of an impact. The most obvious is the fact that they had a much better view of the plane as it passed by them and of course the fact that they all confirm that it was in the same place.



1. No one said they are lying. I don't doubt for a second that they are telling what they think is the truth. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. But regardless, their jobs would be in no danger regardless of anything. But of course one would think that if some all controlling people in the government pulled all this of, they would have those men fired for talking. Or stopped somehow, no?


They may have been stopped if the actual "perps" knew. But there is no reason to assume that they did. Obviously the fact that their testimony strongly contradicts the official story is a VERY sticky situation for them right now. It makes no sense that they would put themselves through that when clearly they thought they were SUPPORTING the official story. It is not logical to suggest they would ALL willingly contradict the official story so blatantly for a few bucks. Yes you can argue that but no it's not very truthful or logical.





2. The guy could have given his testimony the day after the event and it could still be faulty. But as to the response being on the assumption that I said they are lying, they could be involved with you guys. Maybe the guy lied before to get attention and now he can get money. Who knows, the number of excuses one could come up with are unlimited.


Here you go again with "the guy". How can 4 people be continuously reduced to one? The pay to lie theory is not feasible or logical with one cop let alone two and two other people. Just as their testimony becomes exponentially credible as it gets corroborated your hypothetical conspiracy theory of us fabricating the entire thing becomes exponentially less credible with each corroborated account. If we had one witness your argument would be feasible but as it stands it simply is not.




More importantly, I am not making these accusations against you and clearly stated I wasn't. But I am pointing out how your accusations seem. They seem absurd to you when you try them on yourself, but when you do the same to others you have no problem with it. So for example these guys are cops so why would they risk their jobs? Well, why would scientists risk ruining their jobs and their careers? You could easily come up with 100 reasons could you not? It's a two way street.


I don't get your point. What scientists are risking their jobs and how?



I am pointing out that it is YOU who is being unfair here and YOU are the one being biased in your research. You can call them empty all you want, but they aren't. And if you find them illogical, then what does that say for your methods which is what I am using?


Now I am completely lost. How are we being unfair? We went and interviewed eyewitnesses and reported what they saw. It's not our fault that their independently corroborated testimony proves the official story false.



Accept information. Good point. Because isn't that all this is about? You wanting everyone to accept this information? It's OK to question the scientists and engineers, but not someone questioning a truther (or whatever title doesn't offend you these days).


Again I am confused by your point. Of course it's ok to question us. But if you are honest with yourself in regards to this testimony you will understand how there are SERIOUS issues with what happened on that day.




And anyways, no one is not accepting the information. Unlike you, we're just not dismissing everything else and seeing ONLY that information.


Once again you lost me. Nothing has been dismissed.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   


The pay to lie theory is not feasible or logical with one cop let alone two and two other people


I think what snoopy is saying is how do we know they are cops. The only way we know that is because you say so. Snoopy want corroborated evidence that the people are who you claim they are. Which i feel is totally relevent.




If we had one witness your argument would be feasible but as it stands it simply is not.


This doesn't make any sense. Are you saying you can pay off one person but not four?



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Keep the focus on the eywitnesses Craig.

You know your weak spot.
(cross-quoted from another thread)

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You need to understand.......the physical damage IS the crime.

This is what tipped everyone off to the fact that something isn't right.


You started looking at the damage, up close, Performance Report, all that. And you decided somehow it shows a plane did NOT hit. Our brains are obviously wired very differently. and then

we went to find out what the witnesses saw and it confirmed our suspicions beyond our wildest imaginations.


So remember folks, all this ironclad eyewitness stuff - that 'makes necessary' a no-hit flyover - is secondary. It confirmed previously existing "suspicions." Based on ... the same things I've been looking at.


The damage is anomalous.

Problem 1 - not having factored this in. A plane crahing into the Pentagon IS anomolous. How many points of comparison for planes of that type plowing full speed into buildings of that type do you have access to for comparison to decide this is anomolous?

For example, you see a large trailer-size backup generator smahed and pushed asid, *allegedly* by the right engine. But you see right through it.

To suggest that the richest most powerful defense agency on earth couldn't have moved a mobile generator trailer in their own backyard during a worldwide psychological operation is simply not logical.

Got me there. It is indeed possible. Do you find guys pushing it or some high-tech method more likely for the generator warping and pushing op? Maybe the C-130 had a tank hanging from it and swung it there on the *supposed* engine trajectory, tore up that fence, dented the generator and tossed it aside?




Craig: What were your suspicions on seeing this anomolous and indeed curious evidence?

ETA: link to original post and thank you sir for the reminder.
ETA again - second pic that actually shows the fence.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
After a very robust and meaningful discussion


damn, you're making it sound like it's the last meal someone has the opportunity to eat in the next 3 days, lol.

it would be a very robust and meaningful meal indeed..


*burp*



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Keep the focus on the eywitnesses Craig.

You know your weak spot.
(cross-quoted from another thread)


Weak spot? You have got to be kidding! People have been questioning the anomalous damage and lack of debris etc since day one. Yes it "all lines up" and yes the poles/generator are convincing but the military industrial complex isn't so incredibly incapable that they couldn't pull that off! Plus I think we have shown the light poles to be beyond questionable.







You started looking at the damage, up close, Performance Report, all that. And you decided somehow it shows a plane did NOT hit. Our brains are obviously wired very differently. and then

we went to find out what the witnesses saw and it confirmed our suspicions beyond our wildest imaginations.


So remember folks, all this ironclad eyewitness stuff - that 'makes necessary' a no-hit flyover - is secondary. It confirmed previously existing "suspicions." Based on ... the same things I've been looking at.


Absolutely. And we aren't the only ones. MILLIONS of people throughout the world questioned the physical evidence at the Pentagon. It forced the DoD to leak (and refuse to take credit for) those blatantly altered 5 frames of security video that don't even show a plane. It is what virtually spawned the movement via the wildly popular flash animation "The Pentagon Strike". Where were you?



Problem 1 - not having factored this in. A plane crahing into the Pentagon IS anomolous. How many points of comparison for planes of that type plowing full speed into buildings of that type do you have access to for comparison to decide this is anomolous?

For example, you see a large trailer-size backup generator smahed and pushed asid, *allegedly* by the right engine. But you see right through it.

To suggest that the richest most powerful defense agency on earth couldn't have moved a mobile generator trailer in their own backyard during a worldwide psychological operation is simply not logical.

Got me there. It is indeed possible. Do you find guys pushing it or some high-tech method more likely for the generator warping and pushing op? Maybe the C-130 had a tank hanging from it and swung it there on the *supposed* engine trajectory, tore up that fence, dented the generator and tossed it aside?


Or maybe it was moved and partially pre-fabricated in advance and then finished off with explosives.






Craig: What were your suspicions on seeing this anomolous and indeed curious evidence?

ETA: link to original post and thank you sir for the reminder.
ETA again - second pic that actually shows the fence.


As if the generator trailer was the first thing that ANYONE looked at. Again; the generator trailer and light poles were probably the most convincing but compared to the lack of debris, columns blown OUTWARD where the right engine allegedly hit, undamaged foundation, curiously small hole before collapse, undamaged windows where the vertical stabilizer would have hit, extremely odd c-ring "exit hole" etc we already had serious questions that were not answered simply by looking at the generator trailer.

The damage to the generator trailer in their own backyard is literally NOTHING compared to the damage they staged in downtown Manhattan.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist

I think what snoopy is saying is how do we know they are cops. The only way we know that is because you say so. Snoopy want corroborated evidence that the people are who you claim they are. Which i feel is totally relevent.


Brooks and Lagasse were well known witnesses before we talked to them and both of their original accounts are available for download at the Library of Congress website.

It is an extremely simple claim and 100% verifiable with one simple call to the Pentagon police that ANYONE can make.

With the serious claims that we make and the amount of scrutiny there has been we would have been outed in 5 minutes if we had staged it.

Plus, where would we have gotten the uniforms? It's a felony to impersonate a police officer and probably even a federal offense to do it on government property.





This doesn't make any sense. Are you saying you can pay off one person but not four?




I am saying it would be extremely difficult to convince ANYONE let alone 2 cops AND 2 civilians to put their necks on the line and LIE in order to deliberately contradict the official 9/11 story for a few bucks.

They will likely be eventually called to testify in a Grand Jury. All have said they would.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I've posted an eyewitness analysis that was moved over to the ATS Pentacon forum that was created by SO.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
We have to be nice now so I'll be a good boy.

Questions:

Of the hundreds of eye witnesses, how many reported a plane flyover?

How many witnesses claimed to have seen something other than an airplane strike the pentagon?

Could I get an explination or a comment on the phone calls that were made from the aircraft?

During rush hour, with traffic pretty busy, how many witnesses to "perps" planting broken light poles?


I have hundreds more that I would like to ask...but I'd like to start with these.

Thanks
Why would the government risk planting a somewhat elderly cab driver as a witness to a street pole falling down on his car?

Why would the government risk being CAUGHT planting said light poles?

Why take the "North of the Citgo witnesses" word of the location of the plane, yet dismiss their claims that they saw the same plane hit the Pentagon?

Why did these witnesses that were in a postition to see the Pentagon fail to report a "flyover?"

You stated a possibility to the generator being rigged with explosives, "possibly". Did you compare the damage done to this generator, and if so, is the damage consistant with that of explosives?

Can you please explain how all physical evidence was planted in such a short time (without one person seeing it)?



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Got me there. It is indeed possible. Do you find guys pushing it or some high-tech method more likely for the generator warping and pushing op? Maybe the C-130 had a tank hanging from it and swung it there on the *supposed* engine trajectory, tore up that fence, dented the generator and tossed it aside?




Craig: What were your suspicions on seeing this anomolous and indeed curious evidence?


Let's take a moment to reflect what a 757 traveling at 530 mph would look like.

www.pentagonresearch.com...

Imagine the engine ripping through the fence shown in that video. Now imagine it hitting that section of the fence at the Pentagon.

Would it be more likely or less likely to only bend down/knock out 3 posts, and lay down a 8-10 ft section of fence, while leaving all the other posts in tact with their barbed wire and holders still intact?

or...

Would it it be more likely or less likely to hit the fence and rip out the whole section of fence and barbed wire, completely obliterating more posts?

How do you know that sections of fence around the generator trailer, leading to the other two trailers were not removed? after all, they were finishing their "renovations" to the Pentagon leading up to 9/11. We know satellite photos show the fence or some sort of barriers in place around the 7th www.pentagonresearch.com... how do you know they weren't removed exposing the trailers, giving the apearance they were taken out by a 757?

Now let's imagine the force of this engine AND wing hitting this generator trailer.

Would it be more likely or less likely to only rip the top of the trailer moving it a few feet to the right?

or...

Would it it be more likely or less likely to hit the trailer flipping it, obliterating it, sending it toward the Wall of the Pentagon?

Here is a video of the NASA plane crash of an airliner at a much slower speed:

video.google.com...

Did you ever watch the video of the trailer on fire before it was put out and left the damage you see? If not you should. Look at the damage, it reflects the thin metal sheet of the trailer MELTING into a an even bend. So the plane did not cause that, the resulting FIRE DID.



Let's not forget the plane was on the North side of the Citgo, so it COULD NOT have been what damaged the trailer.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
We have to be nice now so I'll be a good boy.

Questions:

Of the hundreds of eye witnesses, how many reported a plane flyover?


We don't know because the FBI confiscated and permanently sequestered the 911 calls. We went to the Arlington County Communications office to find out. But there WERE very curious reports of a so called "2nd plane" that "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered away" over the Pentagon just after the explosion. If that didn't happen how do you explain these accounts and if it did happen why wasn't this more widely reported if a "flyover" would be so obvious?




How many witnesses claimed to have seen something other than an airplane strike the pentagon?


We don't believe anything "struck" the Pentagon.



Could I get an explination or a comment on the phone calls that were made from the aircraft?


Only one was allegedly from flight 77. You can read up about that here:
read article




During rush hour, with traffic pretty busy, how many witnesses to "perps" planting broken light poles?


Since we hypothesize that 4 out of 5 were placed in advance this question is irrelevant. The cab and pole #1 could have been placed seconds or minutes AFTER the event when they blocked off the road.



I have hundreds more that I would like to ask...but I'd like to start with these.

Thanks
Why would the government risk planting a somewhat elderly cab driver as a witness to a street pole falling down on his car?


Because it's very hard for people to believe they would do this and it sells their story very hard.



Why would the government risk being CAUGHT planting said light poles?


Because it's very hard for people to believe they would do this and it sells their story very hard.



Why take the "North of the Citgo witnesses" word of the location of the plane, yet dismiss their claims that they saw the same plane hit the Pentagon?


Because they had a better view of what side of the station the plane flew than the alleged impact and because they ALL saw it north of the station and because if it was on the north side of the station we know the operation was purposefully designed as a sleight of hand illusion to DECEIVE them into believing it hit so it's not surprising that it worked. Particularly since they were all aware of what just happened in New York.



Why did these witnesses that were in a postition to see the Pentagon fail to report a "flyover?"


You don't know that they didn't. The 911 calls were confiscated and permanently sequestered. In fact this indicates that they DID.



You stated a possibility to the generator being rigged with explosives, "possibly". Did you compare the damage done to this generator, and if so, is the damage consistant with that of explosives?


Sure and yes. "Powder monkeys" can do just about anything with explosives. Especially when they have unlimited military resources and the ultimate protection of the Pentagon on Pentagon property.



Can you please explain how all physical evidence was planted in such a short time (without one person seeing it)?



It wasn't a short time. The Pentagon "renovation" project of that specific wedge of the building that was conveniently completed on 9/11 had been going on for years. If you are talking about the plane debris there was very little so I don't get your point.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Of the hundreds of eye witnesses, how many reported a plane flyover?


How do you know there were hundreds? Have you even been there before? Have you ever seen how many planes fly over and take off in the area of the Pentagon? Do you realize how fast this jet was going? Do you realize that for people who have passed the Pentagon or are even right next to it, but heading to DC on 395 would have more than likely missed it? Just so you know the Pentagon is only in view for a short stretch of 395. Do you think EVERYONE in the highrises in the area were staring at that exact section of the Pentagon at that exact moment of the 5 second event or do you think would have looked when a 5-10 story fireball was rising while the plane was already over the Potomac in an ascent? And for your info we DO have leads on people who saw it fly over, "pilot tried to avert going directly into the building" "went to the side of the bilding and not directly in". We have interviewed an ACFD fire captain who was there and believes it flew over.


How many witnesses claimed to have seen something other than an airplane strike the pentagon?


How many have come forward or have you interviewed to contradict the plane bieng on the North side and pulling up? How many witnesses claim they saw a "second plane" "peeling/veering away" at the exact time of the explosion fireball? Why are you focused on the flyover and not the North side vs. the light poles? That would be dishonest of you.


Could I get an explination or a comment on the phone calls that were made from the aircraft?


Well, I seriously suggest you review the account of the one call, Barbara Olsen, according to Ted Olsen again. And I can tell you that we have found out that they deactivated the phones on 757's before 9/11. Thins coming from my contact in AA. David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo will be presenting this information shortly.


During rush hour, with traffic pretty busy, how many witnesses to "perps" planting broken light poles?


You are not thinking critically. First of all, Robert Turcios told me on the phone that he remembered traffic moving normally, which makes sense at 9: 40 in the morning. We believe there is a possibility the traffic did not start until AFTER the explosion. They planted the 4 poles in inconspicuous areas, right in the sloped down grass area, the night before. People on the highway would not be staring at poles on the sloped down grassy area, that honestly they would not be able to see. They would be driving down the road, paying attention to where they were driving, talking on their cell phones about the attacks. Listening to the radio about attacks. The light pole on the highway near the cab could have been on the shoulder and was dragged out under the pretense that they were unblocking the shoulder. It could have been dropped from a truck, once that side of the highway was secured, you can't see a truck or van drop a pole from the Northbound lanes, because of the dividing barriers. And again, you are not thinking people would be staring at the Pentagon not guys in shirt and ties moving a pole on a highway or pieces of a pole.




Why would the government risk planting a somewhat elderly cab driver as a witness to a street pole falling down on his car?


Stop saying it was *the* gov't. It was a rogue element within OUR gov't. Lloyd's wife was a clerk for the FBI. Lloyd could have been a long time asset driving around DC taping aide's conversations in his cab for all we know. What we do know is they did it to establish the physical damage which establishes the flight path into the building. We know it is irreconcilable with the North side flight path. Giving you a defninitive on 'why' is pointless without the proper authorities investigating this.




[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Con't...


Why would the government risk being CAUGHT planting said light poles?


It's not the gov't. It's a rogue intelligence/military element improvisng an attack.


Why take the "North of the Citgo witnesses" word of the location of the plane, yet dismiss their claims that they saw the same plane hit the Pentagon?


Because perhaps we're the only one with brains enough to know that if they are saying it hit coming from the North side, then it COULD NOT HAVE hit at all. Did you analyze what they saw, or said they saw and where they saw it from? Lagasse clearly did not see the impact. Listen to his whole account and think about it. Sgt. Brooks already told us our film was an "eye opener" for him and that when it came to him being fooled.."anything is possible".. Robert said the plane pulled UP for crying out loud.


Why did these witnesses that were in a postition to see the Pentagon fail to report a "flyover?"


Why were 911 callers telling them the crash was on the other side? These witnesses were fooled. PERIOD. 600-800 fps and a bright huge fireball.


You stated a possibility to the generator being rigged with explosives, "possibly". Did you compare the damage done to this generator, and if so, is the damage consistant with that of explosives?


No, we haven't. But that is the only logical conclusion. The generator trailer clearly had fire damage, and that is what melted the steel shell to that even bend you see.


Can you please explain how all physical evidence was planted in such a short time (without one person seeing it)?


The Pentagon was under renovation and unoccupied in certain areas. Plenty of places to store planted debris pre explosion.

The trailers at the front of the wall. One was a storage trailer and the other was an office on wheels. We believe both or one contained the lawn debris and possibly explosives. The debris could have been treated with some type of flame retardent to help maintin it's look:


I looked around my area, and found a piece of wreckage. It was about the size of a piece of notebook paper, and was greasy. I picked it up and placed it near the other collected debris inside the rope line.
www.hamiltonlives.com...


The 4 poles in the grass clearly could have been layed that weekend or even monday night/early morning.

I've explained the cab pole.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Basically people on the impact side would confusingly sell the impact. While some may have called into 911 that it crashedon the other side. While those who saw a plane fly after they saw the explosion would confused by bogus accounts of the "second plane" chasing /shadowing then veering away.

People reported the crash on the other side:

z9.invisionfree.com...

But Like told you all, we went to the Arlington Comunications office and they told us they were confiscated and sequestered.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join