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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Nonsense. You are way off base.

1. Aldo offered the invitation to talk with CL on the phone. Not me or Rob.


Sorry, if I was off base about the call. I misunderstood the intention.


2. I do not act like a "playground bully". Yes I strongly defend myself against unjustified/uninformed attacks. Clearly the existence of this thread proves I was completely right to do so with you. I suggest you leave the accusations alone since you are the admitted provocateur in this discussion.


Craig, you've seem to have transformed a bit since shedding the Jack Tripper identity. JT came across as a bit of a playground bully. And to be honest, there were a couple of days where between you and Rob, I lost track of who was posting what in terms of insulting remarks.




What's with the constant flip flop of attitude about us?


No flip flop attitude at all. I was just giving CL my opinion on what I mistakenly thought the purpose of the call was about. I guess the image of you kicking a little kitten around stuck in my head. I think you and Aldo are good guys. I also think CL is a good guy too. Thanks for correcting me.... again.




posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Thanks, Nick!

I for one appreciate your efforts here and elsewhere, and your stubborn perseverance. Sure you overdo some things sometimes, but that's what's helped make this such an interesting place lately. Maybe too intesresting...
. But this last post is classic. Steady as she goes, y'know?

Working on tech anlysis of Aldo's columns stuff now...
Peace



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Since we're talking about eyewitness testimony:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aldo Marquis
CL,

Columns 15-20 were intact.


Aldo, if you read my blog you'll know this is one of my things.
As a Pgon researcher you might just dig the insight. Of course any realizations would be too little too late of course, and I don't expect a course change, but for the others I'd like to offer my theory:
Post on my ego blog - needs updated
I’ve also shown it to Craig twice and I don’t recall a response. Summarized here tho.

Looking at photos, it appears that columns 15-20 on the outer row and beyond are intact, tho 15-17 appear heavily damaged. Oddly, there's some confusion in official reports as to how to read these photos.
- ASCE/PBPR: C15-17 were “severely distorted but still attached at least at their top ends to the second-floor framing.”
- Penren News Briefing, March 2002. showed a slide with C15-17, along with the entire outer row between columns 9 and 19 uniformly listed as “missing.” Period. Their listing C18 as missing is odd considering the photos I’ve seen show that one at least at standing proud even after the collapse.

So one school of thought insist wrongly that columns 15-17 are present and rightly that 18 is intact, while the other rightly asserts that columns 15-17 are gone, but wrongly classes columns 18 as missing too. Should it be that hard for any one source get it all right at the same time?

I've been meaning to do some better graphics to try and recreate what exactly these "columns" might've originally been. But really – 100% sure these are intact columns? Different sizes, shapes, unevenly spaced? Really look at it.


Can’t you see horizontal elements, like limestone façade segments, possible a warped girder, dropping down at an angle after the columns beneath were removed? I'm not 100% convinced, but dang, it all fits a lot better than columns.
I got this tip from Jim Hoffman first, BTW.

Now about these "columns..."


They were blown UP and OUT from the base. It is insane to suggest that the right engine went through that.

Then I am insane, because I not only suggest it but find it highly likely. “blown up and out.” I keep hearing this claim and haven’t seen it explained. It’s not evident. Is it supposed to be? Looks like down and to the left, probably about flush with building face.


Why is there no continuity to the "wing damage" when it tilted up it's right wing?. It looks as if the facade simply fell off in this section:




Perhaps there was not too much continuity to the wing? First, unlike the left, it was cutting across the second floor slab with the final bank, meaning much tougher going. Second, the right wing had clipped 2 light poles (or was it three?) and it or its engine smashed the generator and got it smoldering. Or so we’re told. The ASCE decided in fact that the wings may have exploded prior to impact due to these facts, which matches many eyewitness accounts. This could also explain for the smallness of the hole (only 90 feet wide!), which is almost totally from the lack of the outer 2/3 of the right wing, which clearly did not enter. So where’d it go? Check the silver tinsel strewn across the lawn after and tell me how that can’t possibly be wing metal.

The right wing root and engine entered at about CL 16 it seems, obliterating it and causing those “columns” to drop down.


The biggest smoking gun besides the undamaged foundation and the no tail section damage is column 14AA.




THIS reduces the size of the "fuselage hole". It is clear that the two windows were blown out.

Would it be more likely or less likely to leave a segment of column hanging in the middle of the "fuselage hole". That makes it about what 18 ft?


THIS dangler is your smoking gun #2?

1) Jim Hoffman: this “hanging object […] appears to consist in part of remains of the steel reinforcements that were part of column 14. […] it might have pivoted as the plane entered the building, and then fallen back into a vertical position.” [see link above]
2) Here’s how the plane is alleged to have entered – can any sharp poster here see any reason a partial column 14 might have survived the impact, attached at the top end but not the bottom?

3) Look at that fuselage top – it couldn’t permanently defy the 2nd floor slab, but couldn’t help but dent it at that spot either. ASCE agrees with me on this point that the slab shows signs of breaching there, as seen in the shot below – look at the glow in the center and notice the floor seems to start a ways in. Therefore C14 would have had no floor to anchor to.

4) Oddly enough, there is another famous shot that shows no column at all in that very spot. Pentagon photoshopping? Or dropped dangler? If this was such a mighty column that would have barred entry to a 757, then why did it disappear on its on within 20 minutes (before collapse)?

Original photo:


Response? Am I wrong? Did smoking gun #2 fall away of its own accord?


The plane allegedly entered the Pentagon under an angle of 45 degrees, thus the effective horizontal lengths become

length_eff = length/cos(pi*45/180)

effective diameter engine: 11 feet
effective width fuselage: 17 feet

effective distance between the center of the fuselage to center of the engines: 30 feet
effective span 757-200: 176 feet


I don't even know that formula to couble-check. I'm sure it's right. Actually the angle was more like 39 deg I think, but I use 45 also so I can use the Pythagorean theorem to find that the core, from one outer engine edge to the other is about 50 feet, needing thus just over 70 feet of space to fit into the outer wall – both engines and fuselage, more or less, on floor one, where columns were removed for over 90 feet by my estimates.


Now go look at the size of the hole that the second plane left in WTC2.

Think people

...about how different the situations were. A modern aluminum tube skyscraper (not talking core, just where the plane punched through) vs. a sturdy, classic column architecture of steel reinforced concrete. And also that the Pgon plane was likely blowing up before impact.

Food for thought.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I only lash back never out.

I responded to your attack, you retracted it. Now as far as I'm concerned we're best buds!


And ummmm.....I would never kick a kitten!

I love cats.

That was funny though.

As was my analogy about debating CL.

Glad my imagery worked.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

And as far as averaging me and Nick together and saying "we" admitted we were wrong, weren't you just ripping on Pinkus for conflating you and JDX to make a non-accurate blanket statement?




You have ADMITTED it was a hastily written, poorly done, rush to judgment "hit-piece". You called us "Pentagon sponsored disinfo" for gods' sake!

It most certainly was an empty, unjustified ATTACK.

There is no other way to characterize it.

It may be hard for you to see someone call a spade a spade in the forum but that's what your article amounted to.

Clearly you agreed enough to take it down so coming back to defend my accurate characterization by arguing semantics seems rather wishy washy.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I'll let Aldo handle your physical evidence response in full detail.

He is just as much of an expert on that as he is the eyewitnesses.

I'm mostly just the good looks of the organization.



But on first read It's quite apparent that you prefer to make excuses for anomalies in the official story rather than question it.

Obviously they tried to make it look like a plane hit. They just didn't do a very good job. So in come guys like you Hoffman, and Pickering running around making excuses for them.

That's why I prefer to focus on the more human elements.

Like the fact that although April Gallop was confirmed only about 35 to 45 feet from the alleged impact point:

i14.photobucket.com...

She wasn't obliterated by jet fuel and crawled out of the front hole with her baby alive.

She is the Pentagon's version of Edna Cintron.



But what also jumps out at me about your post is that in order for one official excuse to hold true (engine hits the generator and right wing explodes BEFORE impact from hitting poles etc) other parts get destroyed.

If the wing was destroyed by the poles OR if the engine hit the generator trailer then why didn't the trajectory of the plane change even the slightest amount?

Watch what happens to the plane in this controlled crash as it hits the barrier:

www.youtube.com...

Every action has an opposite and equal reaction.

In fact if the plane hit the building at a drastic angle like this:

i14.photobucket.com...

It would seem to me that it would be strewn across the facade with damaged part of the building being much more random and wide.

You see CL the damage is TOO perfect. It's too cookie cutter which makes it anomalous and not what we should expect from physics.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 10/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Since we're talking about eyewitness testimony:

www.youtube.com...


I have to laugh when OCT supporters post links to Mike Walter as if it's "proof".

Let's just say the perps are getting their money's worth out of this guy but he is a bit careless.

He has changed his story many times.

He is clearly lying in the recent youtube video about his experience if you choose to believe things he said on 9/12/2001 and of course the facts.

We have our Mike Walter research covered.

We even had dinner at his house. We spent about 3 or 4 hours there chatting and drinking beer with him, his wife, and his friend.

But here are some key contradictions in his story:

1. He contradicts the official flight path. He claims he saw the plane do a "graceful bank" before gaining speed and flying into the building.

There would be no "bank" in the official flight path whatsoever that he could possibly see on route 27.

But there most certainly IS a bank in the eyewitness flight path that we report!

i14.photobucket.com...

(this is an old and preliminary eyewitness flight path estimate but close enough to get the point of the bank.)

2. He ADMITTED on an interview with Bryant Gumbel on national television that trees blocked his view of the impact!

September 12th 6AM eastern on CBS:


Mr. WALTER:"...and I could see over in the distance the American Airlines jet as it kind of banked around, pivoted and then took a steep dive right into the Pentagon"
(this is completely irreconcilable with the official story.)
...
"GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as--as it impacted the building?

Mr. WALTER: You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it turned at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did. All I know is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball..."
(Why was he less sure about details of the impact on the day after 9/11 when he was telling his story to the world?)
...
"GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the--the plane struck the building. I ask that because, in the pictures we have seen, it appears to be a gash in the side of the Pentagon as if the plane went in vertically as opposed to horizontally. Can you tell me anything about that?

Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and--and a--the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam on those roads as people were trying to get away."


Here was his view ACCORDING TO HIM:




He could not have seen the impact in the detail that he describes in this new video (that was released THIS YEAR) if at all.

Why is he so much more descriptive about the impact now compared to how he was on 9/12/2001?


He told us a very interesting story about how the FBI interrogated him but was most curious about his claim of the plane making a "graceful bank" and specifically asked him about his use of the word "graceful".

I bet they did since this contradicts the official story!

He was very detailed in his description of this graceful bank to us.

These images show you his location ACCORDING TO HIM and prove that the trees DID in fact block his view on 9/11 as he described to Bryant Gumbel on national television on 9/12.




i14.photobucket.com...






So he changed his story.

He did NOT see the details of the "impact".

We actually have a lot more on him that we will reveal in the Researcher's Edition.

Mike Walter will be exposed once and for all.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 10/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Doesn't sound like changing his story to me, sounds like wishful thinking.

And you still have thousands of other people who were all there stuck in traffic. At least 20 or so on record as claiming they saw it hit the building AND saw it clip the light poles. You even have a guy saying he saw a light pole hit the taxi cab. And yet not a single person out of thousands of people sitting there in rush hour traffic jams saw the plane fly over the building.

And as for your claim that the plane hitting the light poles would take the wings off? I think we both know very well that that simply would not happen.

Then you have all the debris scattered about the area that you expect us to believe was planted there at the moment of impact in front of thousands of people and no one happened to notice?

You have the phone calls from people on the actual flight, and you have the bodies and wreckage and belonging from the flight itself. So are we to believe that they took the actual flight, hijacked it and crashed it, then trucked over the parts and bodies to the Pentagon and placed them at the scene in front of thousands of people all between the time of the plane taking off and the explosion?

You have Terry Martin who saw the tail of the plane as it hit the building. While that may not be seeing the plane itself hit, if it flew over it would be pretty obvious, as it would be obvious to everyone else there. Just because some trees obscure the building for some of the people, doesn't mean it obscures the air above the building. And then you have thousands more people on the other side of the building, none of whom claim to have seen a large plane fliying over a couple hundred feet off the ground.

Then you have the security video, which if you don't want to believe is flight 77, absolutely shows something hitting the building and most certainly shows that nothing flew over the building instead.



But...you have 4 guys who think the plane flew on the north side...



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It would seem to me that it would be strewn across the facade with damaged part of the building being much more random and wide.

You see CL the damage is TOO perfect. It's too cookie cutter which makes it anomalous and not what we should expect from physics.


I'm not sure that this is an accurate conclusion. A 200,000 pound plane traveling at 500 mph has a lot of momentum. The light poles may have damaged the wings, but certainly wouldn't have provided suffificient resistance to slow down the plane's trajectory.

Let's examine the physics you're alluding to. For a plane traveling at 500 mph with a mass of 200,000 lbs., there would have to be some external force that would disrupt it's momentum and cause it to be strewn across the facade. Unlike the plane in the YouTube video you posted, FL 77 is not alleged to have hit the ground. The impact with the generator and the poles was so close to the facade that any miniscule change in the plane's direction would not altered where it would have hit the building.

I.e., if the plane traveled along the official flight path, there were no outside forces that would have caused it to be strewn about the facade or to cause random damage. The damage would by necessity have occurred only where the plane hit the building. The WTC1 and WTC2 holes are examples of the cookie-cutter entry holes, even though the WTCs were of different construction.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

But there most certainly IS a bank in the eyewitness flight path that we report!

i14.photobucket.com...

(this is an old and preliminary eyewitness flight path estimate but close enough to get the point of the bank.)


Craig,

A plane traveling at 400 mph would never be able to make a "graceful" bank at the Naval Annex that your image shows. John Lear said on another thread, when looking at the "graceful bank" flight path in this image, that it is unequivocally impossible for a 757 to make this type of a turn, even if the plane tilted 90 degrees. There is too much forward momentum at the point where the plane is traveling NE above the Naval Annex for it to shift that momentum in that short of a distance.

This would mean that whatever witness(es) described the "graceful bank" are probably suspect, and that a famous member of your "brother" organization is contradicting your witnesses(es). Who do you choose to believe, John Lear or your witness(es)?

Also, in the spirit of accuracy, this is one of those Pentagon overhead photos that is not aligned to true north, but coincidentally is aligned to almost match the Pentagon shown in the NTSB animation, which we know is not aligned properly.

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
How do you know it was a 757?

How do you know it wasn't modified?

Our line is not meant to be 100% perfect, but rather as approximate as possible.

Sorry everyone, but it is what the plane did.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Of course any realizations would be too little too late of course, and I don't expect a course change


Apparently I should expect the same with you.


Then I am insane, because I not only suggest it but find it highly likely. “blown up and out.” I keep hearing this claim and haven’t seen it explained. It’s not evident. Is it supposed to be? Looks like down and to the left, probably about flush with building face.


Look at the photo. Stare a little longer if you need to. You better think about what is important, you saving face or the truth. Right now you are trying fit a square block into a round hole. You are completely ignoring the generator and fence. You are forgetting that if it really did hit, it should have started to rip the engine and wing apart. And also the direction of the plane would have changed as well. Go watch NASA plane crash and know that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.



Perhaps there was not too much continuity to the wing? First, unlike the left, it was cutting across the second floor slab with the final bank, meaning much tougher going. Second, the right wing had clipped 2 light poles (or was it three?) and it or its engine smashed the generator and got it smoldering. Or so we’re told. The ASCE decided in fact that the wings may have exploded prior to impact due to these facts, which matches many eyewitness accounts. This could also explain for the smallness of the hole (only 90 feet wide!), which is almost totally from the lack of the outer 2/3 of the right wing, which clearly did not enter. So where’d it go? Check the silver tinsel strewn across the lawn after and tell me how that can’t possibly be wing metal.


I am not going to indulge in this fanatasy. You are trying to make it make sense in your mind. It doesn't. It never will. Especially with those avaiation professionals who have looked at it. You are acting like we are talking about a toy airplane.


The right wing root and engine entered at about CL 16 it seems, obliterating it and causing those “columns” to drop down.


Imagination.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
At that close a range and that fast a speed, it would not have changed the path enough.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

THIS dangler is your smoking gun #2?


Yes. No amout of warping of the mind or rationalizing will not change that.


1) Jim Hoffman: this “hanging object […] appears to consist in part of remains of the steel reinforcements that were part of column 14. […] it might have pivoted as the plane entered the building, and then fallen back into a vertical position.” [see link above]


"Might". Again, this is ridiculous. People like you and Jim Hoffman are dangerous to the truth. You will calmly suggest irrational suggestions in order that you mold the mind of the reader. I am not going to comment on Jim Hoffman's silly suggestion more than that. I may not be an expert, but neither is he. He is a software engineer. Not an aeronautical engineer or building engineer.



2) Here’s how the plane is alleged to have entered – can any sharp poster here see any reason a partial column 14 might have survived the impact, attached at the top end but not the bottom?


This is more deceptive artistic rendering.


3) Look at that fuselage top – it couldn’t permanently defy the 2nd floor slab, but couldn’t help but dent it at that spot either. ASCE agrees with me on this point that the slab shows signs of breaching there, as seen in the shot below – look at the glow in the center and notice the floor seems to start a ways in. Therefore C14 would have had no floor to anchor to.


Nothing conclusive about that photo.


4) Oddly enough, there is another famous shot that shows no column at all in that very spot. Pentagon photoshopping? Or dropped dangler? If this was such a mighty column that would have barred entry to a 757, then why did it disappear on its on within 20 minutes (before collapse)?

Original photo:


Response? Am I wrong? Did smoking gun #2 fall away of its own accord?


Adam, we can not continue this dialog if you are going to be decpetive by using lower resolution photos. The column was there after the event. PERIOD.



I don't even know that formula to couble-check. I'm sure it's right. Actually the angle was more like 39 deg I think, but I use 45 also so I can use the Pythagorean theorem to find that the core, from one outer engine edge to the other is about 50 feet, needing thus just over 70 feet of space to fit into the outer wall – both engines and fuselage, more or less, on floor one, where columns were removed for over 90 feet by my estimates.


Go look again at which columns were removed.



...about how different the situations were. A modern aluminum tube skyscraper (not talking core, just where the plane punched through) vs. a sturdy, classic column architecture of steel reinforced concrete. And also that the Pgon plane was likely blowing up before impact.

Food for thought.


A modern aluminum tube? WOW.

You need to do some reading again.

The perimeter columns WERE structural steel. The facade was aluminum.

Drop a 14 inch width, structural steel tubular column off of a 50 story building. Then drop a 14-24 inch concrete/brick/limestone (with kevlar cloth embedded) block off that same 50 story building.

What would happen? Which would survive total obliteration.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Let's just remind people we have spoke with a first responder fire captain, a victim, and a staff sgt/victim/rescuer.

All either do not believe it hit or have serious questions.

Yet none of you who were there want to help continue this charade.

Sad.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aldo Marquis
How do you know it was a 757?

How do you know it wasn't modified?

Our line is not meant to be 100% perfect, but rather as approximate as possible.





Hey Aldo... nice to meet you. I extend my apologies to you as well for my previous post questioning the PentaCon as a "Hoax".





Sorry everyone, but it is what the plane did.


This is where you loose credibility, imo. You go from reporting what witnesses told you, to making an *absolute* conclusion that this is what "the plane did."

How do you know this is what the plane did?



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Doesn't sound like changing his story to me, sounds like wishful thinking.


Yes that comment of yours sounds like wishful thinking.


And you still have thousands of other people who were all there stuck in traffic.


Oh thousands? Really? You counted them? You have VDOT photos proving where the traffic jam was? Because Robert Turcios said traffic was moving regularly. James Cissell says it was stopped because of extra security around the Pentagon. And in Frank Probst military publication account, they say it was because of road accident. So which is it. Do you have proof of who was on the highway? Because we have PROOF Lagasse was at the Citgo.


At least 20 or so on record as claiming they saw it hit the building AND saw it clip the light poles.


Oh really? Care to list them? I can assure you that you are wrong.


You even have a guy saying he saw a light pole hit the taxi cab.


Really? Who is that? Don't say it. Name it.


And yet not a single person out of thousands of people sitting there in rush hour traffic jams saw the plane fly over the building.


Rush hour? 9:38 am is rush hour? Thousands? Really where is this count of thousands? Do you know what the POV from the highways looks like? Do you know what a jet traveling 400-500 looks like? Do you understand that there was a cover story of a "second jet/plane"? Do you understand how distracting magic trick works? People who did not see the plane approach would be focused on the fireball not plane veering away. We have a reporter on scene who said, "one witness said the plane went to the side of the building and not directly in". He didn't interview them. You know why? Because they were trying to interview people who "saw" it impact. After two planes hit the tower in an apparent terrorist attack, who are you going to interview: a person who said it flew over/to the side and not in? Or a person who said they "saw" a plane hit? Think about that for a minute. Reporters work on a sensational story, es.


And as for your claim that the plane hitting the light poles would take the wings off? I think we both know very well that that simply would not happen.


Oh great argument. Who said "take the wings off"? Would it be more likely or less likely to hit 5 light poles at 530 mph and have the wings stay intact? Do you think a pilot would knowingly do this in a test with these same type of light poles, because he "knows very well that that simply would not happen."?

Here is a plane at much slower speed hitting some type of poles:

www.livevideo.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Then you have all the debris scattered about the area that you expect us to believe was planted there at the moment of impact in front of thousands of people and no one happened to notice?


You mean the debris primarily centered near he helipad, the little scraps that were more than likely blown from the "storage trailers"?


You have the phone calls from people on the actual flight,


Calls? As in more than one? The only one I remember is from Barbara Olsen and that account from her hubby is highly problematic. Not to mention, we have further proof that phones were deactivated prior to 9/11.


and you have the bodies and wreckage and belonging from the flight itself.


Where do you people come from? Show me the bodies. Show me the parts being matched to mx logs. Not 6 years after. Show me within the months following the event.



So are we to believe that they took the actual flight, hijacked it and crashed it, then trucked over the parts and bodies to the Pentagon and placed them at the scene in front of thousands of people all between the time of the plane taking off and the explosion?


You can believe whatever you want. Because apparently you do. Stop setting up weak little straw men arguments that we've never even asserted. This is how the inept debate.


You have Terry Martin who saw the tail of the plane as it hit the building. While that may not be seeing the plane itself hit, if it flew over it would be pretty obvious, as it would be obvious to everyone else there. Just because some trees obscure the building for some of the people, doesn't mean it obscures the air above the building. And then you have thousands more people on the other side of the building, none of whom claim to have seen a large plane fliying over a couple hundred feet off the ground.


Do you mean Terry Morin?

s the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction.
. . . The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.


Here is his approximate view from the Navy Annex:



Sounds like he saw the plane before it flew over.

In fact, Northeast of the FOB could very well be the North side of the Citgo.


Then you have the security video, which if you don't want to believe is flight 77, absolutely shows something hitting the building and most certainly shows that nothing flew over the building instead.


You mean the 5 frames that were originally leaked and no one could or would take credit for?

Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras.

"The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin.

A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."


You mean the surveillance video with a frame missing?

You mean the surveillance video that shows an object and it's smoke plume/trail that DOES NOT cast a shadow?

You mean the smoke plume that NOT ONE WITNESS SAW. Not even dubious witnesses mention it.


But...you have 4 guys who think the plane flew on the north side...



No, I know. They just "think". It's a figment of their imagination. They all imagined it at once.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aldo Marquis

Yes that comment of yours sounds like wishful thinking.


Nice try, but it's no more wishful thinking than yours.



Oh thousands? Really? You counted them? You have VDOT photos proving where the traffic jam was? Because Robert Turcios said traffic was moving regularly. James Cissell says it was stopped because of extra security around the Pentagon. And in Frank Probst military publication account, they say it was because of road accident. So which is it. Do you have proof of who was on the highway? Because we have PROOF Lagasse was at the Citgo.


Let's see, a major city in rush hour on a location surrounded by highways backed up with traffic. So we are to believe that coincidentally on this day that there was no rush hour traffic as there is every day? And many witnesses did report that there was the usual heavy traffic. People that live there know that at those times there is ALWAYS traffic. Especially on the 395.

Do you have proof of bombs going off in the building as you claim? Of course you don't. I don't need pictures to know that during the busiest traffic time for the city in a very busy section that there were thousands of people there.



Oh really? Care to list them? I can assure you that you are wrong.


Mike Walters
Terry Marin
Omar Campo
Darly Donley
Afework Hagos
Stephen McGraw
Kirk Milburn
Mary Ann Owens
Steve Riskus
Clyde Vaughn


Are just a few of them. And then we're also only talking about people who actually made comments, we're not including the thousands of others who were in the area, and would have witnessed it as well. Had they seen the plane fly over the building they would clearly be talking as it contradicts everything else.





Really? Who is that? Don't say it. Name it.


Stephen McGraw




Rush hour? 9:38 am is rush hour? Thousands? Really where is this count of thousands? Do you know what the POV from the highways looks like? Do you know what a jet traveling 400-500 looks like? Do you understand that there was a cover story of a "second jet/plane"? Do you understand how distracting magic trick works? People who did not see the plane approach would be focused on the fireball not plane veering away. We have a reporter on scene who said, "one witness said the plane went to the side of the building and not directly in". He didn't interview them. You know why? Because they were trying to interview people who "saw" it impact. After two planes hit the tower in an apparent terrorist attack, who are you going to interview: a person who said it flew over/to the side and not in? Or a person who said they "saw" a plane hit? Think about that for a minute. Reporters work on a sensational story, es.Stephen McGraw


Yes that is still rush hour. Have you lived in a major city?

And you are saying that the only way to determine thousands of people is by counting them? By that logic, you can't prove to me that there are millions of people in NYC right now. I mean if you haven't counted each of them then they don't exist right? I am sorry, you're right, it was probably more in the lines of 100,000's.

And this notion that they just wouldn't catch a plane veering away? I mean forget about the FACT that you are simply making that part up because you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE of a plane veering away. But to expect that everyone would see this massive explosion but no one would see a plane veering away (!!!!!!!). How can I not take such a claim as absolutely absurd? And then you claim that reporters intentionally ignore anyone saying they saw it not fly into the building??? Come on man. Let's be honest here. I guess what reporter would be interested in something as ground breaking as that right? What reporter would want to bust open the biggest story in the history of man.





Oh great argument. Who said "take the wings off"? Would it be more likely or less likely to hit 5 light poles at 530 mph and have the wings stay intact? Do you think a pilot would knowingly do this in a test with these same type of light poles, because he "knows very well that that simply would not happen."?

Here is a plane at much slower speed hitting some type of poles:

www.livevideo.com...



Wings still in tact? Absolutely. Damaged of course, but you're not gonna take the wings off or change the course at that speed.

And your video has been shown on here before. It's not the same thing. The plane is not going nearly as fast and those aren't poles meant to break of from a car hitting them. Not to mention that it did not stop the plane, the ground did.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join