Jason Ingersoll pics in high resolution.

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


That would be quite impossible because the eyewitnesses unanimously prove the plane was on the north side of the gas station which is irreconcilable with ALL the physical damage including the light poles, generator trailer, as well as the directional damage to the building leading all the way to the strange round alleged "exit" hole in the C-ring.

The tiny unrecognizable pieces you're looking at are concentrated around the heliport area and we suggest that perhaps they were blown from a construction trailer. We know for a fact there were two right at the alleged impact point as photographed here on 9/07/2001.



We also know they were "moving around" trailers on 9/10 under the excuse of wrapping up the renovation that had been going on for years but was conveniently scheduled to be completed that week.

This quote from a renovation contractor during an interview with the Center for Military History is evidence of this:

"We were in the process right prior to September the 11th cleaning out the area. We just -- we moved all the trailers. Actually, on the tenth we had some other trailers that were just leaving because we were getting ready to turn it back over to the building."
source

Furthermore we know that Bush took off from the heliport on 9/10 and was scheduled to return there on 9/11 at 12:00 noon. This means secret service were crawling all over that place and so they had the excuse to basically do whatever they want to "secure" the place for the President no questions asked.

Heliport tower air traffic controller Sean Boger describes how it was a "dog and pony show":

On September 10th, it was kind of busy because the President flew out. He flew out that Monday, and whenever the President flies out, it is always a dog and pony show, you know.

You have got the Secret Service guys coming around and the dogs sniffing, and everything. So it was kind of like a big old deal. And so on September 10th, you know it was really kind of busy. And he was scheduled to come back on September 11th.
source

One thing for sure is all the little tiny unrecognizable scraps you see in the images are not from any plane crash.

The north side approach proves it.

posted by NIcon
Also, Nola, I'm glad you mentioned the times between the pictures because that's what originally started me looking into these photos. Photos DSC_0409, DSC_0410, and DSC_0411 looked way too similar to me even though they are drastically different in zoom and center of focus.

Is this possible to do with a camera on consecutive shots? Was he using a tripod? And if he was, why the slight tilt on DSC_0409? Maybe I'm obsessing too much on these three photos.

ATC Sean Boger claimed it was a 'dog and pony show' on 9-10-2001 when pResident Dubya was there. It was also a 'dog and pony show' on 9-11, 9-12, and 9-13 because the corrupt political arm FBI was in charge of the Pentagon crime scene. They were in charge of Jason Ingersoll's photos and they likely altered what they chose to, and they released what they chose to.

'Dog and pony shows' are great for spreading mass confusion. Craig and Aldo have Ingersoll photos (here) which were not released by the FBI, which were given to them by young VDOT employee Christopher Landis just before he was 'suicided'.

Here are some of them. Yes the photos showing the feds guarding the taxi and Lloyde.

DSC_0416 - 0416


DSC_0417 - 0417


DSC_0418 - 0418


DSC_0419 - DSC_0419


All of these photos were taken before the 1st responder Reagan National fire trucks arrived to use foam on the alleged 'JET FUEL' fires. Later on the fire trucks were ordered to use water on the alleged 'JET FUEL' fires by somebody, which is a nono. The Pentagon fires lasted for days, apparently being put out and rekindled numerous times. Here is the 1st Ingersoll photo showing the fire trucks at the scene minutes after the alleged 'impact' explosion.

03880

Why were there no FBI photographers?

MARINES WORK FOR FBI ON 9-11

We are asked to believe the FBI is the foremost criminal investigatory agency in the world; that they have highly trained employees who are experts in gathering evidence that will stand up in any court. We are also asked to believe that the FBI was at the Pentagon on 9-11 to "investigate."

But at the same time we are asked to believe the FBI arrived at the scene without their own photographers, and hired two photographers on the spot to take court-room quality photos. Both photographers just happened to arrive at the scene with cameras, and both happened to be Marines.

One of these was Cpl. Jason Ingersoll, the gentleman who took a photo of the 9:40 a.m. event at 9:30 a.m. www.public-action.com...

According to an article in Recordnet.com, at the time impact occurred, Ingersoll was in his Marine Corps' headquarters office, across the street from the Pentagon. When he heard the impact, he grabbed his camera and went on over.

"One of the first photographers on the scene, he was drafted by the FBI to become a member of it evidence-response team. All through the day, Ingersoll took photos that some day could be used as evidence in court. He also had to maintain detailed crime-scene records in case he is asked to testify."

Ingersoll put in 12-hour shifts for the FBI over the next few days, providing them with photographic "support." Recordnet.com also stated:
"Ingersoll . . . helped place bodies in bags to be handed over to the Army recovery team."

So here is a Marine on the scene -- a mere coincidence to the event -- and the FBI drafts him into the crucial work of

Taking evidentiary photographs that may have to be tested in court

Removing the bodies of the victims -- apparently without training in the proper handling of bodies at a crime scene.

A second Marine photographer just happened to show up with his camera and just happened to get hired on the spot by the FBI. Sgt. Marshall Paull is the photographer for the Commandant of the Marine Corps., Gen. James L. Jones. As mentioned already, the terrorists had been considerate enough to avoid hitting the offices of the Joint Chiefs; after the event, Paull was safe, grabbed his camera, and headed for the impact site.

"During his time at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., Sgt. Paull had the unfortunate duty of photographing a few aviation accidents. When he saw FBI agents arrive at the Pentagon, he told them of his experience and said he would be willing to help.

"They took him up on his offer, and soon put him in a helicopter to take overhead pictures of the damage to the Pentagon."

Several Public Action supporters have searched the Net, but found no photos showing FBI helicopters over Pentagon airspace on 9-11.

However, remember the helicopter, variously described as a military helicopter conducting an "aerial survey" of the Pentagon crash site, and as an "Army Red Cross helicopter" (see "Air Space Not Too Restricted ", above). Most likely, this was the helicopter into which FBI agents put Sgt. Paull. The FBI, not the military, was obviously controlling the air space, military personnel, and military materiel on 9-11.

Recall that "no military intelligence officials have been allowed into the area," nor were they allowed to gather up military intelligence documents on 9-11; even military secret documents became FBI property.

www.public-action.com...

[edit on 1/16/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Heliport tower air traffic controller Sean Boger describes how it was a "dog and pony show"

The Sean Boger who said he watched the plane fly into the building?

I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said.

If you deny he said that, you are a liar.
If you say he didn't mean that, you are a liar.
If you say he "deduced" the impact, you are a liar.
If you say he didn't really mean that because he was ducking down, you are putting words in his mouth and as such are a liar.
If you ignore his comment and yet *still* say that "all the eyewitnesses say...", you are a liar.

You need to stop this "all the eyewitnesses" crap and pony up that "all" does not mean what you think it means.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by pinch]

I haven't seen these photos before with the exception of one or two but I do have a question.

Picture:
www.dodmedia.osd.mil...

what made that gap in the chain link fence?
Why is that truck on fire - it would look to be at least 40-50 feet from the building?

I suppose it could have been the wings going over the fence and hitting the truck, but is that gap the right size for the underbelly of a plane?

Why and what, could tear through a chainlink fence like that with enough force to punch out a shape without tearing the whole dang fence down?

Just something I noticed. Not exactly sure what we're supposed to be looking for in these photos but that one picture did seem a bit odd.

reply to post by justgeneric



The generator trailer damage and its surrounding fence are more examples of badly staged damage created to establish the fraudulent flight path.

Read this thread for a detailed at the generator trailer damage.

reply to post by justgeneric


It was the right side engine of the 757 jet. In one of the photos you can actually see where it bent one of the poles that was holding the fence up completely over so that it is pointing in the direction of the impact damage and is flat against the ground. Very hard to explain this away as being done with explosives, the more I look at the pictures the more evidence I find of the airplane flying into the building.

The very unfortunate thing about photos or film is it rarely if ever shows how actually huge a object really is in person. I think that most people don't understand how large of section of the building was actually destroyed.

For me the bigger question is how in the heck did Hani fly a jumbo jet 2 feet off the ground if were told he never even flew one except on simulators. All the while moving at 700 some odd feet per second.

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


Thanks to both Craig and to Stillresearching:

Speaking of fences I am still on mine. I don't see enough actual evidence of either sceanrio to be honest. While I can't grasp (as you mentioned still researching) the size and actions of a plane that close to the ground and the whole effect of it before impact...a plane hitting does seem reasonable in many contexts and in looking at a lot of photos, descriptions and aftermath.

then again be it more gut instinct than evidence, I just can't support the official story either. Some aftermath doesn't fit (the actual building damage for one) and the lawn, the reactions afterward, the sheer number of "coincidences"...

I appreciate the efforts both sides have done to try to present factual information and the less biased approach is also much appreciated.

The towers, the plane in the field, and the Pentagon...I know in my heart the official stories are not truth, however until absolute proof is presented otherwise I cannot completely condemn the official story.

I know I'm not alone on this fence

But thank you both for the insight.

reply to post by justgeneric


You bet justgeneric.

This is really nothing but a deprogramming process for all of us.

Have you seen the the video taped interviews with the two police officers at the gas station in The PentaCon?



If not please listen to what they had to say because they were there that day and if where they both place the plane (as corroborated by 10 others) is remotely accurate than it is 100% proof the plane did not hit.

No speculation, gut feelings, or fence sitting required!

[edit on 16-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I have thanks Craig, and to be honest I have a hard time digesting, the discrepancies. Personal accounts are notorious for being "off" even in teh case of the towers with people staring right at the second tower as the second plane hit.

If I were to recount what I saw on the news it would likely differ from another's account of the identical images.

The maths and trajectories of the pentagon explosion: I also fail to see how the official claims can stand when put into tabulated and graphic format.

Rather than concentrating efforts so much on what was claimed by either side I myself prefer to look harder at the mathematics of it all. You have done a great job presenting and tabulating that data BTW the comparisons between official data and trajectory are pretty stark.

Deprogrammed? LMAO - nah I just haven't seen the bit of information I need to conclude personally that that a missile hit the pentagon/ or that theere were two planes and one was a decoy, or that the entire flight plan was choreographed.... May never happen. At any rate blindly trusting the Gov's has never been an issue. I dislike and mistrust them all pretty evenly

Proof in the way it is available (knowing 100% conclusive proof will not come against the official story unless someone in the know starts talking) is a personal journey and really has less to do with programming. Each person comes to their personal truths and weighs in however they can.

I have followed a lot of the information you have provided and will continue But in the same right I also investigate the information that supports the official versions.

Life on the fence.



[edit on 1/16/2009 by justgeneric]

I wonder why they put a long bus in front of the impact zone... My money is on stopping the public from seeing what was being pulled out of the wreckage on the ground.

This doesn't look good for the official story.



[edit on 16-1-2009 by star in a jar]

[edit on 16-1-2009 by star in a jar]

Originally posted by justgeneric


If I were to recount what I saw on the news it would likely differ from another's account of the identical images.

That's the thing about this north side approach evidence.

The accounts do NOT differ.

They are all the same.

They ALL saw the plane on the north side.

Nobody saw 2 planes and nobody saw a missile and nobody saw a plane on the south side.

Perhaps you should check out our follow up here.

Deprogrammed? LMAO - nah I just haven't seen the bit of information I need to conclude personally that that a missile hit the pentagon/ or that theere were two planes and one was a decoy, or that the entire flight plan was choreographed.... May never happen. At any rate blindly trusting the Gov's has never been an issue. I dislike and mistrust them all pretty evenly

I didn't mean that as a personal dig. I only meant that ALL of us have been influenced one way or another by the constant lies and propaganda out there and it takes a deliberate effort to sift through it all as you clearly understand already.

Proof in the way it is available (knowing 100% conclusive proof will not come against the official story unless someone in the know starts talking) is a personal journey and really has less to do with programming. Each person comes to their personal truths and weighs in however they can.

I have followed a lot of the information you have provided and will continue

But in the same right I also investigate the information that supports the official versions.

Life on the fence.

That's a great approach man.

It's all about going through that process and finding out the truth on our own without ever putting to much weight on what someone else tells us.

Peace!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

That's the thing about this north side approach evidence.

The accounts do NOT differ.

They are all the same.

They ALL saw the plane on the north side.

I know you don't and can't answer my questions to you Craig, but can you tell us how many of your "witnesses" saw the aircraft plow into the building?

And the accounts are NOT all the same. Some have the aircraft flying over Arlington National Cemetery, making it a flight path from the north.. Some accounts having the aircraft slightly over the Annex. Some accounts (the ones you discount) have the aircraft over Columbia Pike or following I-395. Many accounts have the aircraft hitting the building.

You do have one thing right, though. All accounts are the same in that nobody saw a "flyover" or saw the aircraft on the eastern/Potomac side of the Pentagon.

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by pinch

I know you don't and can't answer my questions to you Craig, but can you tell us how many of your "witnesses" saw the aircraft plow into the building?

None of them.

We know this because it's impossible for the plane they all saw dozens of feet away from them as it passed on the north side to hit the building.

Many couldn't see the alleged impact point at all.

Sure they believed the plane hit but that was the entire purpose of this deception.

I know you like to dismiss evidence in favor of circular logic but that doesn't work for true critical thinkers and intellectually honest people pinch.

And the accounts are NOT all the same. Some have the aircraft flying over Arlington National Cemetery, making it a flight path from the north.. Some accounts having the aircraft slightly over the Annex. Some accounts (the ones you discount) have the aircraft over Columbia Pike or following I-395.

Minor differences due to perspective of course.

But all of them with the most critical and relevant vantage point put the plane ONA or NoC.

ALL of them.

This proves the plane did not hit regardless of whether or not they were deceived into believing it did.