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.

 

Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

page: 11
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Seanm wrote:

Did you forget to consider the angle of impact, or did you just assume it must have been straight down?

Alien:
1) No-& straight down-- because the tail doesn't show any tail 1st impact - so it could not have hit tail first - and the Horizontal stabilizers don't show impact damage consistant with the jet hitting sideways....the diagrams of the 757 show impact as slightly off center of the pentagon-which in my book, should have thrown larger pieces of the jet slightly askew - meaning it wasn't a total front solid impact - it was at an angle and should have rapidly decelerated - just like the Helios 737 crash in Greece....we're talking SOLID earth! Boom! ...and the tail is in virtually one piece on the Hillside - why wouldn't the dymanics of a 757 hitting the pentagon be really any different than striking the Earth? The American Airlines 757 that crashed in late 1990's in South America - what? 5 people survived that - be-e-e-e-e-c-a-u-s-e? they were seated by the back tail section. One minute going 150mph + airborne- the next minute they were on the ground wondering where in the **** were they?

SEA-Alien wrote:
2) The Alleged Pentagon 757 crash - flying low at near 500 mph( paraphrashing here) hits a slightly movable-pliable outside wall structure- though re-inforced- but has openings- windows- nooks and crannies- yet disintegrates to almost nothing - except a few non-charred pieces out side the building...?

Seanm wrote:
So what?

Alien:
Look a the Helios crash - I see the dymanics as virtually the same! That is a big factor - it doesn't appear the Helios Airliner hit tail 1st..!

SEA-Alien wrote:
3) Why does the red ball of fire seem to go straight up and not blow sideways also? Was the flashpoint in the 757's wings so ready that it instantly exploded upwards...? Why not down and sideways - boiling jet fuel aflame all over the ground running down gutters every which way? No blast back charring the ground for hundreds of feet..? Watch the video of the recent China Airlines 737-800 landing and burnout and see how long it takes to get ignited..plenty of time to escape - why didn't it explode 'right away"..?

Seanm wrote:
On what basis should you imagine what should have happened?

Alien
The jet should have crumpled - rapidly decelerated - fell to the ground on the tail side(much like the Helios crash did.)- and then burned - unless we are missing critical pieces of the parking gate video montage - it appears that the entire jet 'just blew up' with a high flashpoint explosion - upwards - I would expect it to continue forward with the rest of the momentum-splashing sideways aflame-& downwards and backwards after blasting into the wall..it(fireball and jet fuel) seems to just have 'stayed right there' by the burned area, like it blows straight up from the ground. I also question it 'blowing up' on impact so completely. The Souix City United Airlines DC-10 crash didn't disintegrate on impact either - it burned - but left HUGE chunks of a/c all over the cornfield...

Alien:
4) Why was there a hole in the C ring - opposite side - an Aluminum jet piercing that far through the building - strong enough for that - but not strong enough to show a little bit of tail after rapid deceleration into the building - d*mn strong noses on that 757.!!!

Seanm wrote:
Did you consider that the landing gears are not made of flimsy aluminum? You realize that the hole was created by one of them, don't you? Sometimes, "unanswered" questions have long-since been addressed, legitimate questions or not.

SEA-Alien wrote:
No--I saw pictures of the '3rd ring' with a huge hole blasted out of it - with charred burn marks on it - not the first inside wall.....if one looks at that aerial photo of a few days after the fire was out, there is a huge hole in the '3rd inner ring' straight in line with the impact. I doubt the landing gear did that 3 rings in.


SEA- Alien




posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


You've been ignoring me lately.

Any chance of getting you to respond to this post?



Yeah, and before that, I was ignoring my gilfriend and bills and stuff. I got things on a better rotation now.

Somehow I didn't see that post, but it's coming up in its own window and all, so I'll find and quote it, sure. Some might call it a loylty test, but I'll just take it as I do.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Craig, if you're so sure this is a small pile of rubble, where's that rebar sticking out from? Please explain this if you can.


I haven't read the entire thread yet but I just wanted to point out that what appears to be rebar looks too close together in my opinion. I could be wrong about the pentagon but a slab usually has the rebar at the bottom tension side. It could be close to a column (which needs rebar on the tension top side) but it still looks too closely bundled to me to look like rebar.

Disclaimer: I am not saying one way or another that I believe this or that about the pentagon. I haven't researched the pentagon as much as I should.


I don't think it could be much other tha re-bar, but being clustered in what, six bars? indicates it's the remains of a column, which have six bars surrounded by another spiraling bar welded on and filled/encased in squared concrete.

There are two other bars at least as well to the left... not so sure there, but likely also part of a column.

So the rebar is probably NOT the clue I first thought. But what do you think of the pile? Is it the florr or on top of it? (see my first post for a link to more photos)



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


This thing wasn't a kite. 757 have a lot of momentum which their bodies would retain until stopped. Even if it was blowing up too, the explosion would move forward, as it seems to from the video.




Why would you cite a video that is contradicted by the physical evidence (lack of foundation damage) and the FDR?


To illustrate my point, and because there's something wrong with both the FDR and your foundation analysis. I can't put my finger on either, sure, but I only have so many fingers, dude.

How do you determine which part of the contradictory story to accept and why?

The parts that aren't contradictory, because they line up.


I see from this thread that you believe the building 7 damage photo was faked.


Yeah, I thought there was a good case to make for that, but no one else agrees on either side, saying none are fake and the appearances are all in photo angles. So I'm probably wrong, I guess. Just a side-note, something bugging me since May. It's a damn weird illusion, anyway.


Please answer these questions for the record:

Yes sir, I once was a member of the Communist Party.



1. Do you believe in controlled demolition of building 7 and/or the towers?

No I don't believe in it, but it's entirely possible. Some clues for and against and I honestly don't know.
9/11 Blasphemy!


2. If so is it fair to suggest that they were rigged with explosives by "psyops crews"?

Certainly fair to suggest. More 'explosives' than pure psyops of course.


3. If so would you consider pre-fabricating the damage of the light poles by said "psyops crews" to be more or less believable?


Mmmm... less. By a bit. If the towers had to fall, it perhaps could not be left to chance - so the wiring, which luckily has remained under wraps. But at the Pgon, an RC or hijacked plane on the official path explains EVERYTHING except your eyewitnesses, hands down.

[edit on 5-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   


Duh! Sorry - that's one long bar, very long, with a small riveted scrap of metal hanging off of it. Sorta like what MoD was looking for with the light poles. Huh! This one is obviously plantable, of course. Probably not a big deal but interesting.

AND here's a thought on the undamaged foundation:


Water, mud, tiny debris, tire tracks... is it possible this stuff has filled in the scrapes, gouges and cracks here, and been wetted and flattened down to look like concrete? Would it not, to some extent, be fresh concrete itself? Yes, it's very possible.


This spot was scraped clean - which might have helped level the surface. This would not cover major damage, inches-wide gouges, etc. but again, this is just inside, where the bulk of the plane is said to have ented just above grade and with generally forward momentum, doing far more damage to the second floor slab above.

If you want to really make the case, Craig, dig around for virgin floor deeper in, where it would be grinding to a halt. find some shots looking right down at cleared but un-muddied concrete in the D or C rings and show us some smoothness there. This just doesn't cut it for me.

[edit on 5-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 5-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SEA-Alien
Seanm wrote:

Did you forget to consider the angle of impact, or did you just assume it must have been straight down?

Alien:
1) No-& straight down-- because the tail doesn't show any tail 1st impact - so it could not have hit tail first - and the Horizontal stabilizers don't show impact damage consitant with the jet hitting sideways...


The "angle of impact" refers to the angle of approach of the plane to the ground. Straight down means a 90 degree angle to the ground; a landing plane typically approaches the runaway at a 2 - 3 degree angle before flaring for landing. I doesn't mean a plane hit tail first or sideways.

There are many crashes that occur at a relatively low angle of impact and the tail is often the one remaining intact piece of debris. This was true of the Helios crash:

www.airdisaster.com...

as well as the Ron Brown crash:

www.airdisaster.com...

A 757 moving at over 400 mph hitting a solid structure like the Pentagon would not be expected to have many large left other than the solid parts like engines.


Alien:
Look a the Helios crash - I see the dymanics as virtually the same! That is a big factor - it doesn't appear the Helios Airliner hit tail 1st..!


Thinking a plane would hit tail first is rather bizarre.


SEA-Alien wrote:
3) Why does the red ball of fire seem to go straight up and not blow sideways also? Was the flashpoint in the 757's wings so ready that it instantly exploded upwards...? Why not down and sideways - boiling jet fuel aflame all over the ground running down gutters every which way? No blast back charring the ground for hundreds of feet..? Watch the video of the recent China Airlines 737-800 landing and burnout and see how long it takes to get ignited..plenty of time to escape - why didn't it explode 'right away"..?


You have no basis for thinking something should have happened differently than it did happen. And every crash is unique, making your comparison with China Airlines meaningless.


Alien
The jet should have crumpled - rapidly decelerated - fell to the ground on the tail side(much like the Helios crash did.)- and then burned -


Ditto.


Alien:
4) Why was there a hole in the C ring - opposite side - an Aluminum jet piercing that far through the building - strong enough for that - but not strong enough to show a little bit of tail after rapid deceleration into the building - d*mn strong noses on that 757.!!!


Ditto.


Seanm wrote:
Did you consider that the landing gears are not made of flimsy aluminum? You realize that the hole was created by one of them, don't you? Sometimes, "unanswered" questions have long-since been addressed, legitimate questions or not.


SEA-Alien wrote:
No--I saw pictures of the '3rd ring' with a huge hole blasted out of it - with charred burn marks on it - not the first inside wall.....if one looks at that aerial photo of a few days after the fire was out, there is a huge hole in the '3rd inner ring' straight in line with the impact. I doubt the landing gear did that 3 rings in.


Doubt all you want, but what you imagine should have happened is different than what hundreds of people who know better know what happened.

Amateur research like yours is fun but you need to learn the subject matter first.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Why do you assume there must be a "scrap of jet" attached to the light poles?

Because you don't just plow through light poles at 500 MPH and expect the wing panels to remain attached to the wing. This of course, assuming the official flight path is the correct one. Which brings us back to the physical damage suggesting a squarer impact with the building. Which brings us bak to the official story being one of fabrication......

I'm asking what you basically consider dumb questions deliberately. I believe they call it playing "Devils Advocate". In terms of the flight path, the alternate theory put forward by CIT is much more plausible than the official stories, given the complete lack of any damage or debris to or on the lawn.

I'm still on the fence. To get to the truth however, you have to eliminate all possibilities. Instead of responding with your rhetoric, you'd do better to provide some counter-evidence that I can't pull apart (unlike the list of witnesses you cited earlier).

@CL: I hope that comment wasn't aimed at me.
Both yourself and Craig provide some excellent arguments for your case. From my own examinations of the FDR data (considering it could be tampered with), either an over-flight occurred (FDR) or the official flight path is wrong (CIT, FDR) or both the FDR and CIT are wrong, and it hit the light poles and ploughed into the building (Official Story).

@seanm: Please, show me some hard evidence of your claims. You're new to ATS. I don't know who you are or what you bring to the table, other than the fact you seem to be pro Official Story at this point and are looking for trouble.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
To illustrate my point, and because there's something wrong with both the FDR and your foundation analysis. I can't put my finger on either, sure, but I only have so many fingers, dude.


The only thing "wrong" with it is the fact that it points to a military deception which is ultimately proven by the eyewitnesses.

Now that I know you won't even "put a finger" on controlled demo of building 7 I'm curious what you HAVE put your finger on that proves to you 9/11 was an inside job.

Anything?

You have 10 fingers you know.



How do you determine which part of the contradictory story to accept and why?


The parts that aren't contradictory, because they line up.



That answer is very telling. You have to reconcile all evidence or a deception is uncovered. If entire evidence categories are contradictory they don't "line up". The FDR and the eyewitnesses do not "line up" with the physical evidence which has issues of it's own. All evidence MUST line up or the lie becomes exposed. Quite odd how you proclaim to believe 9/11 was an inside job yet insist on dismissing the evidence that proves it purely in favor of the evidence that "lines up" with the official story.




I see from this thread that you believe the building 7 damage photo was faked.


Yeah, I thought there was a good case to make for that, but no one else agrees on either side, saying none are fake and the appearances are all in photo angles. So I'm probably wrong, I guess. Just a side-note, something bugging me since May. It's a damn weird illusion, anyway.


Dude you are worse than John Kerry. Talk about wishy-washy! I guess it is hard to reconcile the notion that the image would be faked if you don't even believe the building was deliberately demolished.




1. Do you believe in controlled demolition of building 7 and/or the towers?

No I don't believe in it, but it's entirely possible. Some clues for and against and I honestly don't know.
9/11 Blasphemy!


I really didn't expect this even from a non-committal, neutralizing, obfuscating blogger such as yourself.

Do you even believe 9/11 was an inside job?

If so MIHOP or LIHOP?




2. If so is it fair to suggest that they were rigged with explosives by "psyops crews"?

Certainly fair to suggest. More 'explosives' than pure psyops of course.


Since you don't even believe in controlled demo answering this question was kind of pointless.

My point in asking it is that, no matter how you look at it, a lot of people had to be involved with this operation so to sardonically refer to any of them as "psyops crews" as if that is unlikely during an operation of this nature is rhetoric that can only fairly be used by official conspiracy theory supporters.

Are you sure you believe 9/11 was an inside job?





3. If so would you consider pre-fabricating the damage of the light poles by said "psyops crews" to be more or less believable?


Mmmm... less. By a bit. If the towers had to fall, it perhaps could not be left to chance - so the wiring, which luckily has remained under wraps. But at the Pgon, an RC or hijacked plane on the official path explains EVERYTHING except your eyewitnesses, hands down.



You completely misinterpreted my question. (I believe deliberately)

I was hypothetically referring to the complexity of both claims compared to each other.

The question isn't really effective for someone like you who doesn't even believe in controlled demolition of the towers or building 7, however, the point is that the complexity of pre-fabricating/staging the light poles (and physical damage of the Pentagon in general) is clearly minuscule compared to the incredible undertaking of a covert triple controlled demolition in downtown Manhattan.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Duh! Sorry - that's one long bar, very long, with a small riveted scrap of metal hanging off of it. Sorta like what MoD was looking for with the light poles. Huh! This one is obviously plantable, of course. Probably not a big deal but interesting.


It's obviously rebar and it's obviously from the columns and not the foundation.





AND here's a thought on the undamaged foundation:


Water, mud, tiny debris, tire tracks... is it possible this stuff has filled in the scrapes, gouges and cracks here, and been wetted and flattened down to look like concrete? Would it not, to some extent, be fresh concrete itself? Yes, it's very possible.


OMG!

Fresh concrete?! You KNOW you don't believe that yet you are STILL deceptively throwing it out there to help cast doubt because you understand how damning this is to your dogmatic support of the official story.

The reason I know you don't believe it is because you have stated your knowledge these are FEMA photos taken by Jocelyn Augustino.

They are officially hosted with dates provided and everything.

I don't believe for a single second that you didn't know all images referenced in the OP of this thread were taken on September 21st 2001.

Why are you asserting that it is "very possible" they would lay fresh concrete within 10 days of the attack??

The clean up effort is obviously not finished in these images as there is tons of visible dirt and debris.

I'm sorry Frustrated Fraud but this post was very deceptive on your part and quite representative of your typical approach to discussion of 9/11 evidence.





This spot was scraped clean - which might have helped level the surface. This would not cover major damage, inches-wide gouges, etc. but again, this is just inside, where the bulk of the plane is said to have ented just above grade and with generally forward momentum, doing far more damage to the second floor slab above.


You have got to be kidding. Listen to yourself! The first floor is about 14 feet and ALL damage was limited to the first two floors. But the wings, engines, and more than the bottom half of the fuselage which combined is virtually the entire mass and weight of the plane would have entered in the first floor. The upper half of the fuselage is relatively a tiny percentage of the weight of the craft.

The notion that this incredible mass would glide over the foundation AT ALL without touching it as it had to the lawn is insane.

Considering the REQUIRED wing tilt and of course the FDR reported (and topography required) descent angle and you are simply living in a dream world devoid from any concept of physics and reality.

Is the official story really that important to you?



If you want to really make the case, Craig, dig around for virgin floor deeper in, where it would be grinding to a halt. find some shots looking right down at cleared but un-muddied concrete in the D or C rings and show us some smoothness there. This just doesn't cut it for me.


Stop playing dumb. Stop acting like you don't know where the FEMA photo library is.

How about if YOU find a photo showing damage? Hmmmm? Having trouble are you?

Clearly you are. Jocelyn took A LOT of images of the inside of the building and of course there is more "virgin floor" deeper in.

(all images below ALSO taken on 9/21/2001)








[edit on 5-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
CL's ludicrous claim that the "forward momentum" of a 757 after impact could possibly allow it to remain "above grade" without touching the foundation is so absurd that it I feel it's time to refocus on the size of the plane in relation to the the damaged portion of the building. (limited to bottom 2 floors).

These composite images are a bit crude but definitely help put the dimensions that we are talking about here back in perspective.

First let's not forget how the ASCE depicts the plane entering the buidling:


Almost the entire fuselage would have to enter in the first floor.

Here is the first floor only with a couple of humans and a car for scale:







A 757 next to the same type of fire engines at the Pentagon for scale:




posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

This spot was scraped clean - which might have helped level the surface.


Oh and I wanted to ask you what you could possibly have meant by this.

"Scraped clean"?

With what?

What could possibly scrape out damage in concrete without leaving scrape marks and what is your basis to make such an absurd claim?

What's really strange is how you simply state it as if it's fact.

As if you know they used some sort of concrete scraper to "clean" the damage out of the foundation before taking these photos.

Are you starting to see how ridiculous your arguments are yet?



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
What's ALSO ridiculous is this quote from CL:



If you want to really make the case, Craig, dig around for virgin floor deeper in, where it would be grinding to a halt.


Grinding to a halt??



With this statement you are directly implying a semi-intact aircraft was found just sitting there on the inside of the C-ring hole.

It's like you'll simply say anything to cast doubt regardless of how little sense it makes with all other known facts.

But guess what?

There was no foundation damage where it would have "ground to a halt" either.




posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 





The only thing "wrong" with it is the fact that it points to a military deception which is ultimately proven by the eyewitnesses.


Here is the problem.

Who's witnesses Craig? Your four? How about these ones?

Heres a taste.


Deb Anlauf
Anlauf was watching TV coverage of the Trade Center burning shortly before 9:30 a.m. when she decided to return to her 14th-floor room from another part of the hotel. Once in her room, she heard a "loud roar" and looked out the window to see what was going on.

"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."


So. Only your witnesses are telling the truth?

CT



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Why do you assume there must be a "scrap of jet" attached to the light poles?

Because you don't just plow through light poles at 500 MPH and expect the wing panels to remain attached to the wing.


That's just another one of your assumptions. You actually don't have any evidence to support your claim.


I'm asking what you basically consider dumb questions deliberately. I believe they call it playing "Devils Advocate". In terms of the flight path, the alternate theory put forward by CIT is much more plausible than the official stories, given the complete lack of any damage or debris to or on the lawn.


In other words, you assume there should be must more debris on the lawn other than the documented debris but you have no evidence to support you claim. Assumptions of what you think should have happened are irrelevant. You need hard evidence. Where is it?


I'm still on the fence. To get to the truth however, you have to eliminate all possibilities. Instead of responding with your rhetoric, you'd do better to provide some counter-evidence that I can't pull apart (unlike the list of witnesses you cited earlier).


Let's be clear once again. The responsibility to provide evidence that no 757 hit the Pentagon is entirely yours. Your imagined assumptions do not qualify. But yes, you have to eliminate all possibilities.


@seanm: Please, show me some hard evidence of your claims.


Dodging doesn't work. You're making the claims. Support them with actual evidence, not assumptions.


You're new to ATS. I don't know who you are or what you bring to the table, other than the fact you seem to be pro Official Story at this point and are looking for trouble.


You can begin by dispensing with the "Official Story" nonsense. 9/11 Truthers have been so brainwashed by their "leaders" and each other that there is some magical "official story" that they have lost sight of the fact that that there is only the evidence from hundreds of different independent sources.

Give up the nonsense about an "official story." There is not one, and never has been.

Now, here is where you can start to "eliminate all possibilities."

Let's start with the existence or non-existence of AA77 on the morning of 9/11. Provide the accounts of ground crews whose responsibilities were to check and fuel the aircraft, clean and provision the plane, attend to maintenance, baggage handlers loading the plane, ticket agents checking luggage at the counter, ticket agents taking tickets as passengers boarded, and dispatchers giving the flight officers weather, anticipated weight and passenger loads, and route instructions.

How did the passengers get there? Taxi, their own cars, dropped off by relatives?

Provide the accounts of ATC ground control as it gave AA77 clearance to back off from the gate and taxi to the runway for takeoff. Were there other flights taxiing behind AA77? What time did the control tower clear AA77 for takeoff? Provide the accounts and instructions from ATC from takeoff clearance from the control tower to handoff to departure control and finally to air traffic control.

This is a start. If you agree that AA77 existed, tookoff, had the passengers, and was a legit flight, then we can move on to the next phase.

If you question AA77's existence to begin with, then we have a minimum number of people listed above who would have had to have known if Flight 77 existed or not. Agreed?

Proceed with your evidence.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Theorist
 


If Deb Anlauf is a genuine witness she simply saw a plane and the explosion and was fooled by the sleight of hand deception like most others. (including the citgo witnesses)

She would not have been able to see the physical "impact" from that far away. I know because we stayed on the 14th floor of that hotel just like she allegedly did.

She does not specify if the plane was on the north or south of the citgo or Navy Annex so she does NOT contradict the witnesses we present.

However....Steve Ross was also at the Sheraton.
account available on webarchive if you search this url:
www.intermind.net...

On this site:
web.archive.org...



Image taken from her room:


He didn't see the plane but his Boss' ex-gf/wife did.

She specifically says the plane crossed over to the NORTH of the Navy Annex.


. The plane then went behind the trees and the office building to the north of us, then a huge fire ball emerged behind them. She then quickly ran down stairs just as the fire alarm sounded.


This is irreconcilable with the physical damage and corroborates Edward Paik and the Citgo witnesses 100%.




I talked to Steve Ross on the phone and he confirmed this as well as confirmed which way "north" was because he knew the Pentagon was "due east" of them so he was not mistaken in that regard.

We were trying to get set up with his Boss's gf to get the account first hand but Steve said they had since married and divorced and that he has a different boss now and had no idea how to get a hold of his old boss' ex-wife.


You see THIS is the type of effort it takes to get to the bottom of these witness accounts.

You call the Citgo witnesses "my" witnesses but they are simply some of the only CONFIRMED first-hand accounts that exist.

OF COURSE we should put a larger emphasis on confirmed testimony that proves the official story false over unconfirmed mainstream media reports.

Have you seen our recently released 10 minute short showing you part of the reason WHY we can't trust the mainstream media accounts?

We have tried contacting Deb Anlauf to confirm her account and even have her phone number but she hasn't called us back.

Bottom line NONE of the witness testimony can be accepted out of hand without scrutiny and investigation.




[edit on 5-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
How about these ones?



Oh and let me add....

I have gone through this entire list many times over and know it like the back of my hand.

1. NONE specifically place the plane on the south side of the station so therefore none directly contradict the citgo witnesses.

2. NONE claim that they specifically SAW the light pole spear Lloyd's taxicab.

3. NONE claim they saw the smoke trail that is visible in the security video and has been alleged to come from when the engine hit a light pole.






Being a witness to the plane and hearing the explosion is NOT being a witness to the alleged impact.

Because of the complex topography with the Pentagon at the bottom of a significant hill VERY few people would be in a position to physically see the impact.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Anyone wanting to know that route of FLight 77 just has to go to the NTSB website and fill out a FOIA form and request the data from the Flight Data Recorder.

I received 2 CDs , 1 with data and 1 with the animation of the flight path.

[edit on 5-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Anyone wanting to know that route of FLight 77 just has to go to the NTSB website and fill out a FOIA form and request the data from the Flight Data Recorder.

I received 2 CDs , 1 with data and 1 with the animation of the flight path.

[edit on 5-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



By 9/11 Truth Movement rules, Craig Ranke has declared that any real evidence presented here is verboten and therefore does not count.

That's how 9/11 Denial works.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
If you accept the FDR as valid then you prove the official story incorrect.

The data is irreconcilable with the physical damage and the security video primarily due to the reported descent angle.





These are the facts.

It is the Official Conspiracy Theory followers who are denying the facts while we take them head on.



[edit on 5-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
@CL: I hope that comment wasn't aimed at me.
Both yourself and Craig provide some excellent arguments for your case. From my own examinations of the FDR data (considering it could be tampered with), either an over-flight occurred (FDR) or the official flight path is wrong (CIT, FDR) or both the FDR and CIT are wrong, and it hit the light poles and ploughed into the building (Official Story).


Comment? That was all in response to Craig and Griff. That's a pretty broad range of options there for the FDR.


@seanm: Please, show me some hard evidence of your claims. You're new to ATS. I don't know who you are or what you bring to the table, other than the fact you seem to be pro Official Story at this point and are looking for trouble.


Somehow this comes out sounding bad, but I think I understand.




top topics



 
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join