Challenge to 757 impact at the Pentagon supporters...

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

My challenge for official story supporters is to provide independent verifiable evidence SPECIFICALLY that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

I suggest that they can provide none whatsoever.

As this thread has shown so far, you are absolutely right, given that you are defining "independent verifiable evidence."

How are we defining this?

Evidence controlled and provided for solely by the government is not independent.

Alright then... the NTSB north-path supporting animation is out. The 'anomolus' FDR data proving a cover-up is out. Your Pentagon police officers are far out of bounds. Your Citgo employee is out (military facility). Your 'proof' the video that discredits him is altered is out (the word of the manager of said facility). The FEMA photos that prove no plane - outski. That leaves you not much.

For my side, well I never accepted those standards, so I still accept everything with a grain or three of salt, government, 'independent, previously published, whatever....

Anyone who accepts the challenge and fails to provide the evidence requested must concede that I am correct or admit that they have chosen to reject scientific reasoning and evidence in favor of nothing but pure unadulterated faith in the government.

Of course they'll fail. But neither I nor anyone 'must' do any such thing just cuase you say. Hell, there's not even a good reason to say they SHOULD do that, let alone MUST. We all owe you nothing, or less.

So what other clues have you offered of what you WOULD accept?

Until you personally obtain or find a video or audio account of a witness who was an aviation professional that could definitively tell it was a 757 and was in a position to definitively see it enter the building as reported you have nothing and must admit that your belief in the official story is faith based.

And when are you going to admit your argument is faith-based? As in faith in your hunches the damage isn't right, faith in witnesses that help explain why, and inverse faith (automatic unquestioning rejection) of anything contrary whatever the source and by any means necessary?

Alright tho... if I could find an account of what you consider an aviation pro that tags it as a 757 who sees it enter clearly. Ah! I see why you did t this way. Many many people saw A plane - THE plane - enter the building, and said so. No pull-up clues. It was low - it impacted low - and disappeared then. Among them are such suspicious witnesses as McGraw, Elgas, Walter... Lagasse, Brooks... Lagasse is even a real plane person, and identified it as a AA 757. But he's not an aviation PROFESSIONAL, and he didn't report it enter the building AS REPORTED. He said the 757 entered from north of the Citgo. So it must've flown over.

As for the others, maybe they saw a 747 or a 737 or some other irrelevant plane enter the building, so the 757 must've flown over. Right?

Now that is some darn scientific reasoning there. You got us all good. I could check my files for a better account that fits all your params, but what if I found one? Is male OR female okay? Gov. employees out I assume? But see, I don't have time for these games. Good day.


[edit on 6-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

So, wouldn't all this be finally put to rest if the FBI released the tapes they confiscated from the Hilton and the Citgo what, 30 minutes after the crash?? I wish they would, you know, it seems like the right thing to do...

reply to post by Pilot



Uh... there's no Hilton tape I know of and the Citgo video was released a year and a half ago. It didn't put *** to rest, of course. Apparently nothing will. Ever.

Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, and US Air Force Lt. Col. Bob Bowman are all neutral about the pentagon ... which is a clear sign that a missile/global hawk hitting the pentagon is a pretty weak argument.

Also, Michael Rivero from whatreallyhappened.com, Jeff Rense from rense.com, and Jim Hoffman from wtc7.net who are almost always spot on, think that Flight 77 DID hit the pentagon.

Here are some pretty solid cases that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, all made by 9/11 Truth Members.

A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

www.rense.com...

911research.wtc7.net...



I assume mostly everybody here is on the same side and thinks that 9/11 was an inside job.

The 9/11 Truth Movement will be MUCH stronger if everybody is on the same page.

So maybe people should quit fighting and join forces about things they ALL agree on.

Such as ...





Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission clearly proves that Dick Cheney allowed Flight 77 to hit the pentagon.

Watch here:

www.youtube.com...

www.patriotsquestion911.com...

Or the ridiculous notion that Hani Hanjour was able to execute a 270 degree turn at 400 mph in a 757 but he couldn't even fly a Cessna just three weeks prior to 9/11???







Hanjour began making cross-country flights in August to test security, and tried to rent a small Cessna 172 plane from Freeway Airport in Maryland, though he was declined after exhibiting poor flying skills.

en.wikipedia.org...

The plane was obviously flown by remote control ala Operation Northwoods (1962) which = INSIDE JOB!

A couple of interesting threads on the pentagon & 9/11:

forum.prisonplanet.com...

forums.mmaweekly.com...





[edit on 6-4-2008 by Markshark4]

[edit on 6-4-2008 by Markshark4]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by snoopy

 

So now scientific reasoning is a card trick?

No it's not. but what you are doing is not scientific period let alone scientific reasoning.

As far as the MANY witnesses presented that smelled jet fuel......

How were people AWAY from the generator splashed with jet fuel? Burnt by jet fuel? Were told that they inhaled jet fuel.....If you read some of them, you will see that one man saw pools of jet fuel and watched them ignite.



Weak.

Again, Craig you claim to have found one firefighter that claims that no plane crashed there.

There are MANY more that were there and will say differently.

How many firefighters did you interview? Will you present the entire list of firefighters that you interviewed?

Did you interview ones that SAW plane debris? That FOUND passengers belonging?

You will once again cherry pick your witnesses to fit your agenda.

Have you attempted to contact any of the contractors that were doing the renovations on wedge 1? They were involved from demolition to all the renovations of that wedge. Maybe you will find a whistle blower in there since they would have to have known if your magical monkey charges were planted in the walls they built.

THEN you accuse ME of spamming. I am showing you actual quotes of people that were there, or close to.

THEN you suggest because a guy has a weird smirk on his face....he is somehow part of the conspiracy? Because he was 15 minutes off? I bet if you interviewed him TODAY....his story will probably change even more. Thats what happens with witnesses.

Remember the witnesses I posted..most were interviewed within DAYS after the attack. not YEARS.











[edit on 6-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Lets look at some old evidence ....it maybe new for others. Sorry if you think this is spam Craig. It's evidence in most other peoples eyes.

What caused the gouge on the top of this generator?
Why is the generator angled away from the Pentagon if the bombs were inside?



[edit on 6-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Evidence... evidence......

Did this person watch the light poles get planted in front of his car?

Did your exhaustive research consist of contacting the owner of this vehicle?



IF you are the talented investigator you claim to be.... who owns this vehicle? What was his statement?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
As far as the MANY witnesses presented that smelled jet fuel......

How were people AWAY from the generator splashed with jet fuel? Burnt by jet fuel? Were told that they inhaled jet fuel.....If you read some of them, you will see that one man saw pools of jet fuel and watched them ignite.

Pools of jet fuel and watched them ignite???

Perhaps somebody believed that's what they saw in all the chaos but it clearly does not make any sense as the jet fuel would have ignited on impact.


The notion that it would gather in "pools" and ignite LATER is ridiculous.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Lets look at some old evidence ....it maybe new for others. Sorry if you think this is spam Craig. It's evidence in most other peoples eyes.

What caused the gouge on the top of this generator?

Oh goodness you aren't REALLY going to suggest that "gouge" was from the flap track on the wing of the plane are you?

That was debunked ages ago.

This is impossible even if the plane was level but is even more impossible considering the wing tilt reported by the ASCE.



But if that bend in the corner was REALLY from the right engine the plane would have to be higher than that.

This image even places the plane LOWER than the damage to the trailer:


The flap track of the wing could NOT have created that gouge.

It had to have been pre-fabricated.

This image is from before 9/11 and it looks like the "gouge" is already there:



Here is a close-up of it from the side on 9/11:





As far as the bend in the corner of the trailer....that is likely nothing but the metal warping/failing from the intense heat of the fire:

Why is the generator angled away from the Pentagon if the bombs were inside?

We have evidence that they probably simply moved the entire trailer at an angle the day before.

We know that according to the renovation manager Lee Evey that the renovation of that section that had been going on for years would have been completed in a mere 5 days after 9/11.

"That's the one million square feet of office space that originally held 5,000 people that we were about five days away from completing at the morning of September 11th."
source

We also now know from a recently released interview by the Center for Military History that on 9/10 they were moving around trailers!

"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

So they could have easily unpinned the generator trailer and moved it at an angle as if they were getting ready to move it.

In essence nothing they did in the area in preparation for the attack would be seen as suspicious because they had the renovation wrap up to use as the perfect cover.

For instance they could have easily brought in an industrial sized dumpster packed with explosives and tiny pieces plane debris to be blown all over the lawn.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Thats not true. If you look at the WTC crashes, thousands of gallons of jet fuel made it's way down elevator shafts.

The most bizarre part of this whole thing is that perfect circle in the reinforced concrete wall at the exit into the C ring alley. What made that hole? Not an engine, that's for sure. We have been told that is where the nose of the plane skidded through finally? How many times a year do these nose pieces on airliners have to be replaced because they hit small birds? The front end of the plane is so fragile it is ridiculous - a good kick with boots would go right through it. Other than the skeletal system of a plane the skin is extremely thin aluminum for the most part - and under the nose is a lot of very fragile electronics and not much else.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't "suggest" anything. I was asking WHAT caused it. Your grainy picture shows nothing.


And the heat from the explosion would NOT cause the metal to tear like that.
Look at the picture you posted.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It had to have been pre-fabricated.

Why is the generator angled away from the Pentagon if the bombs were inside?


We also now know from a recently released interview by the Center for Military History that on 9/10 they were moving around trailers!

So they could have easily unpinned the generator trailer and moved it at an angle as if they were getting ready to move it.

In essence nothing they did in the area in preparation for the attack would be seen as suspicious because they had the renovation wrap up to use as the perfect cover.

For instance they could have easily brought in an industrial sized dumpster packed with explosives and tiny pieces plane debris to be blown all over the lawn.

Your kidding right??

A dumpster filled with plane parts and bombs? Tiny pieces? How were the engine parts removed from this dumpster. I am assuming you are talking about a 30 yard or so open top? Was a fork lift used to carry this equipment?

Don't you think THIS would be suspicious? Come on Craig. This is down right silly.

Running around on the lawn of the pentagon with plane parts is not suspicious?

The generator was on a tailer YES. Why would it have to be moved at an angle days prior to moving it?



[edit on 6-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]

reply to post by Caustic Logic


UH...where can I get a look at this citgo video? I've never seen it. Yes, early reports did mention one taken from the Hilton.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

Thats not true. If you look at the WTC crashes, thousands of gallons of jet fuel made it's way down elevator shafts.

Although I intended to sit in the audience and watch you guys debate this I have to chime in just to get a clear answer. If you have a link to direct me to the answer that will suffice.

However if thousands of gallons of jet fuel went down the WTC shafts, how much was left on the floors that the planes hit to generate the extreme heat that weakened the structure?

Not trying to argue.

To the OP. I understand what your point is but I am afraid that any evidence of the incident (note I did not say accident) at the pentagon is now government property due to the investigation. Anyone who would have any evidence that could add to the official investigations (i.e. photos, video etc.) could be in some deep doo-doo if they did not provide it long ago.
So, technically NO ONE could provide you with anything that would not be considered linked to the government investigation without fear of serious repercussions. With that in mind, I really do not think anyone's evidence can be relevant to your challenge without being suspect of government tampering. So all this does is make this thread a HUGE argument that will have no end, which is cool with me because it is interesting to watch, but eventually will lose steam with no clear winner.

How far does it go until it is realized that the thread is not very productive, just repetitive?

Not trying to get in a big pissing match with ANYONE!
I'm just sayin......

[edit on 6-4-2008 by hybridx]

[edit on 6-4-2008 by hybridx]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Evidence... evidence......

Did this person watch the light poles get planted in front of his car?

Did your exhaustive research consist of contacting the owner of this vehicle?

Oh believe me we tried.

Those government plates don't lead us to an individual but if you can figure out his name please let us know.

We think the black dude in the pressed shirt was driving the Saturn and the red haired dude walking around with a clip board was driving the Jeep Cherokee.


full image

If you look at the sequence of Ingersoll images you can see how much control these guys had of the scene after they blocked traffic on that side and how little people on the other side would have been able to see particularly due to the double guardrails from the HOV lane.






Clearly they had that scene on lock.

The entire sequence with time stamps is presented in order here.

Although you can't tell for sure I think these images reveal when they planted pole number one.

The scratch in the road certainly reveals how the pole was moved:


So why did they move it to the middle of the road?

And if they moved it then how come it is perfectly placed with the top lamp part and the scattered debris as if it landed just like that and they didn't touch it?

As it stands.....I am the only one who has presented independent verifiable evidence that supports the official story.

Unfortunately it doesn't play out for the official story very well since it's from that extremely suspicious Aziz guy who was busted NOT being on the highway at the time of the attack like he said.



Do you people understand the implications of this?

Have fun trying to find more.

I'll give you hint....there is at least one other recorded first hand account from an alleged aviation professional that may seem to support the official story.

I'm out until later tonight.

reply to post by hybridx


Hybrid,

Quote simple. The jet fuel was not the only cause of the weakening of the steel. The fuel was a accelerent for the office fires that were burning. This along with the damage from the airplanes caused this.

Please keep in mind this is for the Pentagon. Craig may get upset if you derail.

Thanks,
C.O.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


So the guy driving the Saturn was a fed? Is that what you are suggesting?

His plate states that he is a firefighter in Virginia. I am not familiar with govt. plates in VA. Perhaps you know of someone at the VA DMV that will be able to help you out?