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.

 

Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over.

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Who ever said that math wasn't fun?

Math is fun, Dave. So let me school you through all of your illogical arguments and show you where you were wrong. In tha past, I've suggested to jthomas and pinch that they should enrol in a course on logic. You might do well to join them.

The null hypothesis is that a light pole was laying next Lloyde's taxi, on the road. Lloyde's taxi had some damage to it.

An alternate hypothesis is that a jet plane knocked over the light pole, which punched into the taxi and created the damage.

Now, to accept the alternate hypothesis it must be proven.

So, prove it.

You have absolutely no witnesses to this event. You have no photographic evidence to this event. You have broken glass next to the taxi, instead of the alleged impact point. You have not been able to produce a single equation that can model how the light pole would punch the taxi, without leaving a single scratch on the bonnet.

You have not been able to prove the alternate hypothesis. Therefore, the null hypothesis stands. While you fail to prove the alternate hypothesis, we can rule out a jet hitting the light pole.

Math is fun!


But the problem for you is that the truthers are likewise unable to model how something so gigantic as a lightpole could suddenly be planted.

Truthers don't need to model it. Truthers only need to accept the null hypothesis that there was a light pole found on the road, next to Lloyde's taxi.

Government loyalists have the burden of proof to show that a jet knocked over the light pole and punched it through the taxi windscreen.

There is not a single government loyalist who has been able to PROVE that this happened. The ONLY living witness to this alleged alternate hypothesis is Lloyde England.



More contradictory is the fact that you can provide no eyewitness to the fact that the lightpole was planted. Yet, you still subscribe to this idea.

There's no requirement for me to provide a witness to a light pole being 'planted'. I accept the null hypothesis that a light pole was found on the road, next to Lloyde's taxi. That's it.

If you want me to believe that the light pole punched into his taxi, then you better start proving it. I can't accept any other alternate hypothesis unless it is proven.

Your turn, Dave. Prove your alternate hypothesis. Maths and logic, such fun.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by tezzajw]




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

posted by trebor451

PLEASE tell me your case is not built on "possibly" and perhaps" and "likelihoods" and "some people". Please tell me that 7 and a half years after the event you can't do any better than "possibly" and "perhaps" and "likelihood" and "some people". Please tell me that your argument rests on more than what amounts to one big fat guess.


Well YOUR argument rests on the FACTs that NOBODY besides the liar Lloyde England saw the light pole puncturing the taxi windshield, NOBODY besides the liar Lloyde England saw the light pole sticking out of the taxi windshield, and NOBODY besides the liar Lloyde England saw the light pole being removed from the taxi windshield and placed on the ground.

Why is that?

YOUR government loyalists have been unable to find and videointerview even ONE SOLITARY EYEWITNESS who saw the alleged aircraft knock down the five light poles, or lay the heavy white smoke trail across the lawn, or smash into the generator trailer.

Why is that?

YOUR government loyalists have been unable to provide one single photo of the burned passengers still strapped into seats which they swore to.

Why is that?

YOUR government loyalists have been unable to provide one single serial number to prove Flight 77 crashed and burned at the Pentagon, or even that any of the four alleged 9-11 aircraft were exactly what the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY script claimed they were.

Why is that?

YOUR government loyalists have been afraid to even question and videointerview the 13+ Over the Naval Annex and North of Citgo eyewitnesses to get them to change their testimonies and admit they were wrong.

Why is that?

YOUR FBI STILL has the 85+ Pentagon area videos and Arlington County 911 hotline call-ins and transcripts CENSORED and kept from the American people.

Why is that?

And Osama bin Laden is STILL not wanted by the FBI for the crime of 9-11.

Why is that?

And the FAA has released a video duplicating and authenticating the very flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and ABOVE the overhead highway sign and light poles in its path; all of which you conniving government loyalists deny.

Why is that?

And why are you throwing stones when your own case is much much much weaker?

FAA flight path authenticating the north flight path



1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive



[edit on 5/12/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, you showed this aerial view:



Yes, of course I know all about the proximity of the Pentagon to KDCA (I refuse to call it 'reagan' airport) as do other people who live in this area.

We, however, DO NOT fly over the Pentagon, lest you want a visit later from the men in black.


Then, there is this picture:



Well, because of the focal length of the lens used when that photo was taken it is deceptive. That B757 is flying the Runway 19 River Visual Approach (linky is below). It is in the landing configuration because by that point he is well below 1000 feet, and most airlines' policy is to be fully configured for landing no later than 1000 feet above the touchdown zone.

It is nowhere near the Pentagon, it is about a mile away, EAST of the Pentagon, over the Potomac.

Please examine the approach plate:



(You can draw in the Pentagon for yourself, referencing Google).

Now, we should determine which Runway they were using at KDCA that day, RW 19 or RW 01. Because, if you come here and actually watch airplanes on a clear day you will see that not only do they approach RW 19 over the river, they depart RW 01 the same way. It is not depicted, but when you take-off from RW 01 you turn left almost immediately and track the 016' DCA VOR radial. As you can see, the immediate left turn is required because of P-56 (the Mall and WH) and the other smaller P-56 (the Naval Observatory...VEEP's house).

IF they were taking off and landing to the South, then various Tower controller's eyes would have been gazing in the direction of up river. SOMEONE would have likely SEEN an alleged flyover...AND looky! Continuing Eastbound pretty soon there's that pesky Prohibited Area....that's one they take very seriously!!!

SO...no one in the TRACON or anyone watching the RADAR in the Tower cab saw this ghost airplane going about 8 miles-per-minute??
Heading smack dab towards P-56?









[edit on 5/12/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



SO...no one in the TRACON or anyone watching the RADAR in the Tower cab saw this ghost airplane going about 8 miles-per-minute??
Heading smack dab towards P-56?


Actually, weedwhacker, the TRACON controllers at both DCA and IAD watched Flight 77 on radar as it approached. Not one of them reported seeing its primary target as it high tailed it out of DC.

The "decoy/flyover-jet" must've had some kind of active stealth capability...



A DCA TRACON controller called upstairs to the tower cab to make them aware of the approaching aircraft when it was 5 miles out. One of the controllers watched the aircraft as it approached from the West until it disappeared behind the buildings of Crystal city. Guess what...? He did not report a flyover! In fact he said, "it went into the Pentagon, it looks like it went into the Pentagon."

The "decoy/flyover-jet" must've had Klingon cloaking technology...



Now you can expect three standard responses from the flyover proponents:

1) absence of evidence is not evidence

2) "why do you trust evidence that is sequestered, controlled, and released by the perpetrator?"

3) the controllers were mesmerized by the "Hollywood special effects" fireball and that is why they did not witness the flyover



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Pentagon after 9-11 from the west

Assuming that photo was taken next to the damage area from the west, which is where they did have a flag hanging like that, the aircraft would be positioned about where I have the x on the aerial photo below, if the aircraft was landing on runway 19.



But runway 15 pointing directly at the eastern side of the Pentagon, looks like it is set up for landings from the north also, and those flights would fly much closer to the Pentagon. Local residents would be used to seeing the aircraft close by when runway 15 was in use wouldn't they?

Arlington County map

Perhaps during a nationwide emergency landing, Reagan was using both runways? And a lot of aircraft would be landing until Reagan was closed. Besides area residents would not necessarily be aware of FAA flight rules would they?

With all the helicopters buzzing all around the Naval Annex and Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery, delivering White House officials and high ranking officers, and all the commercial aircraft taking off and landing nearby, ordinary local residents might not think it unusual to see a flying vehical almost anywhere. Correct?

So with the FBI informing them that they actually saw a 2nd aircraft, and not an actual flyover; they might be inclined to revise their initial testimony don't you think?

Even so ANC worker Erik Dihle did report that "Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going."

audio recording of Erik Dihle interview by the Center for Military History
Erik Dihle interviewed by CMH in 2001



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



SP...RW 15 is too short for jets (well, in a dire EMERGENCY it could be used in a pinch...but with Dulles -KIAD- so close, why?)

See the link:

flightaware.com...


SO, yes RW 15/33 is used by the commuters when it's VFR. I think even the layman can tell the differenct between a B737/MD80/A320/B757 and a turboprop!!

As to your suggestion about using DCA for arrivals when the US Airspace was shut down...ummm....no, they wanted to send airplanes ANYWHERE but DC!

Remember, don't you, that DCA was shut down for weeks! (Really wreaked havoc with my commute...that's when I began to both love and hate Amtrak. Mostly loved the convenience, hated the price!).

Even when they finally opened DCA, there was this stupid "30-minute" stay in your seats rule (done away with after new doors installed) that didn't apply to Dulles!!! AND, the ridiculous 'code' word to use every day on initial Approach Control contact...had to call Dispatch, get the word, and say it exactly in the correct format, or they'd send you to Dulles. Anyone with a scanner could have heard the 'top secret' code word!


For Blaine:

Thanks!!

edit for tags




[edit on 5/13/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



With all the helicopters buzzing all around the Naval Annex and Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery, delivering White House officials and high ranking officers, and all the commercial aircraft taking off and landing nearby, ordinary local residents might not think it unusual to see a flying vehical almost anywhere. Correct?


Really?? Helicopters being mistaken for airplanes?
AND, helos don't really "buzz" around.


So with the FBI informing them that they actually saw a 2nd aircraft, and not an actual flyover; they might be inclined to revise their initial testimony don't you think?


So now, the FBI is influencing witnesses, putting words in their mouths!?
Again, the airplane that was co-incidentally in the area AT ALTITUDE was a C-130. Don't know the variant, here's an example:

upload.wikimedia.org...
(working on link...) STBY...Got it(?) Yup! Success.

Again, large compared to a commuter turboprop, but should be unmistakenly different from a B757. AND, there is NO WAY a C-130
can achieve the speeds needed to 'mimic' the AAL77 on that day.

(from Wiki)
Length: 97 ft 9 in (29.8 m)
Wingspan: 132 ft 7 in (40.4 m)
Height: 38 ft 3 in (11.6 m)
Wing area: 1,745 ft² (162.1 m²)
Empty weight: 83,000 lb (38,000 kg)
Useful load: 72,000 lb (33,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 155,000 lb (70,300 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Allison T56-A-15 turboprops, 4,300 bhp (3,210 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed: 329 kn (379 mph, 610 km/h)
Cruise speed: 292 kn (336 mph, 540 km/h)
Range: 2,050 nmi (2,360 mi, 3,800 km)
Service ceiling: 33,000 ft (10,000 m)



[edit on 5/13/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
And why are you throwing stones when your own case is much much much weaker?


So...I'm guessing your case IS built on nothing but "possibly" and perhaps" and "likelihoods" and "some people".

How do you think that will go over in court?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Just to remember, these are the telephone lines reported by James R. Cissell (link at the post's end) to be cut or touched by the incoming, north of Citgo flying plane.
Thus, the plane's underbelly must have been somewhere left or right from that sign we see in this Google Maps photo:





The picture is a bit deformed because I rotated the view in such a way that the Arlington Cemetery boundary wall, the Citgo northern gas pumps area and the Pentagon impact point can be seen, and also the alleged clipped overhead power and/or telephone lines.
As you can see clearly in this Google Maps photo, the road north of Citgo is still called Columbia Pike.

Thus, if we take the James R. Cissell witness account describing clipped power or telephone lines at face value, that means that the plane already flew about 20 to 40 feet high, north of the Citgo gas station, over the last stretch of Columbia Pike.
That means at least from there on, it was not dive-bombing at all, as described by many witnesses.
Which means that those accounts are less valuable as thought before, if we value James R. Cissell account higher.

And it means that it came on its way down a few meters from above the center of the Navy Annex building 8 roof, then descended to the power lines level height at Joyce Street which runs in front of the full length of the Citgo station, proceeded further at about the same height, and in a slight right bank, then crossed Washington Blvrd at ten to twenty meters south from the most southern tree in front of the helipad, still higher than the light poles there, which are 20 feet high, and then impacted or flew over the building.
When it flew over, it did so at about 78 feet or a bit higher, to clear the Pentagon roof.

According to Sean Boger, the Pentagon helipad-tower operator on 9/11, that plane flew in fact much slower than the officially reported impact speed, and thus had much more time to perform the flight maneuvers, necessary to descend from the Navy Annex to the Citgo gas station, and climbing from crossing over Washington Blvrd to a point over the Pentagon roof.

This is another possibility for clipped power lines, with an added value for the transformers seen hanging in the pole in front of the Citgo. It could be that on 9/11 the plane did cut these power lines somewhere to the left, and caused a short-circuit in these transformer pods which then released the breakers or even exploded, and caused that flash in the famous Citgo security cams video, released by the FBI under FOIA pressure.
This is a Google Maps photo of a view from Joyce Street towards the Citgo station :





If you want to experiment a bit around in the Citgo, Arlington Cemetery or Pentagon areas, then open this link:
Arlington County Map
and double click in the street view area, or use the plus or minus ruler-signs to switch from street view to satellite view or vice versa.
You will find in the street views, quite a lot of cameras attached to the top of light poles or traffic light poles, and two of them were right in the path of the NoC plane, if they were there already on 9/11. These two are on poles at the junction of S.Joyce Street and Columbia Pike.
One looks up to the Navy Annex and the new Air Force monument, and the other looks down over the north of Citgo stretch of Columbia Pike :





Quite a nice camera view if in place on 9/11, able to follow the plane descending from the Annex to the Pentagon. And the other one to follow the rest of its path.

These posts from Pilgrum, and my answers to him will help to add to the short-circuit breaker information in this post:
Pilgrum: www.abovetopsecret.com...
LaBTop: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This post of mine in the same thread covers the witness account of James R. Cissell :
www.abovetopsecret.com...


He usually cuts through the Pentagon parking lot to get to work, but was stuck on Interstate 110 (in fact Washington Blvrd) because of extra security at the Pentagon following the attack on the World Trade Center.
''Out of my peripheral vision,'' Cissell said, ''I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower.
''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.''
In the next seconds dozens of things flashed through his mind.
''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said.
''I remember thinking, 'The World Trade Center was just the beginning, there's going to be more.' ''
He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.''
Then the plane, which was taking out telephone and power lines on its way in, hit the building.


So, did it hit, or flew over the Pentagon?
The audio from the Erik Dihle interview, which SPreston posted above also seems to mention a third commuter plane, which veered away from the 757. Then the guy mentioned the C-130, with its turbo prop fan engines.
That's a strange new piece of info, a third, commuter plane?
Is there a transcript of that audio? Seems to be quite important to me to be able to read what Dihle and the others exactly said.

[edit on 13/5/09 by LaBTop]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 




Why is that?

YOUR FBI STILL has the 85+ Pentagon area videos and Arlington County 911 hotline call-ins and transcripts CENSORED and kept from the American people.


SPreston, this has already been debunked eons ago, I'm surprised you still bring this up.

Those "85 videos",
www.flight77.info...

This will be fun!



85 videos

The videos taken from the Pentagon area after the 9/11 attacks were mentioned in the Maguire declaration, where FBI Special Agent, Jacqueline Maguire responded (see below) to a request from Scott Bingham.
In Summary:

* She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
* Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
* Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
* The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
* No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.


ok thats just the intro. Lets see what was on those tapes exactly.



The list of 85 videos

Five videotapes were recovered from the post-attack Pentagon crime scene and submitted to the FBI Laboratory in Quantico.

13 videos were obtained by the Defense Protective Services (DPS) - Pentagon Police - on 9/25/2001 from individual filming Pentagon site from Boundary Channel Drive. These included footage from the WTC site in the days after the attcks.

* One (1) Beta video tape - interviews in NYC
* One (1) DVCAM tape labeled "Twin Towers, World Trade Center" - NYC/WTC
* One (1) DVCAM tape - suburban setting, unknown individuals, dated 9/12-13
* One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC/WTC, 9/21-22
* One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC/WTC, 9/22-23
* One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC 9/23
* One (1) DVCAM tape - interviews in NYC; 10 seconds of Pentagon footage, but not crash site
* One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
* One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
* One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
* One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
* One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
* One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information

8 videos were received on 10/11/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected during consent search of residence in Avanel, New Jersey. Pending case on subject.

* One (1) damaged Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
* One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape

Videos received on 10/15/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected from surveillance cameras at multiple Kinko's in South Florida.

* One (1) TDK 1-160 VHS video tape
* One (1) VHS video tape
* One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
* One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
* One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
* One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
* One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
* One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape

Video received on 10/22/2001 at Quantico. This video was recovered from garbage at residenced in Neenah, Wisconsin by the Neenah Police Department. Investigation on suspect has been closed.

* One (1) damaged VHS video tape and housing

Received at Washington Field Office Command Post

These two video tapes included footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene taken by DOD media pool photographers, and were obtained from Navy Rear Admiral Craig Quigley.

* One (1) Betacam BCT-30G video cassette, labeled "1 of 2" & "early 6pm 9/11/01"
* One (1) Betacam BCT-30G video cassette, labeled "2 of 2" & "early pm 9/11/01"

Also received at the Washington Field Office Command Post:

* One (1) VHS video cassette - witness interviews near Pentagon after the attack
* One (1) VHS video cassette, labeled "9/11/2001" - footage of post Pentagon crime scene, obtained from Chief Mastin, Prince William County
* One (1) TDK Hi8 MP 120 video casette, wrapped in Pentagon map and labeled on back "1/29/1952 Mohan Shresesa 8/2/2018 Todoroki Japan 9/17/01 3:00 hr Fern/So. Rotary" - Home video taken from car, dated 9/17/2001,showing post-crash Pentagon crime scene very briefly from road (~10 seconds)
* One (1) FujiFilm DP121 video cassette, labeled "WJLA-TV" - miscellaneous footage from news reporter, dated 9/18/2001
* One (1) Sony MP120 8mm video cassette - Home video, DC sightseeing
* One (1) TDK HG Ultimate TC-30 video cassette - Home video, unknown date, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
* One (1) Maxell DVM60SE mini digital video cassette - Home video, dated 9/17/2001, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
* One (1) Sony Hi8 video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/11/2001 showing ~6 seconds of Pentagon footage (not crash site)
* One (1) TDK Hi8 MP 120 video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/21/2001, showing post-crash Pentagon crime scene
* One (1) JVC MP120 8mm video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/21/2001, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)

Videos filmed on 9/26/2001 by FBI Forensic Audio-Visual Analysis Unit (FAVIAU) of post-crash Pentagon crime scene.

* One (1) original SONY 40 min. Digital Betacam video tape
* One (1) original SONY 40 min. Digital Betacam video tape

Videos submitted to FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, under cover of communication dated 2/19/2002, all depicting WTC footage.

* One (1) Betacam video tape
* One (1) HDCAM video tape
* One (1) Betacam SP video tape
* One (1) Betacam SP video tape
* One (1) Mini DV video tape maked in part Antonio M.
* One (1) DVC PRO video tape
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1056 COPY 5A of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1056 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1471 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1788 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1729 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1808 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1813 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B530 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B729 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1563 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1051 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1787 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B2406 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1276 COPY 5 of 5"
* One VHS video tape marked in part "CNN RE: BURN VICTIM..."
* One VHS video tape marked in part "NIGHTLINE 2/15/2002"

Videos submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico, under communication dated 5/13/2002.

* One (1) Sony SDX1-25C video tape
* One (1) Sony SDX1-25C video tape
* One (1) TDK 8mm video tape

Video obtained by FBI on 9/28/2001 and submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico on 5/28/2002. Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 showing footage of WTC after attacks, obtained by Suffolk County, New York Police Department.

* One Hi 8mm video cassette tape from Eileen McMahon


[edit on 5/13/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Continued:



Video obtained by FBI on 9/13/2001 and submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico on 5/28/2002. Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 showing footage of second plane hitting WTC and aftermath.

* One Mini DV 60 video cassette tape

Video submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico under cover of communication dated 9/22/2001. Obtained by FBI NK from Dime Savings Bank, Nutley, New Jersey

* One TDK T-160 VHS video tape

Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by NBC4 Washington reporter, with footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

* One (1) home Video of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

Video from DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. Camera repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

* One (1) videotape

Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera. Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

* One (1) videotape

Copy of home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by AP photographer using camera borrowed from nearby motorist. Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

* One (1) duplicate video cassette tape dated 9/11/01

Video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Obtained by FBI on 9/13/2001.

* One (1) CD containing 2 video files

Video from security camera at Citgo Gas Station, 801 S. Joyce Street, Arlington, Virginia. Submitted to FAVIAU to determine if video showed impact of plane into Pentagon. Determined not to show impact. Obtained by FBI on 9/11/2001.

* One (1) JVC EHG Hi-Fi videocassette, labeled Day 11 Quarters K

Video from security camera at Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Security video showing rotating footage from different camera locations at hotel; no camera captures impact of plane into Pentagon.

* One (1) TDK video tape marked "11C"

Images captured by two separate cameras at the entrance to the Pentagon Mall Terrace parkinng lot. Images capture the impact of the plane into the Pentagon from two different cameras. Obtained from the Pentagon Force Protection Agency via USA/EDVA.

* One (1) CD-ROM


www.flight77.info...

well there you go. 85 videos. I wonder what does a Kinko's security tape from Florida have to do with allegedly catching the Pentagon impact?



So will you hand wave this away and ignore it? Or will you no longer perpetuate this myth?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


We know all about the Special Agent Jacqueline Maquire declaration. She works for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a political arm of the White House. Why would her statements be truthful, when the FBI has a long history of manufacturing evidence and withholding evidence and laboratory misconduct, according to dozens of their own whistleblowers? Why do you think Hollywood has to make so many propaganda flicks about the FBI to clean up their sordid image?

We already know none of the videos show the impact; because there was no impact. We wanted to see what was in the air and in the backgrounds; which is exactly why the FBI confiscated and censored the 85+ videos. There could not possibly have been an impact, because the actual aircraft was flying slowly Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high above the light poles and overhead highway sign in its path. An impact with the light poles and official damage path through the Pentagon 1st floor was IMPOSSIBLE.

So your posts are meaningless concerning the contents of the FBI confiscated and censored Pentagon area videos and personal cameras and photos and Arlington County 911 hotline call-ins and transcripts.





[edit on 5/13/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


It is amusing how, when I peeked into this thread, YOURS was the last post, as I write this....yet, there is a 'star' on your post!?!

WTF?!?

Your post had nothing of substance to warrant a 'star' yet, star there be, nevertheless. Hmmmmmmm........

I'm sorry to seem to be petty, but when the forces of the 'alleged truth' keep high-fiving each other (and yes, I've seen the glad-handing on your other forae) it just starts to look like a sick joke.

Is this getting too personal? Well, if so, then my apologies.

As far as getting personal....I actually am personally familiar with the regions in the pictures that have been posted on this thread. I have driven most of those roads...many times.

How many of the PFT or any other supposed 'experts' have actually, physically dragged their butts here to see the area for themselves, with their own eyes? I see a lot of 'armchair' Google-mapping apologists....and yes, I call you 'apologists'....because YOU are actually 'apologizing' for the terrorists.

The mere act of deflecting 'blame' away from the Al Q'uida and the cabal of dedicated Islamic Terrorists who, even today, still manage to find people willing to strap bombs on themselves and walk into a crowded area to kill civilians, or suicide in a truck or other vehicle laden with explosives to kill as many as they possibly can....it IS HAPPENING in other countries, every other day. IT IS IN the news, if you bother to look!!!

Nit-picking at the four airplanes of 9/11....trying desperately to pin something, ANYTHING on our own Government....no matter how hard you have to twist and spin...it seems to me the intent is clear.

Doesn't matter what facts are presented, it's all about THEY DID IT!!!! And, when YOU shout 'they', you point at our own Government. (A bunch of boobs from 2000 to 2008 who couldn't find their asses with one hand). Again, where are YOUR loyalties???

I call this as I am now seeing it! The 'truther' movement is full of a host of anti-American terrorism apoligists!!!

There is no other conclusion to come to.

See? See how easy it is to 'spin' what would be thought of as a '...patriotic attempt to find the "truth"...' into another purely evil endeavor???

By this single-minded almost psychotic focus you are likely playing into the hands of those who REALLY wish us harm. The terrorists!!!



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is amusing how, when I peeked into this thread, YOURS was the last post, as I write this....yet, there is a 'star' on your post!?!

The first part of your post is an off topic rant about stars.

If you're not sure about the 'star' policy on ATS, then read the thread devoted to it. Members are permitted, indeed encouraged, to 'dig, star and flag the mother' if they agree with a post/thread. I star lots of posts, it saves me from adding to the thread with the same kind of thoughts. It also saves server space to use a star instead of a post.



As far as getting personal....I actually am personally familiar with the regions in the pictures that have been posted on this thread. I have driven most of those roads...many times. How many of the PFT or any other supposed 'experts' have actually, physically dragged their butts here to see the area for themselves, with their own eyes?

The second part of your post is an appeal to your own authority. You also neglect to mention that Craig and his CIT team have documented video evidence of being on the streets, everywhere around the Pentagon.



who, even today, still manage to find people willing to strap bombs on themselves and walk into a crowded area to kill civilians, or suicide in a truck or other vehicle laden with explosives to kill as many as they possibly can

I guess you forget to mention that US (and other coalition forces) are able to find hundreds of thousands of people who are willing to be paid and deployed as foreign aggressors, poking around with the politics and cultures of other nations. Mind you, they go there with guns, tanks, planes, bombs, etc and they are willing to kill all 'enemy combatants' who they confront. Even if the 'enemy combatants' turn out to be civillian children.

Remember, they're only 'terrorists' if they're fighting on the other side, right? The biggest oxymoron in the USA is their 'defense forces'. Clearly, they are 'offense forces'. Naturally, lots of other nations are guilty of this sick play on words.

So, the third part of your post was a whinge about 'terrorist apologists' and had nothing to do with the thread's OP.

I can't decipher the last part of your post, other that to state that it was also off topic to the OP.

weedwhacker, you're slipping, mate. When you joined these forums, you used to try and stay on topic, while adding your mandatory narrative of your airline credentials and letting us experience your life's resume. Now, it seems you're not bothering to stay on topic? Please, where did the old weedwhacker go - he was much more entertaining.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
I agree things seem to be drifting afield and becoming personal.

Please return to the topic at hand and thank you.





posted on May, 14 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



posted by SPreston

We already know none of the videos show the impact; because there was no impact. We wanted to see what was in the air and in the backgrounds; which is exactly why the FBI confiscated and censored the 85+ videos. There could not possibly have been an impact, because the actual aircraft was flying slowly Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high above the light poles and overhead highway sign in its path. An impact with the light poles and official damage path through the Pentagon 1st floor was IMPOSSIBLE.


So which is it weedwhacker? You are not interested in what went on in the backgrounds of the 85+ confiscated and censored FBI videos, or you fear what went on the backgrounds?

Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire stated the obvious; NO IMPACT. The FBI too knew there was NO IMPACT at the Pentagon, because the FBI knew too that the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high Over the light poles and overhead highway sign in its path, just as has been recently proven beyond any doubt. But they used NO IMPACT as an excuse not to release the 85+ confiscated videos. That is hypocrisy.

The FBI actions have absolutely nothing to do with your imaginary Al Qaeda terrorists strapping on bomb backpacks and blowing themselves to smithereens. Nothing remotely like that happened here. We experienced domestic terrorists here in America, with extensive control over our air defense and our media and our policing organizations. Perhaps you are confused or so steeped in fear from your imaginary boogeymen, that you cannot accept reality.



[edit on 5/14/09 by SPreston]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


I didn't write that "quote". Someone else did....please correct it.

Thanks.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 




Using Google maps street view, the overhead highway sign which Robert Turcios indicated the aircraft pull up and flying above the light poles none of which were knocked down. The overhead highway sign which the Lloyde England taxi was placed next to, and the downed light poles nearby, is in the far distance past the bridge overpass.

Facing south


This image was taken from the exact same spot, but rotated to the north, looking at the overhead highway sign, next to Arlington National Cemetery, which LaBTop was referring to.

Facing north


Google map street view oriented to the exact same spot. Just rotate the view with your left/right arrow key.

Google street view (hide panel on left)



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Ok SPreston, did you even read through the video tapes discovered? Did you read what was on them or where they were from? Apparently you did not and just hand waved it away. My God. I just provided you with all the answers, and you just ignored it and went off on a rant about the FBI coveringit all up. And you base this on what exactly? Where do you have the proof or evidence that those exact 85 videos that I posted are actually showing what hit or didnt hit the Pentagon, and they have been censored? Where? how?
I just gave them to you! Tell me SPreston, what can a recorded tape taken from news covereage showing the Pentagon show you what hit/didnt the Pentagon? What will a surveillance tape from a Kinkos in Florida show you at the Pentagon? What will a tape taken from a civilian's home who recorded the events on 9/11 off his TV show you? You wanted to know what was on them, claiming a HUGE coverup of 85 tapes that all allegedly show nothing hitting the Pentagon, and yet when I show you that you couldnt be farther from the TRUTH, you just go off and ignore and cling to that irrationality and delusion that, OH the FBI is censoring the tapes! No they are not! They are right there! I just posted them for you!



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Math is fun, Dave. So let me school you through all of your illogical arguments and show you where you were wrong. In tha past, I've suggested to jthomas and pinch that they should enrol in a course on logic. You might do well to join them.


Ah yes, the "copping an attitude" ploy, which is almost a certain giveaway that the argument has nothing to rely on except bluster. I must tell you that such games do not work on me.


The null hypothesis is that a light pole was laying next Lloyde's taxi, on the road. Lloyde's taxi had some damage to it.


You truthers are being rather miserly with the proof you're offering. Your own photos shows that the street lights lining the freeway were all on the passenger side of the taxi, so any damage from a falling street light would have necessarily been on that side of the car. The only photos I have seen provided by the truthers are photos of the *driver* side, away from where the light pole would have hit. For you to make the claims you are making, you need to provide photos of the actual side of the car where the light pole hit, not just some photo of an irrelevent angle you happened to find lying around the internet.

Can you?


An alternate hypothesis is that a jet plane knocked over the light pole, which punched into the taxi and created the damage.

Now, to accept the alternate hypothesis it must be proven.

So, prove it.


Bad logic. It is not my responsibility to prove that the events as described did happen. You are the one who is refuting the accepted account so it is your responsibility to prove that it can't happen. Moreover, you need to explain how it happened by using the established facts rather than relying entirely upon make believe claims of your own invention involving secret agents and planted evidence. You cannot have a double standard in what is be acceptable evidence and what is not.

Personally, I don't comprehend why it's any ghastly violation of physics for the boom of the street light to punch through the windshield and then be pulled out by the forward travel of the taxi, with the damage being localized due to the safety glass of the windshield and unseen from the opposite side of the vehicle. It's an established fact that street lights do in fact have booms, it's an established fact that taxis do in fact have forward motion, and it's an established fact that windshields are made of safety glass. It's likewise an established fact that objects which are knocked over do, in fact, fall downwards onto whatever is below them.

Anything you provide which attempts to contradict these established facts is therefore moot.


You have absolutely no witnesses to this event. You have no photographic evidence to this event. You have broken glass next to the taxi, instead of the alleged impact point. You have not been able to produce a single equation that can model how the light pole would punch the taxi, without leaving a single scratch on the bonnet.


Denouncing an activity simply becuase noone saw it is a flawed argument. When the light pole was knocked over, there was an American Airlines jet travelling about twenty feet above the ground. Of course there wouldn't be any witnesses to the light pole falling over. Everyone's eyes were riveted on the jet in disbelief as it screamed over their heads and crashed into the Pentagon, not at the taxi. There will certainly be no "photograph of the event" taken for the same reason.

If you're attempting to claim that if a jet ever suddenly screamed twenty feet over your head, rather than instinctively staring in disbelief at the jet and yelling "Holy sh*t!" like everyone else would, that you yourself would instead be looking all around you for suspicious activity in case it was secret agent subterfuge, then I will say that you are lying.


You have not been able to prove the alternate hypothesis. Therefore, the null hypothesis stands. While you fail to prove the alternate hypothesis, we can rule out a jet hitting the light pole.

Math is fun!


Yes, math IS fun. When we're shown a "A plus B equals C" equation of a low travelling aircraft hitting a light pole before crashing into a nearby building, and we're then told it cannot be true becuase of some convoluted "A to some mysterious root of B plus C for variable values of C equalling D (except on Tuesday)" equation of planted street lights, faked taxi damage, explosives, and hordes of secret agents planted throughout all walks of life covering up a fly over conspiracy, the only way anyone would ever accept this rubbish is if they really, and I mean REALLY, wanted to believe it.

Dude, a plane hit the Pentagon. There ain't anything magical nor supernatural about it.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join