Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 13
213
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


1. Using your logic if there are more people who say they saw a plane hit the pentagon than a plane do something else the plane hit the pentagon.


No that is not my logic at all.

You misreprestented my postion once by falsely claiming I cited eyewitness evidence alone to support the fact that the C-130 flew into the scene minutes later, and now without acknowledging this bogus claim you are misrepresenting my position AGAIN with a fallacious analogy.

Even the north side witnesses believed the plane hit. The evidence proving they were deliberately deceived has nothing to do with this belief and everything to do with the true flight path.

So no 2nd hand media reports of other witnesses who had the same belief as the north side witnesses regarding the alleged impact can refute the specific placement of the plane on the north side of the gas station.

In order to scientifically refute THIS unanimous witness claim (north side approach) which is PROOF that the plane did not hit you would need to provide evidence of greater strength to the contrary (e.g. 4 or more first hand witness accounts filmed on location on or right in front of the citgo station property who definitively place the plane on the south side of the station just as emphatically as Brooks, Lagasse, and Turcios place the plane on the north side).

To accept anything less would go against true skepticism and critical thinking principles and expose a confirmation bias on your part in favor of the official narrative.




2. "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" has been proven to be around 70% by independent researchers, and does not qualify as fact.


I have no idea what you are trying to say here let alone its relevance to my statement or the evidence we present proving the plane was on the north side and therefore did not hit the light poles or the building.



Its so hard to talk about this w/o sounding like a negative Nancy. I read a lot of the eyewitness reports (from the pentagon) before CIT was even on ATS. I totally agree that most of the testimony given involved it being implied that the witness's saw a plane hit the pentagon. I totally agree that the flight path presented by the government is inaccurate. Beyond that opinions, egos, and piss poor investigating (not implying you there) skew the picture.


Your vague and generalized OPINION has nothing to do with the evidence we present.

In order to scientifically refute the north side approach evidence which is PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not hit you would need to provide evidence of greater strength to the contrary.

You have provided none yet have persistently misrepresented my position as a means to forward your completely unjustified and illogical yet admitted "negative Nancy" attitude based on your misrepresentations.




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


What was in there was the evidence! The day before the tragedy Rumsfeld announced there was 1.2 trillion missing from the budget. How convenient for the "plane" to hit just the right spot.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhead57
reply to post by warrenb
 


What was in there was the evidence! The day before the tragedy Rumsfeld announced there was 1.2 trillion missing from the budget. How convenient for the "plane" to hit just the right spot.


I thought it was 3 to 4 trillion missing, but anyhow it was missing and we haven't heard anything more about this missing money.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

When enough witnesses independently agree on a simple and specific right or left detail, with nobody disagreeing, it can be fairly considered proof.


I assumed you meant virtually nobody. If this is the case then your case can never be accepted as some people claim they saw a plane hit the pentagon. You cant have it both ways so don't cite me as misrepresenting when I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by McGinty
Com'n guys, was my question ignored because i have no avatar, or is it a faliure to deny ignorance?

I'll ask again and would be grateful if some kind soul can put me right, please:

If it was OK to fly 2 planes into the twin towers as part of a false flag operation, why would that operation wish, or need to avoid using a real plane impact for the Pentagon?

If they've sacrificed 2 planes already, then why not 3? Why risk screwing up the operation in order to save the 3rd plane? Why not do it for real, as they'd already done in New York?

Answers appreciated

This is not my personal belief/theory but satifies your question:

The plot to fly the panes into the twin towers was intercepted and a lihop scenario was decided upon. The destruction at the pentagon was seperate from the attacks on the twin towers.

But then research into 911 that asks "why" is useless. If you find out the facts "why" will present itself.


Thanks for replying jprophet.

I've had a brief look at lihop (had never heard of it). Couldn't fathom whether or not it suggests that the attack is being allowed to happen by TPTB, or is being perpetrated by TPTB.

Either way, i find this a feasible candidate for 911.

However, i can't agree with you that 'why' is a useless question. I think motive is an important part of the equation, when so many other parts of it are missing. Obviously we have to be aware that motives can be miss-direction, but i still think my original question hasn't been answered. Rather, it's being put to one side.


Originally posted by Jezus
It is impossible to know all aspects of the conspiracy.

I find it easier just to stick to the basic contractions and anomalies that prove SOMETHING else happened.

If a car crashed into the pentagon but it didn't look anything like any other car crashes, would you think it was odd that their was no video evidence to prove it?


Personally, i see a big hole in these theories until i see a solid reason for risking the plot by faking the pentagon plane. It's not enough to concede that we can't understand their reasons/tactics.

Certainly something's very wrong, but what that is could lie anywhere between incompetence and conspiracy. It seems likely that 'SOMETHING else happened', but what that was lies in asking the question 'why', perhaps even more than 'how'.



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Thanks for posting this and making it wider known.

I have just seen the presentation-video 'National Security Alert' and I'm EXTREMELY freaked out by the video. It is without doubt one of the finest films I've seen about the allegedly false-flag operation and really is an 'eye opener'. I encourage everyone to watch the video - it is VERY disturbing and contains many valid points.

The most disturbing point was all the eyewitness accounts. I also found the cabdriver talking off camera extremely disturbing.

The truth must come out!

[edit on 6-9-2009 by DwaynetheSpecious]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


hey jthomas.
This CIT's idea that the C-130 is what helped do the flyover illusion has been bothering me since day one when this nonsense first came out. I do not understand how they can twist a C-130 which was shadowing the 757 from a much higher altitude into it was the actual "fly-over" illusion aircraft. It actually hurts my head trying to understand this line of illogical thinking.

So what exactly are CIT saying? That the 757 never existed and the C-130 is what did the approach and magic flyover AND at the exact same time manage to climb to a very high altitude and come around again to make it appear it was shadowing the "757", or are they saying the C-130 flying at the much higher altitude as it was "shadowing" the "757", is what was suppose to trick the people into thinking it crashed into the Pentagon?

And this leaves me with more questions like, how do they explain the large, obvious, 757 in AA paint traveling nearly at tree-top level at high speed slamming into the Pentagon? How can a C-130 at high altitude manage to hocus-pocus an illusion of a 757 crash? The CIT make virtually NO sense. There was a plane, there was no plane, there was a small plane, there was a magic flyover, there wasnt, there was a decoy,there wasnt a decoy, the decoy crashed, the decoy didnt crash. The 757 swapped with a small plane. It didnt. The 757 flew over the Pentagon. Then its not a 757. The C-130 is the decoy, its not, it was a Skywarrior, it wasnt. I mean it like they have 30 different versions and use all 30 different versions of the event as the same thing.

and yet, somehow, CIT expects us to believe something like this:

would be faked by something like this:

or flying somehow higher:

or by something like this:



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

hey jthomas.
This CIT's idea that the C-130 is what helped do the flyover illusion has been bothering me since day one when this nonsense first came out. I do not understand how they can twist a C-130 which was shadowing the 757 from a much higher altitude into it was the actual "fly-over" illusion aircraft. It actually hurts my head trying to understand this line of illogical thinking.


Haha.

What you are doing is racking your brain to create YOUR OWN "illogical" scenario that has absolutely nothing to do with what we have claimed.

That is what true skeptics and critical thinkers call a "straw man argument".

Faulty logic does not refute evidence.



So what exactly are CIT saying? That the 757 never existed and the C-130 is what did the approach and magic flyover AND at the exact same time manage to climb to a very high altitude and come around again to make it appear it was shadowing the "757", or are they saying the C-130 flying at the much higher altitude as it was "shadowing" the "757", is what was suppose to trick the people into thinking it crashed into the Pentagon?


Wow!

For someone who has been allegedly thinking about this since "day one" to the point of hurting his head you sure don't even have the slightest indication of what we have said.

I wonder why. We have been quite clear in our articles and video presentations on this issue for years now.

That's a lot of time to study our words.

Perhaps you didn't really pay attention to what we have said at all which is why you are asking "jthomas" to clarify my position instead of me.

Let me give you a hint: your above description isn't even close.

We KNOW the C-130 was real.
We KNOW the C-130 was at a much higher altitude.
We KNOW the C-130 was not in the airspace until about 3 minutes after the attack as confirmed by video, several eyewitnesses, and the C-130 pilot himself.

That's right, Pilots for 9/11 Truth had a DIRECT DIALOG with Lt Col Steve O'Brien via email where he CONFIRMED that he was so far away at the time of the explosion that he could not even tell it was coming from the Pentagon!



When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC.

-C-130 Pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien


The Pentagon is massive compared to a 757. If he could not see the Pentagon he would not be able to see the plane, alleged impact, or flyaway.

Since eyewitnesses and video confirm he didn't make it to the airspace above the Pentagon until about 3 minutes after the attack we know that he DID NOT "shadow" anything.

It was this proven FALSE shadowing claim made primarily by Keith Wheelhouse and perpetuated by the IMPLIED notion in subsequent media reports that would go on to serve as cover for the flyover.

The initial reports of this "2nd plane" were left ambiguous as to what kind of plane it was and created the false impression that it was approaching the Pentagon with "Flt 77".

These reports of an ambiguous "2nd plane" after the fact blended with the very specific yet proven false "shadowing C-130" claim of Keith Wheelhouse, and of course combined with legitimate accounts of the C-130 (with specific details of timing of the approach left out) were used to sow confusion and create an excuse for people who actually saw the plane flying away from the scene at the same time as the explosion.

In the first weeks and months after the attack nobody knew anything about Lt Col Steve O'Brien and barely anyone knew anything about a "C-130" at all. In the immediate post 9/11 hysteria people were not looking at things analytically or critically from a position of years of research as we are right now. Talk of ANY plane at all flying away at the same time of the attack would help placate whomever may have been concerned about the plane flying away.

Does that help?

After all these years of reading our articles and actually hurting your head trying to figure out what the words mean (and utterly failing) are you finally starting to understand?













[edit on 6-9-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas
Criag Ranke claims ONE C-130 flew at TWO different altitudes at TWO different times representing the SAME event.

I showed you. You claim it is not a contradiction. Amazing.


I’m not claiming anything, it’s a fact. Read the definition. All the information that CIT has presented is congruous within itself, therefore there is no contradiction that compromises their theories.


So, you say you're not claiming anything but then proceed to claim "all the information that CIT has presented is congruous within itself." Gosh.

But that is only so in your alternate reality, not in the real world.


AGAIN It doesn’t matter what altitude the plane flew away at.


But you and CIT claim it can flew at two different altitudes for the same event. That's your contradiction.


The entire theory remains congruous and is not compromised by a deviation in the altitude of the plane so long as it flies over (or even around) and not into the building.


Your claim is that a C-130 flew over the Pentagon at two different altitudes at two different times representing the exact same event. That's your contradiction and you blew it. How are you going to extricate yourself from that contradiction, jphis? Whine, again?



What you have presented is not a contradiction.


Not in your alternate reality, but down here on Planet Earth it is a blatant contradiction from which you and CIT have no way out.


AGAIN The only thing that CIT has done is update their theory in light of new evidence. It’s part of the scientific method and I suggest you try it.


You and CIT don't have a clue what the scientific method is. And CIT is a couple of rationally-challenged kids who don not know the first thing about conducting an investigation.

Any investigator will seek out ALL of the evidence. CIT has already declared that they will not deal with all of the evidence and they don't. I've already shown that for the last 3 years.

But, in your alternative universe, evidence doesn't matter. CIT has you bamboozled hook, line and sinker.




posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stylez


Ok then, SHOW ME! Show me the myriad of plane crash aftermath photos making the ones taken after 911 NOT UNIQUE!





You asked:




A DC-8 Crash in Sacramento parking lot. Wheres the plane? Oh no, can't see it, must of been a fake crash!






Iranian C-130 crash into apartment building...oh wow, look, no plane! The CIA must have did that one, too!




El Al 747 crashes into Amsterdam apartments, 1992. No plane! Wow! CIA must have done this one too!




Gasp! More work by the CIA in Cerritos, California, in 1986! This a DC-9.




Peru, 2003. The CIA, for unknown purposes, fakes yet ANOTHER crash! No plane here!





And once again, in Switzerland, we see the CIA faking yet another crash!

Now, whats this about all "real" plane crashes leaving large identifiable pieces of the plane intact?




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Criag Ranke claims ONE C-130 flew at TWO different altitudes at TWO different times representing the SAME event.

I showed you. You claim it is not a contradiction. Amazing.

It is not a contradiction because it does not render the theory incongruous.

With your faulty logic, science contradicted itself because it believed in a Maxwellian electromagnetic worldview, but then later believed in an Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.

TWO theoretical states of being, at TWO different times in history, used to illustrate the SAME event we call reality.

It’s not a contradiction; it’s called updated thinking.


Originally posted by JPhish
I’m not claiming anything, it’s a fact. Read the definition. All the information that CIT has presented is congruous within itself, therefore there is no contradiction that compromises their theories.



Originally posted by jthomas
So, you say you're not claiming anything but then proceed to claim "all the information that CIT has presented is congruous within itself." Gosh.

AGAIN, I’m not claiming it is a fact, it IS a fact. There is a drastic difference.


But that is only so in your alternate reality, not in the real world.

ad hominem(28) attacking me is not helping your argument.


Originally posted by JPhish
AGAIN It doesn’t matter what altitude the plane flew away at.



Originally posted by jthomas
But you and CIT claim it can flew at two different altitudes for the same event. That's your contradiction.

red herring/Ignoratio elenchi.(29)


Originally posted by JPhish
The entire theory remains congruous and is not compromised by a deviation in the altitude of the plane so long as it flies over (or even around) and not into the building.



Originally posted by jthomas
Your claim is that a C-130 flew over the Pentagon at two different altitudes at two different times representing the exact same event. That's your contradiction and you blew it. How are you going to extricate yourself from that contradiction, jphis? Whine, again?

inductive fallacy (30) The type of plane that possibly flew over the pentagon is of no consequence, nor is the attitude that it flew away at.


Originally posted by JPhish
What you have presented is not a contradiction.



Originally posted by jthomas
Not in your alternate reality, but down here on Planet Earth it is a blatant contradiction from which you and CIT have no way out.

Ignoratio elenchi (31) no way out of a straw man(38)? I think I’ll just huff, and puff and blow your straw man down with gusts of LOGIC.


You and CIT don't have a clue what the scientific method is.

baseless assertions(32) proof?


And CIT is a couple of rationally-challenged kids who don not know the first thing about conducting an investigation.
More baseless assertions (33&34) and a genetic fallacy (35). There is no evidence that they are rationally challenged. Being young of age does not render them incapable of conducting an investigation.


Any investigator will seek out ALL of the evidence.

That’s right, you seek out all evidence, BUT you’re supposed to disregard evidence which is flawed or tainted.


CIT has already declared that they will not deal with all of the evidence and they don't. I've already shown that for the last 3 years.

You’re supposed to disregard evidence which is flawed or tainted. So what you’ve been “showing” for the LAST THREE YEARS is completely erroneous.


But, in your alternative universe, evidence doesn't matter. CIT has you bamboozled hook, line and sinker.
baseless assertions (36)(37) proof?

Your entire argument is a classic straw man(38).

Here's a question you ignored or missed from my previous post

If the “jet” didn’t crash into the pentagon, where did it go???



We’re saying it flew over or even around the pentagon. Just as a reminder while your answering this question . . . The altitude it flew away at is irrelevant!

[edit on 9/7/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


What proof to you have that a plane hit the pentagon? We don’t want to hear you say Oh I told you all years ago! I am asking you now, what proof do YOU have that an airplane hit the pentagon?

Just answer the question.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 







I agree it’s difficult to identify much of the plane but it sure looks like the mountain is still there.




[edit on 7-9-2009 by impressme]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
for the skeptics, questions I think that that need to be asked, regardless of your view on 9/11 "Do you believe the official story and is it accurate? Were the events of 9/11 investigated thoroughly enough? Why was evidence removed so quickly?"


Remember, the official story is what will be remembered throughout history. If any doubts are left unchallenged, mother time will wash away any ability to challenge them and future generations could be robbed of any real truths, just as I believe we have been.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


A mountain would not collapse from a plane crash. Nor, for that matter, would a skyscraper, but thats a different subject altogether.

My point is, no two plane crashes are alike, and the destruction to the air craft is never the same. Some crashes reduce planes to glitter.

The site where I dug those pictures up has tons of photos of plane crashes, and we see in them that when planes crash, the wreckage left ranges from a broken fuselage that's still in large pieces, to scattered parts of the plane, to shreds of unidentifiable debris.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Ok, lets look at this logically. A plane has been hijacked and is heading towards the pentagon and is being flown by people that have only been trained on light aircraft.

For some reason they decide to fly the thing feet off the ground and slam into a side wall of the building (accounting office) why?

Why not just nosedive it into the centre of the building?

I just don't get it???????



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by stevecc
 


More chance of missing the target that way. Or hitting between the rings and not causing as much damage.

Not to mention the "center" of the Pentagon is an open courtyard.....

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


I think you are on to something. Obviously the CIA has been crashing planes for years just to prepare for 9/11!!!!!

Way to go Skadi!!!!!


(for those who are sarcasm impaired, it is MASSIVE sarcasm in my post)



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by mappam
 


I reccomend watching the video, it is great! They address some of your questions....and check this out. This will explain some with a picture...

[edit on 30-8-2009 by burntheships]


This isn't cartoon land, a plane wouldn't leave the exact cutout of a plane like a cartoon running through a wall


The strongest part of the plane is the landing gear, and there are tons of photos of plane debris...oh truthers when will you learn.


[edit on 30-8-2009 by yellowcard]


The interesting part of that picture is the burn areas. As the plane came in on an angle you can see to the right the burn line is very define to where the end of the wing would be. The wings would most likely colaspe not doing large damage since the thicker part of the wing/engine near the fuselage would hit first and as the outer wing hit it would just fold back, but the fuel would splash out and burn the building as it shows. As you go outside of the engines to where the wings get thinner and thinner you see less and less physical damage on the building, but the fuel burns are still there.

Now another interesting part is to the left side that shows basically the same thing but with a much bigger fuel splash. When you look at the angle of the plane as it hit you can see the fuel would splash forward and to the left as it shows. If this was a missile it would be a very uniformed explosion around it and all forward with no burn marks on the building outside of the explosion.

Another area I find not looked at very much is the testing for JP8. It seems it would be easy to test to see if there was a large amount of it. Just as people are focused on chemical testing on the WTC it seems if there was a total absence of JP8 at the pentagon that would be a smoking gun, or if there was a lot of it would rule rather heavily in favor that a plane hit it. Testing the outer walls that were not damaged but burned would be a extremely good place to look.



[edit on 7-9-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


That's right, Pilots for 9/11 Truth had a DIRECT DIALOG with Lt Col Steve O'Brien via email where he CONFIRMED that he was so far away at the time of the explosion that he could not even tell it was coming from the Pentagon!



When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC.

-C-130 Pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien


The Pentagon is massive compared to a 757. If he could not see the Pentagon he would not be able to see the plane, alleged impact, or flyaway.


Speaking of faulty logic and misinterpretation, you seem to have a problem with that yourself. Col. O'Brien did not say he could not see the Pentagon, he said he couldn't see "exactly where or what it had impacted."
This means he wasn't as far away as you imply and could have seen the aircraft if it had flown away. Are all of your statements as disingenuous as this?





new topics

top topics



 
213
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join