What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
You cannot support your claim that "there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon."

Then prove me wrong.

You have to demonstrate your own claim, buddy.

We're waiting.

Which "we?"

The real world. The world you have to convince.

Thank you finally completely proving beyond all doubt that you do not read what it is you are responding to. When did I ask anything about which world? Apparently what I asked was, "who is we?"

Now, are you going to tell us how you know, "there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene," or will you continue to evade supporting your claim and confirm to the real world that you are just silly nutters.

Just like the callers who phoned in these silly questions:

Keep your youtube clips of crap that does not matter to yourself, thanks. No need to clutter this thread with videos you just feel like posting to be derisive. I already explained to you quite clearly how I know there were no passenger bodies. I explained and someone else even repeated it for me.

You have failed to prove otherwise. You claimed that there were bodies in seats. Where? Who found those? How can I get in touch with the people that actually saw bodies in seats?

Keep up your lies that you cannot even begin to back up. You have truly almost mastered deflection.

lol. So for one thing 792 is not thousands, and out of the 792 not how many saw the impact? well over 95%? I have a few free moments, perhaps Ill get a count going...

Just as I thought, out of the 1st 100 witnesses not a single one saw the impact.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by SPreston

We also have a single video of sorts of which show the impact and a little of the aircraft.

posted by jthomas

Correct, we are certain that shows the results of the impact. Are you coming around to admitting AA77 hit the Pentagon?

There you go lying again and creating strawman arguments jthomas. That is a quotation from General Radek and not from me.

posted by GenRadek

We also have a single video of sorts of which show the impact and a little of the aircraft.

Lest we forget, the United States Department of Defense deliberately lied to the American people and the world when it claimed it had released no photos from video cameras, of the Pentagon parking lot video leaked still frames in 2002.

"Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras.

"The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin.

A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."

source

But of course the Defense Dept had full knowledge of the videos in its custody which were released by FOIA in 2006, and the still frames also in its custody which were prepared for the Moussaoui Show Trial. They lied which is what governments do when caught in a criminal act.

Videos Released Of Plane Crashing Into Pentagon
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 17, 2006

The split-second image of the hijacked airplane slamming into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, filled computer screens around the nation yesterday as the Defense Department for the first time officially released two videos of the terrorist attack.

source

Originally posted by jprophet420
lol. So for one thing 792 is not thousands, and out of the 792 not how many saw the impact? well over 95%? I have a few free moments, perhaps Ill get a count going...

Just as I thought, out of the 1st 100 witnesses not a single one saw the impact.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by jprophet420]

I honestly do not believe that Jthomas reads the things he posts, the links he posts, or the posts he replies to.

posted by jprophet420
Post a link to thousands of witnesses. You can't do it. you cant do anything but talk **** and not back it up.

posted by ImAPepper

I hope I am not being rude by interjecting here. I have a link that may be of interest to you. It is a PDF file that contains that master list of witnesses at the Pentagon. These folks are witnesses to different aspects of the attack. This list and subsequent interviews are all available due to a FOIA request by ATS member John Farmer. It contains 792 witnesses and their statements.

That is the most hilarious list I have ever seen. All those names are redacted and not one single name is traceable and verifiable. Those people cannot be interviewed and asked further questions and verified as real living human beings because they are untraceable. Did you find any and question them?

You have ZERO witnesses and their statements.

Regardless I looked at the first hundred redacted name statements on your list and not one saw an aircraft impact the Pentagon, and not one saw a Flight 77 passenger burned and mangled and strapped into an aircraft seat, and two saw an aircraft flying Over Ft Meyer which is northwest of the Naval Annex and on the edge of Arlington Cemetery and then heard an explosion.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas


Which "we?"

The real world. The world you have to convince.

Thank you finally completely proving beyond all doubt that you do not read what it is you are responding to. When did I ask anything about which world? Apparently what I asked was, "who is we?"

The real world. The world outside of this forum in which we all live.

Now, are you going to tell us how you know, "there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene," or will you continue to evade supporting your claim and confirm to the real world that you are just silly nutters.

I already explained to you quite clearly how I know there were no passenger bodies. I explained and someone else even repeated it for me.

No, you have not pointed me to any such thing when you have had the opportunity for days to so fro days.

Now demonstrate how you know there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon or withdraw your claim. It is as simple as that. So stop your petty evasions.

Nobody is willing to take a stab at my question posed here:
post by Kryties

Nobody??

And before someone says "The pictures are too blurry to see anything like that" then how could one make such a claim and yet also claim they see a large jet airliner in the pictures?

posted by Kryties
OK, I have a question. If a large jet airliner came barrelling through the below picture, where is the debris that would have been kicked high in the air as it passed so low over the road and grass?

I'll clarify that: I know the airliner apparently didn't touch the ground at all but with a jet that large, any and all debris small enough in its flight-path would have been kicked up into the air. Mythbusters makes a great example of this when they smash a large bus to pieces with the thrust of a 747 airliner.

In the below picture, and the whole 5 frames we have been permitted to view of the apparent crash, I do not see one single piece of loose grass, dirt, chip packet, McDonald's cup, parking ticket, love letter dumping some poor bugger - nothing, nada, zip.

I am not so silly as to believe that the landscape around the Pentagon was kept immaculately clean, considering the major roadway right in front. Anyone who has ever driven in a car on a road knows that the side of the road is always filthy from people throwing their junk out.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/234df1c1fcd0.jpg[/atsimg]


Disclaimer: Debris thrown out by whatever caused the explosion is not inclusive of my post. Only the lack of debris in the flightpath leading up to the explosion.

Holds true in the plane still frame also. The 90 ton 757 aircraft, according to the official Pentagon Building Performance Report, is barreling along at 530 mph (780 feet per second) with the turbofan engines at full throttle and just inches above the Pentagon lawn, after allegedly knocking down five 257 pound light poles, and pulling up at the bottom of the hill at an extremely high G rate, and the ground effect, all that mass of air supposedly pushed aside by the 90 ton mass of the aircraft, is doing nothing to the lawn and autos and people and litter?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5b840387034c.jpg[/atsimg]

I agree with you completely. There is no sign of an aircraft whatsoever in those videos and leaked still frames. Even jthomas agrees with us.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/694cca2e5e33.jpg[/atsimg]

And that white hot fireball just looks too fake to be a jet fuel explosion. And it looks like two huge explosions side-by-side.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9524015aa9e4.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4efbb934c0be.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 9/20/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston

Holds true in the plane still frame also. The 90 ton 757 aircraft, according to the official Pentagon Building Performance Report, is barreling along at 530 mph (780 feet per second) with the turbofan engines at full throttle and just inches above the Pentagon lawn, after allegedly knocking down five 257 pound light poles, and pulling up at the bottom of the hill at an extremely high G rate, and the ground effect, all that mass of air supposedly pushed aside by the 90 ton mass of the aircraft, is doing nothing to the lawn and autos and people and litter?

I agree with you completely. There is no sign of an aircraft whatsoever in those videos and leaked still frames. Even jthomas agrees with us.

That's exactly what I meant, I wasn't only referring to lack of debris in the zoomed shot, but the entire sequence. In fact, no media I have seen whatsoever regarding the pentagon 9/11 incident shows ANY evidence of debris being kicked up by a large jet airliner along the supposed flightpath.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by SPreston

Holds true in the plane still frame also. The 90 ton 757 aircraft, according to the official Pentagon Building Performance Report, is barreling along at 530 mph (780 feet per second) with the turbofan engines at full throttle and just inches above the Pentagon lawn, after allegedly knocking down five 257 pound light poles, and pulling up at the bottom of the hill at an extremely high G rate, and the ground effect, all that mass of air supposedly pushed aside by the 90 ton mass of the aircraft, is doing nothing to the lawn and autos and people and litter?

I agree with you completely. There is no sign of an aircraft whatsoever in those videos and leaked still frames. Even jthomas agrees with us.

That's exactly what I meant, I wasn't only referring to lack of debris in the zoomed shot, but the entire sequence. In fact, no media I have seen whatsoever regarding the pentagon 9/11 incident shows ANY evidence of debris being kicked up by a large jet airliner along the supposed flightpath.

You're assuming debris would be kicked up, that a low-resolution security cam would see it, and that if debris were kicked up, one would be able to tell that after the fact.

So you'd better go back to square one and demonstrate that your assumption has any basis in reality, because you haven't shown anything to substantiate it.

reply to post by jthomas


If there were debris kicked up by a jet airliner, even a blurry youtube video would show blurry splotches flying up and then down again as the jet went past. I do not even see that, which leads me to speculate that indeed nothing large enough to pick up debris actually flew into the pentagon.

Thats SPECULATE. Not CLAIM, not DECLARE but SPECULATE. Unlike others in this thread who make such assured declarations, but provide little or no proof.

Prove to me that a blurry streak and a puff of what appears to be smoke is, without a shadow of a doubt, a jet airliner. Explain to me why the Pentagon - centre of America's military might - had ONE low resolution camera covering the entire front portion of the Pentagon - and if it turns out you know of more camera's why then were we not shown images that even remotely look like a jet airliner? (Excuses of Classified information won't work and are a cop-out - there is no reason to classify all but 5 blurry frames that you can't make out anything in).

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by jthomas

 

If there were debris kicked up by a jet airliner, even a blurry youtube video would show blurry splotches flying up and then down again as the jet went past.

How are you able to know that, particularly since we cannot even actually identify a Boeing 757 in the parking lot cam video? What is your source?

Prove to me that a blurry streak and a puff of what appears to be smoke is, without a shadow of a doubt, a jet airliner.

First, I've already stated that no one can identify a Boeing 757 or any jet just by looking the the security camera video. Second, no one is even claiming that. Third, we have multiple lines of evidence already demonstrating that AA77 hit the Pentagon. That is precisely why no one even needs a video to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Explain to me why the Pentagon - centre of America's military might - had ONE low resolution camera covering the entire front portion of the Pentagon - and if it turns out you know of more camera's why then were we not shown images that even remotely look like a jet airliner? (Excuses of Classified information won't work and are a cop-out - there is no reason to classify all but 5 blurry frames that you can't make out anything in).

First, the parking lot camera was a security camera for the parking lot entrance, not one meant to act as a security camera for the front of the Pentagon.

Second, there were other cameras on the Pentagon but we have no reason to assume they would capture AA77 flying in and hitting the Pentagon.

Focusing on video cameras is irrelevant. We no more need videos to know and understand what happened at the Pentagon than we do to know how and why the Titanic sank.

Even the majority of the 9/11 Truth Movement knows all these silly Pentagon videos claims are just one big fat Red Herring. Don't fall for it.

Originally posted by jthomas
Focusing on video cameras is irrelevant. We no more need videos to know and understand what happened at the Pentagon than we do to know how and why the Titanic sank.

Even the majority of the 9/11 Truth Movement knows all these silly Pentagon videos claims are just one big fat Red Herring. Don't fall for it.

OK, fair enough. Silly me for thinking that visual/video evidence would prove without a doubt exactly what happened that day. My bad, tsk tsk, I shall not make that amatuerish mistake again.

Look, would it not stand to reason that the Military Centre of America might have one or two teeny little camera's just checking that no waskily wabbits are chewing on the Pentagon lawn? Come on now, my bloody supermarket has 15 camera's that I have counted, probably more that I can't see and 4 of which cover the entrance. It stands to logical reason that the Pentagon has more than just one video from a security camera apparently meant to be covering the toll booths.

Occam's razor and all that.....

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by jthomas
Focusing on video cameras is irrelevant. We no more need videos to know and understand what happened at the Pentagon than we do to know how and why the Titanic sank.

Even the majority of the 9/11 Truth Movement knows all these silly Pentagon videos claims are just one big fat Red Herring. Don't fall for it.

OK, fair enough. Silly me for thinking that visual/video evidence would prove without a doubt exactly what happened that day. My bad, tsk tsk, I shall not make that amatuerish mistake again.

It's a mistake in reasoning. Suppose a video surfaced definitely show an American Airlines approaching and hitting the Pentagon. What would that actually change?

Would it change the other evidence that already demonstrates conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon? Of course not.

Would it change your mind? Perhaps. But then you don't believe the massive evidence that already demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon. Would you suddenly now accept all of that evidence only to come to the realization that the evidence was right in front of you all these years?

The fact is that any video that surfaced showing AA77 hitting the Pentagon does not change the existing evidence in any way whatsoever.

The lack of a video demonstrates nothing. So far, all that Pentagon no-planers claim is that there should have been a video showing AA77 hitting the Pentagon. No evidence is given why. They simply assume cameras should be mounted to capture everything It is simply an appeal to incredulity and not positive evidence that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Look, would it not stand to reason that the Military Centre of America might have one or two teeny little camera's just checking that no waskily wabbits are chewing on the Pentagon lawn? Come on now, my bloody supermarket has 15 camera's that I have counted, probably more that I can't see and 4 of which cover the entrance. It stands to logical reason that the Pentagon has more than just one video from a security camera apparently meant to be covering the toll booths.

What you believe should have been the case is irrelevant. What you need to demonstrate is that there were actually cameras operating and that under all circumstances one or more of those cameras must have caught the impact. But, as I stated above, whether there are videos or not is completely beside the point. We already have the evidence from all other sources demonstrating conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

in answer to he title, A PLANE. I would also say that on that plane there was a few hundred people and that the plane was indeed going a few hundred miles per hour.

Originally posted by paranoiaFTW
in answer to he title, A PLANE. I would also say that on that plane there was a few hundred people and that the plane was indeed going a few hundred miles per hour.

This is a pretty empty statement. There were not even supposed to be a few hundred people on that plane so you do not even have your half info correct. You are just repeating things you have been told. This is no place for that.

Originally posted by Kryties
Occam's razor and all that.....

Apparently you missed all of this when it came up earlier. People like Thomas have already made it clear that 8 years ago, the pentagon could have never had the quality of surveillance that an office supply warehouse of the same time would.

Not only did the pentagon have the least sophistic-ally advanced cameras, it did not even have all that many any way. Those things on the roof are silver balls.

Yes, that is right, do not believe what you have seen and read. In fact, do not believe anything except for the 9/11 geniuses that wander these threads completely pretending that over 80 tapes were not stolen to prevent us from getting a good shot of the plane. It makes total sense that we would develop technology and spend the resources to guard reams of blank paper than we would the millitary center of the country, right?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Kryties
Occam's razor and all that.....

Apparently you missed all of this when it came up earlier. People like Thomas have already made it clear that 8 years ago, the pentagon could have never had the quality of surveillance that an office supply warehouse of the same time would.

Not only did the pentagon have the least sophistic-ally advanced cameras, it did not even have all that many any way. Those things on the roof are silver balls.

Yes, that is right, do not believe what you have seen and read. In fact, do not believe anything except for the 9/11 geniuses that wander these threads completely pretending that over 80 tapes were not stolen to prevent us from getting a good shot of the plane. It makes total sense that we would develop technology and spend the resources to guard reams of blank paper than we would the millitary center of the country, right?

Don't mind Lillydale. She's terribly upset that I came along and asked her to support her claims. She thinks she has "special privileges" as a 9/11 "Truther" not to have to support her claims. She was duped into thinking "just asking questions" was a right reserved for 9/11 "Truthers" only.

The realization that she has to support her own claims is very tough for her to accept. She felt she could just "claim" "no passenger bodies were found at the Pentagon" without demonstrating how she knows that, or what she knows, and other gullible Truthers would just accept it as true.

Then I had to come along and show that the Emperor wears no clothes.




[edit on 20-9-2009 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas


LOL. This coming from someone who claims that AA77 crashed into the pentagon as evidenced by..............

Oh right, for some reason you do not need to back up your claims?

Let me try again, I will go slowly.

Before 9/11, there were no dead airline passengers at the pentagon.

Since 9/11, nothing has shown me that has changed.

You claim that it has. You claim a passenger airliner crashed there with people aboard.

My claim is backed up by the simple reality of that how things were.

Are you trying to claim that there always has been dead airline passengers within the walls of the pentagon and I am proposing something changed? You cannot be that simple, I feel quite certain.

You made the claim, you back it up. Do you feel like you are getting anywhere yet? You can roll around on the floor with me all you like while everyone else makes progress without your insipid babbling.

reply to jthomas' post #84

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by scott3x
I don't think I'll ever forget that comment. I think it speaks volumes for why many OS supporters are so averse to questioning their beliefs.

I'd recommend questioning your own belief that there is some "official story" to "believe" rather than vetting, accepting, or refuting the massive evidence that is available.

Once you come to realize that the use of the prop, "official story", is no more than a means to hide the Truth Movement's inability to deal with the actual evidence, that it is used, as Jezus did here today, as a means of saying to us that links to evidence is "nothing more than links to the 'official story', so "we don't have to deal with it," you'll understand why the "official story" claim is such a canard.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to tell me. I do believe there is an official story and as a general rule, I think you agree with it. I also believe that the Truth Movement as a general rule has examined more evidence than OS supporters. As to what Jezus said, I'd like to see the context, but I can tell you that I consider myself to be more thorough concerning checking alleged evidence from OS supporters than many within the truth movement, so feel free to present any evidence you feel that others in the truth movement haven't addressed.