IT'S OFFICIAL: Even conspiracy web sites acknowledge it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon

If it was a plane, like the official story, then how come the ONLY video evidence we have is 3 frames from a checkpoint security camera, while there were apparently dozens of other security cameras that would have caught some glimpse of the event?

Why did the government confiscate that video footage and why hasn't it been released to the public?

Seems to me like they have something to hide...

reply to post by Monts

If it was a plane, like the official story, then how come the ONLY video evidence we have is 3 frames from a checkpoint security camera,

What logical process determines that the chances of an event being caught on video are directly related to the socio-political import of that event?

while there were apparently dozens of other security cameras that would have caught some glimpse of the event?

How is that "apparent"? Because you chose to use the word "apparent" in your sentence?

Why did the government confiscate that video footage and why hasn't it been released to the public?

What video footage?

Seems to me like they have something to hide...

Seems to me like you have something you need to prove....

Originally posted by BuzzingOn
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

So in other words, Dr. Legge is absolutely correct on everything you want to believe is true, and he's absolutely mistaken on the things you don't want to believe is true. Does that about sum it up?

No GoodOlDave, it is not that I "don't want to believe" what is "true" but, that I have a different opinion on what he, Dr. Legge, 'believes' what is true.

Example: He may not believe that chocolate ice cream taste good and I may think it does. That doesn't mean I don't believe that 'to him' it taste bad, it just means I disagree and think it taste good instead.

If you can understand that, then that sums it up.
Bzzzzzzz

Your analogy doesn't work. Flavors of ice cream depend on personal preference so there isn't a right answer or a wrong answer. The research into the events of 9/11 should be...or at least, what *I* think it should be...based upon the review of the actual evidence in front of us, rather than personal opinion. Dr. Legge is looking at the evidence including the flight recorder information, the human remains, and the wreckage, and he states the evidence shows that it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. Either flight 77 hit the Pentagon or it didn't, and he's saying the evidence shows that it did. It isn't something to be based upon personal opinion any more than it's your personal opinion that two plue two should equal seven.

If you're saying that it is going to be your personal opinion that some sinister conspiracy is afoot regardless of everything the evidence shows, then please be honest enough to admit it.

All we have seen in 10 years is 3 frames from a checkpoint security camera which shows an impact but no details of what the object was.

Even if we all believed the unlikely scenario that none of the other multitudes of cameras picked up the incident I would still like to see the next 12 or so frames from that checkpoint security camera. Maybe we would see debris from the plane on the lawn? Maybe we would see the after effects of the explosion? Why cant we see them presented as evidence?

I can't understand why those seeking the truth on both sides of the discussion wouldnt wish to see this information for themselves. I would have more respect for those who fervantly defend the 'plane hit the Pentagon' opinion if they themselves demanded the evidence that is clearly available but hidden from all of us. Doesnt that make you uncomfortable in your acceptance of the official account of events?

reply to post by eyestotheskies

I would have more respect for those who fervantly defend the 'plane hit the Pentagon' opinion if they themselves demanded the evidence that is clearly available but hidden from all of us.

Opinion? Is that like the "sun rises in the morning" opinion. Please, this is not an "opinion". This is a well documented fact. Your position that there may be additional evidence to the support the fact of the plane hitting the Pentagon that you have not been privy to does not negate the remaining evidence.

reply to post by Monts

Why did the government confiscate that video footage and why hasn't it been released to the public?

All videos that were collected (not "confiscated") in order to examine them for EVIDENCE were then released back to their owners, and into public record. The ONLY places that claim otherwise? The liars at the "9/11 conspiracy" websites.

"...I subsequently searched a series of FBI evidence databases, including the FBI's Electronic Case File system and the FBI's Investigative Case Management System, and determined that the FBI possessed eighty-five (85) videotapes that might be potentially responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request. This determination was based on videotapes that had been submitted into FBI evidence, sent directly to the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, and/or obtained by the FBI's Washington Field Office."

The FBI are talking about 85 videos, but this is just the result of an initial search that includes (for example) all videos obtained by the Washington Field Office. If we move on from that then the numbers begin to fall dramatically.

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 remaining 29 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, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77."

Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released.

www.911myths.com...

There's a full list of the 84 (85) videos, and what they showed (and didn't show). Instead of copy/pasting, just go look for yourself.

The continuing problem of MISinformation, and DISinformation that comes from those crap "9/11 conspiracy" websites is tragic. People need to stop being so intellectually lazy, and dig deeper, in research.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by eyestotheskies

 

I would have more respect for those who fervantly defend the 'plane hit the Pentagon' opinion if they themselves demanded the evidence that is clearly available but hidden from all of us.

Opinion? Is that like the "sun rises in the morning" opinion. Please, this is not an "opinion". This is a well documented fact. Your position that there may be additional evidence to the support the fact of the plane hitting the Pentagon that you have not been privy to does not negate the remaining evidence.

You see - that reply just doesnt do it for me. I have no agenda here. I'm not on either side. I just want transparency and I do not see it. Your 'sun rises in the morning' comparison does not work and you have just re-affirmed my own views on the matter.

I ask my honest question again. Do you not feel uncomfortable with the lack of transparency in all this?

I have only just noticed this thread and haven't had time to read the .pdf, but I notice it is co-authored by Warren Stutt, who started a lengthy debate on Pilots for 9.11 Truth.com about the Flight 77 flight deck/passenger cabin door never being opened during the hijacking. There was a big disagreement over whether he had actually decoded that data correctly, and here he is again proclaiming his decoding prowess.
Seeing as so much of the FDR data seemed to show the plane the data came from did not come from a plane that hit the Pentagon, this pdf had better be good. Very good.

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
That's your quote from later on in the thread Dave. You DID put all truthers into one group.

Not all "Truthers" think that it was something else besides a plane that flew into the Pentagon. Truthers don't believe the OS put forth by the Govt; that 9/11 was a bolt-out-of-the-blue surprise attack upon the US by Muslim terrorists. And that, (the OS), we know is a lie.

All right, truthers don't believe the OS put forth by the gov't. What you're negelcting to mention is WHY you don't believe the OS put forth by the gov't. After all, when I hear eyewitness statements from fire fighters stating that fires were burning out of control in WTC 7 and they were causing bulging in the side of the building and that they knew from the poor condition of the building that it was going to come down, it tells me that the fires were at least doing something bad to the structure. I have to presume that you're not a stark raving lunatic who listens to voices in your head so someone is telling you that what he's saying is wrong. So, who was it?

*I* say it's from the paranoid nonsense being put out by those damned fool conspiracy web sites being run by college kids out of their dorm room. What do *you* say?

So you see, while you may want to help find the truth about what happened that day by showing studies that support the plane in pentagon theory; please remember that in so doing you should also help by proposing other theories that haven't been dis-proven.

The problem for you is that nothing is disproven in the minds of the people who want to believe something is true. This is because they consistantly make up excuses for why they shouldn't have to accept anything that shows it's wrong. Thus, everyone from the NIST engineers to Ted Olson to Dr. Judy Wood to even me are accused of all being secret gov't agents sent to spread disinformation.

Heck, from what I'm seeing, everyone here is now back peddling away from their near-servile loyalty to Dr. "Thermitic material" Legge entirely becuase he's now saying something they don't want to believe is true, so in truth you are NOT showing me why I shouldn't lump the truthers into the same bucket. It's just a different bucket I should be lumping the truthers all into.

reply to post by eyestotheskies

I ask my honest question again. Do you not feel uncomfortable with the lack of transparency in all this?

No, not at all. I don't know specifically where you want additional "transparency" but I realize that as a common citizen, without any specific legal standing, I am not special enough to make demands of my nation's government. There are personal matters that I don't think I have a right to review (DNA evidence, photos of the victims, etc.) and there also may be matters of National Security which I do respect.

9/11 was the result of a well planned assault by foreign nationals against the US and more particluarly, its citizens. The institutions, organizations and groups that participated in the assualt are still out there and still active.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by eyestotheskies

 

I ask my honest question again. Do you not feel uncomfortable with the lack of transparency in all this?

No, not at all. I don't know specifically where you want additional "transparency" but I realize that as a common citizen, without any specific legal standing, I am not special enough to make demands of my nation's government. There are personal matters that I don't think I have a right to review (DNA evidence, photos of the victims, etc.) and there also may be matters of National Security which I do respect.

9/11 was the result of a well planned assault by foreign nationals against the US and more particluarly, its citizens. The institutions, organizations and groups that participated in the assualt are still out there and still active.

Why should you require a specific legal standing to be told the truth by your government. In democratic countries the government is elected by the citizens to serve the citizens best interests, not the other way round. If you think that releasing the next 10 frames from that security camera would undermine US national security then so be it, but I do not buy it.

I see that all the usual big hitters have arrived on mass to smother this discussion so I will bow out gracefully, but I've learned an illuminating lesson in how you guys operate.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Care to back up this garbage ?? All we actually have are eyewitness reports of incredible earth shaking blasts caused by unknowns...fires that are not at all impressive...entirely annihilated sequential collapses of what were completely perfectly solid buildings till SUDDENLY they decide to explode.

You have reporters ON THE SCENE at the Pentagon reporting no plane , and we all have seen the many pics that show that no jet-liner impacted this building.

Why is the official story incorrect ?? Because none of it can stand up to any sort of scrutiny at all...love to see this prosecuted in ANY court

None of it makes sense for anyone on the "terrorist Islamic side" to have tried or pulled off...there are far better targets.

All of it makes sense from an "inside Israeli side" to have tried and pulled off.

All of this continues to help one side,, and that is the ONLY side ever defended by you Trusters, and we all know why.

reply to post by eyestotheskies


I was speaking generally, not specifically to the issue of the next ten frames of that video. First, I don't know that it isn't available. Second, if you want to see it then file a request under the FOIA, thats how its done.

Originally posted by lambros56
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

On the research i`ve done.....i dont believe the original planes with the original passengers hit the Pentagon.

Er... you may have to do more research... only ONE plane supposedly impacted the pentagon. Not 'planes' as you state.

What did your research tell you about the missing passengers by the way? I am intrigued.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Your analogy doesn't work. Flavors of ice cream depend on personal preference so there isn't a right answer or a wrong answer. The research into the events of 9/11 should be...or at least, what *I* think it should be...based upon the review of the actual evidence in front of us, rather than personal opinion. Dr. Legge is looking at the evidence including the flight recorder information, the human remains, and the wreckage, and he states the evidence shows that it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. Either flight 77 hit the Pentagon or it didn't, and he's saying the evidence shows that it did. It isn't something to be based upon personal opinion any more than it's your personal opinion that two plue two should equal seven.

If you're saying that it is going to be your personal opinion that some sinister conspiracy is afoot regardless of everything the evidence shows, then please be honest enough to admit it.

"research into the events of 9/11 should be...or at least, what *I* think it should be...based upon the review of the actual evidence in front of us"

Yes but what if the evidence, 'the actual evidence in front of us' is Tainted, Planted and/or Missing? What then?

Then you might get a bunch of people examining Boeing 757 plane parts in a burned out cavity of the Pentagon thinking that indeed, "the evidence shows" a 757 crashed here! When really it only shows there were Boeing parts in the cavity.

How can we trust that anything we examine or could examine if given the chance hasn't been 'doctored' in some way? 'The evidence shows that it did'... Doctored evidence frequently shows what it intends to and not that it has been doctored.

Cheney and Bush went in to testify, together, not under oath and not recorded, I dunno, is someone maybe trying to have their way with the evidence narrative?

The guy I'd like to talk to first would be the assistant or page or whatever, you know the guy described in the Mineta testimony who Mineta said would periodically come in and say to Cheney like: "The object is 200 miles out, it's 100 miles out, it's 50 miles out... Does the order still stand?"

Looks to me like they knew it was even coming and so the 'order' must've been to turn off all the Pentagon cameras!!

What was that guy talking about an ice cream truck?!

"Does the order still stand?" "Yeah did I tell you any different? I want a double banana-split and get Norman here a Sno-cone when that truck with the bell finally gets here!"

The 'Evidence' might be part of the 'Conspiracy'.

Peace

reply to post by manmental


What missing passengers ??

Ever notice that barely anything was ever mentioned about these people on the mainstream news ??

Didn't want people thinking about that at all, just focus on your hatred for others and carry on.

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Care to back up this garbage ?? All we actually have are eyewitness reports of incredible earth shaking blasts caused by unknowns...fires that are not at all impressive...entirely annihilated sequential collapses of what were completely perfectly solid buildings till SUDDENLY they decide to explode.

If you're referring to WTC 7 then you are horribly misinformed, as NYFD deputy fire chief Peter Hayden was standing right next the WTC 7 and he's the one who reported the fires were causing bulges in the side of the building. Plus, every video of the collapse of WTC 7 shows the penthouse collapsed into the interior of WTC 7 some six seconds before the exterior collapsed which immeditely shows what the "unknown explosions" were.

This was already exhaustively explained elsewhere, and this thread is about Dr. Legge and his reaearch on the Pentagon, not about WTC 7. If you want to discuss WTC 7 then please start a separate thread.

You have reporters ON THE SCENE at the Pentagon reporting no plane , and we all have seen the many pics that show that no jet-liner impacted this building.

Of course reporters on the scene reported no plane. It had crashed so there wasn't a plane there anymore, but it DID leave wreckage throughout the area (which reporters confirmed) and hordes of eyewitnesses specifically stated it was a passenger jet they saw hit the Pentagon, which is obviously among the evidence Dr. Legge is taking into account.

The problem isn't that there's no evidence, becuase there obviously is. The problem is that those damned fool conspiracy web sites you go to for all your information aren't going to tell it to you. Doesn't it strike you at least a little odd that Dr. Legge is quoting brand new things that you weren't aware of? That's becuase they're brand new only to you.

Why is the official story incorrect ?? Because none of it can stand up to any sort of scrutiny at all...love to see this prosecuted in ANY court

It was, actually. April Gallop filed a lawsuit on the grounds that no plane hit the Pentagon, and it was laughed out of court on the grounds that it was delusional (the judge's words, not mine). All they needed to do is bring a few eyewitnesses to testify that it was a plane they saw to kick that rotten foundation down.

Laff , You brought up WTC7 not me , start your own thread.

Anyone report on the bulges on the twin towers ??

I guess noone will ever have truly questioned these eyewitnesses who claim they saw a plane going 460 mph smash into a building and disappear without a trace, save for some small pieces that apparently bounced off the super strong walls.

It does not take any damned fool sites to convince me that you are grasping for anything regarding this story.

It DOES however require that you go to damned fool sites to give you any kind of ridiculous help.

I would like to know why you think this story is so bulletproof, and not pose any questions yourself as to "motive" of these terrorists as it simply helped there "enemies".

How many coincidences in one day can we get, i think that day broke the record by 1000's.

You have to be really messed up to not be able to see that the things you believe are not ironclad at all...yet only official story believers think they KNOW exactly what happened....reminds me of Bible Believers,oops did i say that ???

As others have said, I will need proof. There is no evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon. There are some supposed pictures of plane debris, none of it conclusively showing the pictures were taken at the Pentagon. There were at least 85 working cameras that day pointing at the Pentagon and not one video showing anything hitting the building, only the explosion. The movie National Security Alert Sensitive Information is a great documentary that focuses strictly on the Pentagon attack. I suggest everyone watch that film.

Originally posted by NWOwned
Yes but what if the evidence, 'the actual evidence in front of us' is Tainted, Planted and/or Missing? What then?

...then you need to show why it's tainted, planted, or missing, rather than just making up excuses that it's tainted, planted, or missing and then run away giggling.

We have hordes of eyewitnesses all saying it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, from motorists, people working in nearby buildings, and even an immigrant frm El Salvador tending the lawn across the street. Please point out how these people are "tainted, planted, or missing".

Then you might get a bunch of people examining Boeing 757 plane parts in a burned out cavity of the Pentagon thinking that indeed, "the evidence shows" a 757 crashed here! When really it only shows there were Boeing parts in the cavity.

Then you'd need to show an alternative reason how the aircraft parts...as well as the remains of the passengers...suddenly showed up in the middle of the Pentagon all in a blink of an eye.

How can we trust that anything we examine or could examine if given the chance hasn't been 'doctored' in some way? 'The evidence shows that it did'... Doctored evidence frequently shows what it intends to and not that it has been doctored.

It seems to me you're not wondering whether it had been doctored or not. You're insisting that it was doctored and you're demanding proof that it wasn't doctored. With a mindset like that, you'll likewise think all the proof that shows it wasn't doctored is doctored too. This isn't research. This is circular logic in that you're repeating the original claim in different terms in order to prove itself. If the 9/11 commission ever attempted to pull a stunt as dishonest as that, you and I both know you'd be all over them like Charlie Sheen on coc aine.

This gets back to the original statement. If you want to make the accusation that it's been staged then you need to do more than simply claim it's been staged. You need to show that it was in fact staged, and up until now, you people have done nothing but manufacture more unsubstanciated accusations to back up your prior accusations.

The guy I'd like to talk to first would be the assistant or page or whatever, you know the guy described in the Mineta testimony who Mineta said would periodically come in and say to Cheney like: "The object is 200 miles out, it's 100 miles out, it's 50 miles out... Does the order still stand?"

This is just drivel coming from those damned fool conspiracy web sites. The full testimony from Mineta to the 9/11 commission...which is still sitting on Youtube the last I checked...showed that he subsequently learned it was a shootdown order they were discussing. Thsi is Mineta's own testimony and it cannot be refuted. Those damned fool web sites don't want you to know that so they always snip that part off.