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.

 

Pentagon VIDEO Battle - Perspective 77 vs National Security Alert - 9/11 Pentagon Attack

page: 1
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
In the left corner.... National Security Alert, weighing in at 1 hour 21 minutes and 13 eye witnesses!!

In the right corner.... challenger, Perspective 77, weighing in at 10 minutes, YouTube count: 12 thumbs up, 11 Downs.

Our arena today, the sprawling military countryside of Arrrlington, Virginia! Let's get ready to RUUMMMMMBBBLLLE!!


The "Southside approach" as indicated in all official government records of the event.


National Security Alert - 9/11 Pentagon Attack is a full-length documentary about the explosion at the Pentagon and numerous highly-qualified eye witnesses who saw a plane that day, both in front of Pentagon and flying past. These witnesses, at time of their interviews, did not know the implications of their testimonial they were simply telling how and where they saw the airplane that day. This is obviously a very short synopsis - I highly recommend watching the whole video as I'll just be including a few key points in this thread.

Perspective 77 is a rebuttal to National Security Alert. Its primary claim is that "perspective" is different than comparing something by cardinal direction, a valid albeit obvious point. Perspective 77 focuses primarily on three men standing in the workyard of Arlington National Cemetery and that perspective can be inaccurate. It did not interview any eyewitnesses, only using the peoples' views and commentary from National Security Alert video.

It is clear that some airplane flew over the area on the morning of 9/11, what is not clear is who owned the airplane or exactly where it went. Based on eyewitnesses at the Pentagon, in National Security Alert, the airplane flew beyond the Pentagon and kept going. Perspective 77 leaves those eyewitness out of their video.

... and... FIGHT!!!

Round 1, a snapshot from Perspective 77

This picture shows as blue dots where the creator of Perspective 77 thinks the airplane was seen. The left-most dot is allegedly a placement of the aircraft, but he uses the camera location notated at the very far right (almost half mile away) as his source. Whereas there was an auto mechanic, Edward Paik, in National Security Alert, who was precisely AT that location who saw the plane far north of where the dot is placed in Perspective 77. Paik says, "It almost hit my roof ... the body [of the plane] was over the building" motioning North of Columbia Pike, North of where the blue dot is in this picture.


Round 2, from the Military Annex (large white building left side of pictures)

The blue dot in this one is basically in the right place; Terry Morin was there. He was between building sections 4 & 5. These are 5-story buildings so he had a fairly upward-only view with a fair amount of leighway depending on the elevation of the aircraft. The rest of Morin's statement, that Perspective 77 left out, clarifies the location: "If the Air Force Memorial had been built, the airplane would have ran into it", meaning the airplane was directly over the Annex. Morin said this while on the Pike looking at both the building he works in [the Annex] and the Memorial.


Round 3, Perspective 77 goes for the knockout

This is an overview of Perspective 77's alleged flight path, based on people interviewed for National Security Alert. Ironically as Perspective 77 lays down this flightpath, they also add how the men at Arlington National Cemetery grounds ran for their lives (stated in both videos, marked with "Camera") yet Perspective 77's flightpath is nowhere near Arlington National Cemetery. Perspective 77 swung for the knockout on this one but missed outright...


Round 4, The Cloverleaf

Knowing the fight was over, Perspective 77 gave a valiant effort... "The Cloverleaf" move, but sadly, it was an out-and-out LIE. One of those lines allegedly viewing the plane at the cloverleaf is Sean Boger who said the exact opposite of what that line indicates, take a look at the next pic. Read what the eye-witnesses saw and reported in their interviews on record at the Center for Military History and the Library of Congress, available at the Citizen Investigation Team website.


Round 5, fly like a helicopter, sting like a bee.
Sean Boger at the Pentagon heliport

I forgot what Pers 77 said about Sean Boger, if anyone gets around to watching it they can let me know.

Meet Sean Boger, he was the closest eye-witness and watched the airplane for the last 10 seconds before it passed his location. He actually thought Flight 77 crashed there because he dove for cover when the plane got close and heard an explosion - I would probably assume the same thing, our minds just work that way. Boger says plainly that the airplane flew to the right of the CITGO gas station... this guy alone could say the NTSB was lying proving the airplane could NOT have crashed there but luckily he has 12 more credible eye-witnesses stating the same as him.


Round 6, is it still breathing? Call it, ref, call it!
Perspective 77 wouldn't touch this witness with a ten foot pole, neither "perspective" nor lies can refute this point of view.

Roosevelt Roberts Jr was a policeman at the Pentagon loading dock on 9/11. He stepped out the South opening, at the East dock and watched the airplane fly away after the explosion.


WHY, you might say, is the exact position of the flightpath so important? WATCH


But to answer your question in the meantime, it means that our government was involved in a lie. The NTSB (National Traffic Safety Board) stated the precise flightpath, corroborated by some downed light posts at the cloverleaf. For the lightposts to have been knocked down by American Flight 77 it had to be PRECISELY, to the foot, where they described. National Security Alert - 9/11 Pentagon Attack describes exactly and completely that the NTSB was lying. Here's a little picture of the NTSB flightpath that is clearly seen to be south of the Annex and the CITGO gas station, known now to be impossible.




... and the fight goes to ... the undefeated champion....

NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - 9/11 PENTAGON ATTACK!!!!




I made this thread because this Perspective 77 has some merit and comes across as a valid argument. We've seen it for what it is though, another small lie the Original Story proponents use to hold on.
Perspective 77


Be the Media!!



edit on 1-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: a few tweaks and typo corrections




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Thermo, thank you for your time, and great effort on this thread.

I originally posted the thread on National Security Alert here on ATS...which is an epic thread,
and full of information on NSA - 9/11 Pentagon Attack.

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information.

Recently I added on the last page a list of news articles that have been thoroughly checked are active to this day.

And a few links for this thread...

Complete 911 Timeline
Military Exercises Up to 9/11

www.historycommons.org.../11=militaryExercises

Federal agency planned plane-crashing-into-building drill ... last Sept. 11
www.usatoday.com...

Star and flag from me!

edit on 1-3-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Awesome thread and its so comprehensive it is difficult to add extra quality to it. Thanks for posting



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Round 6, is it still breathing? Call it, ref, call it!
Perspective 77 wouldn't touch this witness with a ten foot pole, neither "perspective" nor lies can refute this point of view.

Roosevelt Roberts Jr was a policeman at the Pentagon loading dock on 9/11. He stepped out the South opening, at the East dock and watched the airplane fly away after the explosion.


Well, if what you circled is what you call the "East Loading Dock, you are so far off its not funny. You circled an empty wall with a single walk-up staircase to a door on the second floor.

Well done. Yet another reason why the Truthers will never get anywhere because they really have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


You could actually add something to the thread, and point out where the loading dock actually is.

I'm sure the whole thread hinges on that one point..


Good post Thermo, S&F.


edit on 3/1/2011 by ANOK because: Anarchy Peace & Freedom



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
In the video its starts off by asking why wasn't the attack on the Pentagon filmed?

Could it be that no one expected the attack to happen there / No one had a camera handy to catch an airliner travelling that fast or, is the question, like the rest of the video and this thread designed to provoke emotions of people who are pre-disposed to believe in a conspiracy from the start and could care less about any facts that pertain to the attacks in the first place?

The video is another attempt by people who understand little about science, physics and other related aspects who have played upon the obvious. Which is -

The events of 911 had never happened before, so there is no base incident report(s), evidence, theorys based in rational science/physics etc to rely upon and the government perhaps only did the best it could in an attempt to provide some form of answer to the world regarding this incident.

Its one thing to see an incident happen in which there have been others like it and by a rational deduction process then go through the conclusions along with questions & answers with forensics to determine what happened. It is quite another to start these types of threads which are based in undocumented speculation that is rooted in neither science, physics or any other grounded manner of investigational tools to arrive at a conclusion that only says...Its a conspiracy man!

The real conspiracy about 911 is sorting through all of this rhetoric that is almost laughable if didn't deal with the deaths of thousands of innocent people that day. I realize what the government has told us is not the truth or, the entire truth but to continue to use cartoon logic to keep these types of ideas, notions and theorys alive is almost as bad as the deed performed on 911.
edit on 3/1/2011 by Humint1 because: spell checking



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Humint1
I

The video is another attempt by people who understand little about science, physics and other related aspects who have played upon the obvious. Which is -



Maybe Im wrong here, but 'other related aspects'...wouldnt witness testimony about flight path be considered under this title?
Not sure what science or physics has to do with whether witness's saw the plane fly in from the South or North of the Annex building.
oh...wait...it does. Because of the angle the (supposed) plane flew into the Pentagon.

Therefore, if these witness's are correct then the people lacking science and physics knowledge are really the same people that sold the story that you are buying.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 





The video is another attempt by people who understand little about science, physics and other related aspects who have played upon the obvious.


...and other related aspects...meaning "truth", "facts", "hard evidence to prove something" rather than the continous rhetoric like the kind displayed in your reply to me. Understand now? Probably not....



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Meet Sean Boger, he was the closest eye-witness and watched the airplane for the last 10 seconds before it passed his location. He actually thought Flight 77 crashed there because he dove for cover when the plane got close and heard an explosion - I would probably assume the same thing, our minds just work that way. Boger says plainly that the airplane flew to the right of the CITGO gas station... this guy alone could say the NTSB was lying proving the airplane could NOT have crashed there but luckily he has 12 more credible eye-witnesses stating the same as him.


Wow, this would be so awesome...

...if it were true.

Let's take a look at Sean Boger's exact quote, instead of your CIT influenced lies, shall we?


"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."


Nowhere does he say that "he dove for cover when the plane got close", or "assumed" the plane crashed. That's nothing more than a flat out lie.

He would not have seen what he describes had the plane "flew over" the building, as it would have started it's "pull up" (lol) before it got that close to him. Of course people at other angles would have seen this too, but CIT wants you to suspend disbelief on that one. This would have also been caught on the DoubleTree video, but what? Everyone cries for video evidence, except of course when it does NOT show a plane pulling a magic flying trick that no one saw.

More from Boger :


"There was no time to think," the tower chief said. "There wasn't time to be scared."

"What happened?" Kidd asked.

"A plane just flew into the Pentagon," Boger responded.

"The only time I'm not thinking about it is when I'm not thinking about it," Boger said."It's hard for me to be happy. The reality is, people were on that aircraft. Little kids, it shouldn't have been their time either."


CIT and the people who parrot their junk should be ashamed of themselves.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Your have no source for your quotes.
Please provide one, thanks.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Boger does say he ducked and covered, but he says he did it right AFTER the plane hit. If that's true, and the plane really did hit the building, that means hes wrong about everything he observed for 8-15 seconds before that, namely the plane flying to the north of the Citgo station while banking.

Here is a video short by CIT about Sean Boger:
www.thepentacon.com...

Boger also has the plane much higher than it has to be. The plane absolutely has to hit the building at virtually ground level as documented here:
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Boger says it looked like it hit between the 2nd and third floor.

It also has to fly virtually level (i.e. not in a descent). Boger says it was not.

Boger also describes seeing the plane for 8-15 seconds, which denotes a much slower speed than the 530mph given by the FDR released by the NTSB, yet is corroborated by multiple other witnesses like aviator Terry Morin and also William Middleton.

So either:

1) He is wrong about the north side approach, the bank, and height of the plane as it reached the building (i.e. basically everything he explains up to the second the explosion occured), and the plane really did hit the building at virtually ground level level across the lawn (contrary to what Boger says), and he really watched this happen without ducking or flinching.

or

3) He is right about the plane flying on the north side of the Citgo station, banking, and reaching the building considerably higher than it had to be in order to have actually hit, all of which he watched over the course of 8-15 seconds and he was deceived about the impact which happened in a split second with a big explosion just a few hundred feet from him if even, and he was likely ducking just BEFORE the plane impacted the building, as virtually any person would, and as, for example, firefighter Allan Wallace who was on the lawn below, says that he (Wallace) did.

CIT has explained this in a reasonable and fair way since the beginning and asked Sean to come forward if he has anything to add, has any disagreements, etc.

Here again is the video short by CIT about Sean Boger with the interview:
www.thepentacon.com...

Check it out for yourself.

Sean is overwhlelmingly corroborated on the north side approach. It is simply not plausible that all of the north side witnesses are incorrect in the same way about where the plane flew. The plane flew on the north side and could not have and did not hit the building:
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Regarding the "East Loading Dock", it is actually here:






posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ligon
Sean is overwhlelmingly corroborated on the north side approach.


Overwhelmingly? Hardly. Spare us the CIT cheer-leading please. Over 100 direct witnesses saw the event from all angles.


It is simply not plausible that all of the north side witnesses are incorrect in the same way about where the plane flew.


Sure it is. We're talking about mundane details of the event people are trying to remember years after 9/11. Some people say it was banking left some say right. Some say it was flying fast, some say it was slow.

However all that were in position to see all claim the plane hit the building.

No one saw the plane "fly over" the Pentagon, nor is this the case in the Double Tree video.



The plane flew on the north side and could not have and did not hit the building:


Yet it did hit the building, there is no evidence of this magical "flyover", period.

This is got to be one of the most entertaining "theories" on 9/11 ever.

How gullible do people have to be that would believe that despite every single witness and all the physical evidence :

The plane flew on the wrong course of the "planted light poles".

They managed to fool people on the highway by somehow spearing Lloyd's cab with one of those poles, or somehow planting it on the highway, once again in the wrong place.

According to Craig - planting bombs in the Pentagon in a room full of airplane parts and bodies, that somehow manage to blow pieces across the highway, all over the lawn, and through the control tower, and imbedding aluminum in the masonry while breaking only the outside of the masonry in line with where the wings were "supposed" to hit.

Timing all of this with such a precision that even though the plane was going fast or slow, banking left or right, was too low or too high, that no one saw or heard the plane pull up and away over the Pentagon from all angles, and managed to fool everyone on the scene while evading the Double Tree camera totally.


Sheesh, think people THINK! This is one of the most convoluted, nonsensical, cockeyed ignorant theories and it would be downright laughable if some people didn't actually believe it.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Soloist
 


Your have no source for your quotes.
Please provide one, thanks.



You are in this thread talking about your previous CIT threads, and you have never ever seen Boger's actual quotes?

Clearly you need to do more research and look them up. I'm not anyone's monkey, thanks.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Humint1
In the video its starts off by asking why wasn't the attack on the Pentagon filmed?

Could it be that no one expected the attack to happen there / No one had a camera handy to catch an airliner travelling that fast or, is the question, like the rest of the video and this thread designed to provoke emotions of people who are pre-disposed to believe in a conspiracy from the start and could care less about any facts that pertain to the attacks in the first place?

The video is another attempt by people who understand little about science, physics and other related aspects who have played upon the obvious. Which is -

The events of 911 had never happened before, so there is no base incident report(s), evidence, theorys based in rational science/physics etc to rely upon and the government perhaps only did the best it could in an attempt to provide some form of answer to the world regarding this incident.

Its one thing to see an incident happen in which there have been others like it and by a rational deduction process then go through the conclusions along with questions & answers with forensics to determine what happened. It is quite another to start these types of threads which are based in undocumented speculation that is rooted in neither science, physics or any other grounded manner of investigational tools to arrive at a conclusion that only says...Its a conspiracy man!

The real conspiracy about 911 is sorting through all of this rhetoric that is almost laughable if didn't deal with the deaths of thousands of innocent people that day. I realize what the government has told us is not the truth or, the entire truth but to continue to use cartoon logic to keep these types of ideas, notions and theorys alive is almost as bad as the deed performed on 911.
edit on 3/1/2011 by Humint1 because: spell checking


Well, it was filmed.
The most guarded building in Amercia has dozens of cameras rolling 24/7, not to mention the surrounding CTV cams at other buisineses. The evidence is there. Your just not allowed to see it.
Doesn't that make you ask yourself...WHY?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
The pentagon attack is what they would call a honey pot. That attack had more cameras on it than any of the others, yet all we have is 5 frames that do NOT show anything you can use to prove or disprove. Why? because it's the honey pot. A plane hit the pentagon, blew up, people died. Many people saw this, many cameras recorded it, but as with any investigation, the fbi and probably secret service rounded up the evidence and whisked it away. That's how investigations work.

The reason they won't release it all is because someone started (or planted) this no plane, missile, flyover BS story out there and weak minded people who don't research believed it.

Just as it's crazy for me to ignore physics as to the WTC towers, it's insane to ignore evidence and many witnesses.

Beyond that, just stop and think about what I have to say next for a minute, please.

Lets say you are mossad, or the governemnt, or bush, or whoever faked this. You have to get it right, there's no redo, this is the pentagon, you can't make any mistakes.

So would you fly a plane into it.

Or.

fly a plane over it, banking and climbing at the last second as the pre-planted explosives and fake debris blasts out through the wall, hoping everyone watches the explosion and not the giant aircraft zipping away.

Just as swapping out the 911 planes for drones makes no sense as it's needlessly complicated, this makes no sense either.

I do believe myself that Mossad and rogue elements of intelligence agencies in the US, had a part in this attack. I do believe the twin towers and building 7 were brought down with thermite charges. I do believe that 4th plane was shot down. And I honestly, 100% believe a plane full of civilians hit the pentagon.

They will never release the video, because once they do, and this theory evaporates, all those people will start looking and the stuff they want you to ignore. "They" whoever that is, want you to bicker about holograms and the pentagon, because it discredits the entire movement (which is the purpose of ridiculous theories as these).

Deny ignorance, starting with our own.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by trebor451
 


You could actually add something to the thread, and point out where the loading dock actually is.

I'm sure the whole thread hinges on that one point..


Attention to detail is something long lost on Truthers, it is quiet apparent. Juist circle anything and call it the East Loading Dock! Specificity begets credibility. The Truthers have neither - and quite obviously don't care about either.

As far as pointing out where the actual "east loading dock" is (and I do know, having worked in the building on and off over the last 10 years), I am not the one making these absurdly idiotic and insane claims. If someone wants to circle an empty external wall and call it the east Loading Dock of the Pentagon and claim that is where a Pentagon Protective Service offcer saw a 757 at an altitude lower than the roof of the building in a location that would be physically impossible for an aircraft to be based on this "North of Citgo" bullcrap, then go right ahead. Dont' whine, though, when the absurdity of the claim is pointed out and lampooned in the public square.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Soloist
 


Your have no source for your quotes.
Please provide one, thanks.


You are in this thread talking about your previous CIT threads, and you have never ever seen Boger's actual quotes?

Clearly you need to do more research and look them up. I'm not anyone's monkey, thanks.


T&C here are that if you quote an outside source, provide the link.


Link to Source Goes Here
quote content

[ex] [/ex]
When to use: When using an external source such as an online Encyclopaedia or non ATSNN news sources.
Important Note: Always remember to put where you got your quote from, and remember to include the url of the source.
As this gives the proof that it is indeed a 'real' source and secondly it credits the owner of the source.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Your quotes have zero credibility, along with T&C violation.



Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Meet Sean Boger, he was the closest eye-witness and watched the airplane for the last 10 seconds before it passed his location. He actually thought Flight 77 crashed there because he dove for cover when the plane got close and heard an explosion - I would probably assume the same thing, our minds just work that way. Boger says plainly that the airplane flew to the right of the CITGO gas station... this guy alone could say the NTSB was lying proving the airplane could NOT have crashed there but luckily he has 12 more credible eye-witnesses stating the same as him.


Wow, this would be so awesome...

...if it were true.

Let's take a look at Sean Boger's exact quote, instead of your CIT influenced lies, shall we?


Source please?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Sorry, I'm not playing your game.

Which is exactly what you're doing.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock2009
 


Sure does. That film is using the same logic also, except that they are telling the viewer that it was filmed but the gov isn't showing what the cams saw.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join