Animation Video for Pentagon Proof, best ever made - and why it's wrong.

reply to post by WielderOfTheSwordOfTruth


I'm not exactly sure we're on the same page... I believe the damage done to the Pentagon was from a missile and planted explosives/airplane parts, I don't believe AA 77 hit the Pentagon. So the answer to all that first paragraph would be "no".

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by 911files

 

Despite your exceptional arrogance, as though everything you say is truth, and you've already answered all the questions, spoken with all the attorneys... great. I don't know who you are or what work is yours... maybe I have read it but since you haven't disclosed WHICH work is yours, it's a little off to imply I haven't tried.

No, it isn't. 911 Files is correct. You are discredited as anything other than a typical truther trying to promote a distorted and perverted agenda. You don't need to know which are his and which are not.

You don't understand 911files point. He said "No sir, it hurts yours because it has been shared for years now and you have not taken the time to even 'goggleinvestigate' for it.", talking about his own work...

It is an unprovable and ignorant statement, because UNLESS I KNOW WHO HE IS neither of us can know if I read or took "the time to even 'googlevistigate'" his work!

To put it simply, he's saying I didn't try to read his stuff...
I DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS so it's impossible to address his question.

I hope this makes sense to you...

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Acxtually, 911 files did give a link to a paper of his on page 5 and that shows his name.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by WielderOfTheSwordOfTruth

 

I'm not exactly sure we're on the same page... I believe the damage done to the Pentagon was from a missile and planted explosives/airplane parts, I don't believe AA 77 hit the Pentagon. So the answer to all that first paragraph would be "no".

Okay, so then what happened to the 757 which was SEEN and FOLLOWED by this pilot? I posted this on You Tube 2 1/2 years ago. Real time, as it happened. This is all I'll feed you today, but here we have it being followed in, where it is then picked up by Arlington County PD officers. Tell me, where did the plane go, if not into the Pentagon?

The 757 shows up as a primary marked LOOK and the plane that followed in was GOFER06.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Acxtually, 911 files did give a link to a paper of his on page 5 and that shows his name.

Also gave a link to my Coast to Coast AM interview in 2007 which has my name on it. But the discussion is about the materials that have been on the net for quite some time now in multiple places for any true 'googleinvestigator' to find easily.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


And,in view of the HUGE amount of evidence to contrary....(just the most damning to YOUR delusion is the FDR):

I don't believe AA 77 hit the Pentagon...

....is an opinion based on NOTHING. In fact, in order to hold such an ignorant stance, it requires the willful intent to IGNORE (hence, "ignorance") what is irrefutable evidence, in favor of a pre-set confirmation bias that stems from a completely nonsensical starting point.

This is also (for a person who claims to have once worked IN the airline industry) a rather sick display of callous disregard for the reality of the victims, and the lives impacted as a result of these attacks on 9/11.

Shame on you types of people, for this abhorrent behavior.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
The one discrepancy I noticed was when they show the view from the parking lot camera they circle a dark area and call it the tail of the plane yet the same dark feature is there several frames later after the smoke begins to dissipate.
Good thread Thermo.
No doubt there is more to this story than the 911 Commission report has to say about it.

Exactly, I noticed that too.

Another question I would pose; if you were a crappy pilot bent on crashing into a building, wouldn't you want to somewhat "dive bomb" the building as opposed to descending to within ground effect and hugging the ground for several hundred yards? Even the best pilot would have a problem accurately hugging the ground in that fashion without hitting it.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by weedwhacker


And in view of the INCREDIBLE amounts of evidence to the contrary, shame on you for suggesting the families of the "victims" are hurt by people who question the ridiculous.

I laugh at this view of life, it is a dying breed...

What a fearful life the OS'ers must lead...a life of delusion, of controlled thought...very akin to the Bible believers who think they are living in victory over death, and have been so programmed that they have forgotten that it is pure FEAR that leads them to decision making...

Yes you know what i am talking about Trusters !! FEAR !!

reply to post by DreamerOracle


That smoke just happened to be a "low level" contrail , that was one of the kinds that are not "persistent" right weedy ??

I cannot stop laughing at how you will explain this one, oh let me guess, it is "lens flare", "blurring of the actual plane itself" ", "normal everyday plane exhaust" .

Or stuff like, "have YOU ever seen a plane going this fast before? NO, so you would not know what to compare it too, the engines were straining so it is likely they threw out more exhaust ?? Think people !!! THINK.

Ahh i will stop now.

reply to post by weedwhacker


But its his/her opinion nonetheless. Contrary to what you believe,or think there are many that have the same view. Regardless on what you believe is factual. Just like there are those who believe that Governments HAVE been involved in cover-ups,and misdirection. Transparency is lacking in the USA,from Presidents basing their elections on this platform,To many politicians basing their re-elections,on them also. I think it would be shameful to think that EVERYTHING being brought to the table,is a 100% correct,based on YOUR ideal factual data. I can easily show you many Government cover ups,bold face lies,and pseudoscience,that was once believed as factual. Maybe if you would stick to just facts,instead of calling out people,with retorts,finger pointing,and name calling,you would get more on ATS to listen to your views,instead of coming off as a know-it-all.Just MHO of course,but an opinion,nonetheless.

Weed,I still like your takes, BTW....................They are informative.

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore---->That smoke just happened to be a "low level" contrail

Most likely unburned fuel from a damaged engine or fuel tank. It usually appears like a white/grayish fog

reply to post by GrinchNoMore

Well actually I have witnessd planes flying that fast (welsh hillsides...low level flying training grounds) and FYI Jet contrails are only visible at altitude............I would rather say it looked more like an impact of some type but that was the query.
I was loading a pic shut down my browser ..my above post.

reply to post by Thermo Klein



Frame 2:46 - Fire coming out of the left side of the building. Controlled explosion or did the impact blow down through the building like that? Or is it just a reflection from the crappy camera lens?

Just curious.

Thanks Thermo - S&F

reply to post by Thermo Klein


is this the official one where they forgot to put engines on the plane model?
i remember seeing one of those official videos/animations where you can actually see a "complex"
computer model of the aeroplane's path as it hit the building. with one thing missing - engines.
lol.

The decent is a huge deal.The reason they didn't show the decent is because they know Hani Hanjour could not have pulled off the maneuvers that professionals couldn't do on a simulator.That's 1

They call it 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 but then only show the plane from the light poles to the pentagon.It doesn't show how the plane got so low or the maneuvers that were used to get there.If you're going to do a video on the flight then you should add the whole flight and not just a couple of feet.That's 2

The plane also shrinks in the video when it shows the plane entering and zooms to the camera.That's 3

And there's missing frames!


That's 4

Hani Hanjour NEVER flew a 757 before 9/11!But on 9/11 he flew like a professional.That's 5

So many things!

Originally posted by 911files

Now that's an impressive video. I'm wondering who the anonymous third party is who told the airtraffic controller to re-route GOFER06 and told him to get out of there after the crash though.
Because you obviously have a penchant for the dramatic and like being the keeper of this "high position" you hold(a la "this is all I'm gonna feed you ), I doubt you would share any information that disproved your OS, but this does seem to be valid information so I can overlook the annoying attitude...

I analyze things from both sides.
The video/audio does seem to be valid, has multiple people involved, has one person who described seeing the 757 and that it crashed into the Pentagon.

From an investigative (not already expecting we know everything, perspective) this could have been faked with one easy switch: GOFER06 was told to be there and say what he did... hear me out. The ATCer sees an unidentified plane, and there just happens to be a military plane precisely in the right spot to see it. The ATCer would ask the C-130 (?) to follow it. If the C-130 was in on this (yes, there were a small handful of people actually involved), then all the C-130 would need to do is not mention the 757 flying away but lie and say it crashed - it would be a VERY SIMPLE RUSE, because it only needs one person to lie and there's no chance of corroboration. ATC is being overseen by someone in the inside because immediately upon the C-130 request to loop around, it was approved by ATC because they would want info... yet seconds later it was denied by someone on the inside telling ATC what to do.
If excellent corroboration and visual confirmation of the explosion could be gained by ONE group of people on a military plane, I would do it too.

I know, I know... I'm gonna get all sorts of razzing and name-calling about this, but here's why I said it... the impact location of this alleged airplane does NOT show aircraft damage or debris, which means we SHOULD be asking these questions from the point of view that we don't know what happened. OSers ask questions and look for proof of their already held belief that it happened as the TV said, I ask questions looking for truth and questioning all angles.

911files or anyone, Do you happen to have any interviews with any of the people who were on the C-130? I'd would LOVE to see a video interview with them. None of them suddenly "commited suicide" or disappeared after 9/11 did they?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

Acxtually, 911 files did give a link to a paper of his on page 5 and that shows his name.

This wasn't a paper, it was a gigantic website with dozens of authors and hundreds of sources...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

And,in view of the HUGE amount of evidence to contrary....(just the most damning to YOUR delusion is the FDR):

I don't believe AA 77 hit the Pentagon...

....is an opinion based on NOTHING. In fact, in order to hold such an ignorant stance, it requires the willful intent to IGNORE (hence, "ignorance") what is irrefutable evidence, in favor of a pre-set confirmation bias that stems from a completely nonsensical starting point.

This is also (for a person who claims to have once worked IN the airline industry) a rather sick display of callous disregard for the reality of the victims, and the lives impacted as a result of these attacks on 9/11.

Shame on you types of people, for this abhorrent behavior.

weedwhacker you are just out of line... a personal attack on me for the mere reason that I question the events of 9/11?

I see a wall, alleged impact spot, with no wreckage and a hole too small to fit an airplane... I will question WHY despite your attempt to say I'm deluded and that investigation into the facts is shameful.