Ingersoll Pentagon/Cab photos - please help?

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




A hammer would show a bunch of tiny impact marks all over the windsheld, not one gigantic impact mark.


Depends on the skill of the craftsman, a baseball bat may be a better match though.



What do you think the car is made of, cardboard?


Sheet metal, I could dent a lot of the panels with my fist. Some parts are harder and reinforced like around the windows, but with a 200 - 300 pound light pole falling it would make a mess of what ever it came in contact with.



Showing me photos of the side of the car that the pole wouldn't have hit while asking "where's the damage" is being pretty phony on your part.


I have not currently found any photos of the other side of the cab. I do find this a little strange if it did happen to sustain some damage as you say and no one took a photo of it. What I find stranger with your proposition is where the pole is in relation to the car. I find it hard to accept that if some people where going to remove the pole resting on the left side of the car that they would place it in front of the car and too the right. It is a long way to remove a pole that would only needed to be moved a couple of feet if your theory was correct.



so now you people are experts in frangible light poles


Not yet, but catching up. Looking into further it does look like some of these poles have been cut and broken from their base. The use of explosives is another theory that has been presented as to how the poles fell without a plane. A grinder or just hitting it with a car like has been proposed here are other possibilities for how the poles fell. I have not found any results for any forensic analysis that may have taken place. From what I have come across there has been no forensic analysis on these poles. Does anyone has any further information here?



In case you didn't realize this, your unrepentently making up crap off the top of your head and passing it off as fact ISN'T helping your conspiracy stories, any.


I am just looking for answers and have made a few false and misinformed conclusions while digging through all the available information, as well all have. There is enough around though to prove that there is something not right with the official version. This is a tough, messy and complex one to find out exactly what happened, but thanks to people like you, hooper and others questioning everything it has helped sort out some of the details along the way.




posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by Alfie1
 




How could any conspirators plan to take down lightpoles, smash them about and twist them, skewer a cab with one and, on a bright sunny morning in front of an office building employing thousands, expect not to be seen ?


The same way that they could run around a drop a few pieces of plane wreckage around the lawn and set up a couple of bins on fire to act as a smoke screen. People have seen and photographed this. Some are still too scared to release all the evidence they have and understandably so, but enough have talked about it. Some have even tried to take it to court.


I just love this tripe, especially when its just so ridiculous.

I take it you have never been to DC, or the Pentagon. So that probably means you have never seen the traffic tie ups and the thousands of cars that go by that area every day. You've never seen the traffic in the morning as it winds its way around the Pentagon. Well, I have.

To claim that secret agents ran out on to the highway and planted the light pole, and debris, smashed the cab's window, and then planted aircraft debris on the Pentagon IN FULL VIEW of thousands of eyewitnesses that all turned their heads and were staring at the Pentagon from the moment the plane flew into it, to the moment the last fires were burned out, and not a SOUL noticed this, is really freaking hilarious!!!!!!!!!


So tell me, just how would they have been able to willy nilly, stop traffic on the expressways, come out and take a few lamp posts and remove the ones standing there, lay the new ones down, take one cab, smash its windshield and drop a piece into it, all in full view of the drivers now stopped, and no one noticed this at all. Was this before the impact or just after?

It boggles the mind how people can spew such nonsense, and expect to be taken seriously. Just using a little thing called critical thinking, and some common sense dispels any and all BS ideas of planted debris, cabs, lightposts. But I see that common sense is not so common in the truther camp.

But I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Can anyone here who believes it all was planted: Please give us a scenario of just how they would have been able to pull this off in full view of thousands of people, cameras, video recorders, TV News channels, and helicopters, first responders, drivers, etc. Make it plausible, not imaginary. And then explain how there is not one soul that saw any of this happen right in front of them. Not one eyewitness account, or mention of anything suspicious happening before the impact, or just after. And then explain how we can have many many many eyewitnesses that actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and even some who did see the plane hit the lamposts.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Firstly, all the video video surveillance cameras in the area had their recordings taken by the FBI within hours of the event. A couple of these have been released, but the rest have been withheld.

I do not know exactly when and where the road was closed, but it was closed.



I do not know exactly when and how the poles fell, but they fell. There are many conflicts in the witness statements over the years. Here is the most recent photo after the main event, where is the plane wreckage that shows up in subsequent photos?



One thing that really does not add up with a plane hitting the pentagon is with it impact.



Why is there a bright explosion on initial impact with whatever hit the Pentagon, but not when a plane hit the WTC Tower?



It does boggle the mind



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


You mean these 85 videos?
www.911myths.com...


A list of all the videotapes is available, which shows many of these videotapes do not have footage of the Pentagon at all. Instead, many have footage of the WTC, some are security video tapes taken from a Kinko's in Florida, etc. Some that show the Pentagon were taken days after the attacks, and some in the evening of 9/11/2001.
The security camera footage taken from around the Pentagon included the Citgo, the Doubletree, and the Pentagon parking lot. There was also video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Another video came from a DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. The camera was repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon.
Footage taken after the attack included home video filmed by a tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera, and video taken by a NBC4 Washington reporter...
The list of 85 videos
Five videotapes were recovered from the post-attack Pentagon crime scene and submitted to the FBI Laboratory in Quantico.
13 videos were obtained by the Defense Protective Services (DPS) - Pentagon Police - on 9/25/2001 from individual filming Pentagon site from Boundary Channel Drive. These included footage from the WTC site in the days after the attcks.
One (1) Beta video tape - interviews in NYC
One (1) DVCAM tape labeled "Twin Towers, World Trade Center" - NYC/WTC
One (1) DVCAM tape - suburban setting, unknown individuals, dated 9/12-13
One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC/WTC, 9/21-22
One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC/WTC, 9/22-23
One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC 9/23
One (1) DVCAM tape - interviews in NYC; 10 seconds of Pentagon footage, but not crash site
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
8 videos were received on 10/11/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected during consent search of residence in Avanel, New Jersey. Pending case on subject.
One (1) damaged Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
Videos received on 10/15/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected from surveillance cameras at multiple Kinko's in South Florida.
One (1) TDK 1-160 VHS video tape
One (1) VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
Video received on 10/22/2001 at Quantico. This video was recovered from garbage at residenced in Neenah, Wisconsin by the Neenah Police Department. Investigation on suspect has been closed.
One (1) damaged VHS video tape and housing
Received at Washington Field Office Command Post
These two video tapes included footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene taken by DOD media pool photographers, and were obtained from Navy Rear Admiral Craig Quigley.
One (1) Betacam BCT-30G video cassette, labeled "1 of 2" & "early 6pm 9/11/01"
One (1) Betacam BCT-30G video cassette, labeled "2 of 2" & "early pm 9/11/01"
Also received at the Washington Field Office Command Post:
One (1) VHS video cassette - witness interviews near Pentagon after the attack
One (1) VHS video cassette, labeled "9/11/2001" - footage of post Pentagon crime scene, obtained from Chief Mastin, Prince William County
One (1) TDK Hi8 MP 120 video casette, wrapped in Pentagon map and labeled on back "1/29/1952 Mohan Shresesa 8/2/2018 Todoroki Japan 9/17/01 3:00 hr Fern/So. Rotary" - Home video taken from car, dated 9/17/2001,showing post-crash Pentagon crime scene very briefly from road (~10 seconds)
One (1) FujiFilm DP121 video cassette, labeled "WJLA-TV" - miscellaneous footage from news reporter, dated 9/18/2001
One (1) Sony MP120 8mm video cassette - Home video, DC sightseeing
One (1) TDK HG Ultimate TC-30 video cassette - Home video, unknown date, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
One (1) Maxell DVM60SE mini digital video cassette - Home video, dated 9/17/2001, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
One (1) Sony Hi8 video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/11/2001 showing ~6 seconds of Pentagon footage (not crash site)
One (1) TDK Hi8 MP 120 video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/21/2001, showing post-crash Pentagon crime scene
One (1) JVC MP120 8mm video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/21/2001, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
Videos filmed on 9/26/2001 by FBI Forensic Audio-Visual Analysis Unit (FAVIAU) of post-crash Pentagon crime scene.
One (1) original SONY 40 min. Digital Betacam video tape
One (1) original SONY 40 min. Digital Betacam video tape
Videos submitted to FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, under cover of communication dated 2/19/2002, all depicting WTC footage.
One (1) Betacam video tape
One (1) HDCAM video tape
One (1) Betacam SP video tape
One (1) Betacam SP video tape
One (1) Mini DV video tape maked in part Antonio M.
One (1) DVC PRO video tape
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1056 COPY 5A of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1056 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1471 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1788 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1729 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1808 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1813 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B530 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B729 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1563 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1051 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1787 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B2406 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1276 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "CNN RE: BURN VICTIM..."
One VHS video tape marked in part "NIGHTLINE 2/15/2002"
Videos submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico, under communication dated 5/13/2002.
One (1) Sony SDX1-25C video tape
One (1) Sony SDX1-25C video tape
One (1) TDK 8mm video tape
Video obtained by FBI on 9/28/2001 and submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico on 5/28/2002. Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 showing footage of WTC after attacks, obtained by Suffolk County, New York Police Department.
One Hi 8mm video cassette tape from Eileen McMahon
Video obtained by FBI on 9/13/2001 and submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico on 5/28/2002. Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 showing footage of second plane hitting WTC and aftermath.
One Mini DV 60 video cassette tape
Video submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico under cover of communication dated 9/22/2001. Obtained by FBI NK from Dime Savings Bank, Nutley, New Jersey
One TDK T-160 VHS video tape
Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by NBC4 Washington reporter, with footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.
One (1) home Video of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.
Video from DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. Camera repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.
One (1) videotape
Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera. Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.
One (1) videotape
Copy of home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by AP photographer using camera borrowed from nearby motorist. Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.
One (1) duplicate video cassette tape dated 9/11/01
Video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Obtained by FBI on 9/13/2001.
One (1) CD containing 2 video files
Video from security camera at Citgo Gas Station, 801 S. Joyce Street, Arlington, Virginia. Submitted to FAVIAU to determine if video showed impact of plane into Pentagon. Determined not to show impact. Obtained by FBI on 9/11/2001.
One (1) JVC EHG Hi-Fi videocassette, labeled Day 11 Quarters K
Video from security camera at Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Security video showing rotating footage from different camera locations at hotel; no camera captures impact of plane into Pentagon.
One (1) TDK video tape marked "11C"
Images captured by two separate cameras at the entrance to the Pentagon Mall Terrace parkinng lot. Images capture the impact of the plane into the Pentagon from two different cameras. Obtained from the Pentagon Force Protection Agency via USA/EDVA.
One (1) CD-ROM
www.flight77.info...


seems like that was covered.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


It is interesting to see more of the videos getting released. I know NIST finally released some a year or so ago and they copped a lot of flack for being edited. Silence on the soundtrack during a critical time was noticeable. The flight77 website is a dead link.



One (1) TDK video tape marked "11C" Images captured by two separate cameras at the entrance to the Pentagon Mall Terrace parkinng lot. Images capture the impact of the plane into the Pentagon from two different cameras. Obtained from the Pentagon Force Protection Agency via USA/EDVA.


There are no videos on that list that captured what hit the pentagon except for the last on. Do you know if this is this the one I have referenced in the photos above or another video of the event?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
From what I have researched and questioned about the case, there was no plane. Don't forget, this took place at the pentagon and is one of the most highly militarized pieces of land in the world. Noting happens there without the military knowing and controlling it. This is why there is such a confusing conspiracy scene to help cloud and confuse and information that does get out. But as in all criminal cases, a bunch of lies does not add up like the truth.


This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen the conspiracy people attempt to pass off as fact. The Pentagon isn't out in the middle of the desert or at the bottom of the ocean. It's in the middle of an industral park surrounded by highways, office buildings, housing, gas stations, and even a manina. Plus, it's just across the river from washington DC and the Washington monument. If a plane is gonna fly into the Pentagon, hundreds of people are gonna see it, and hundred of people DID see it, from motorists, journalists, and even an immigrant from El Salvador. That list of eyewitness accounts has been poster here time and time again so I'm not goign to waste time posting ti all over again. "Nothign can happen without the military knowing and controlling it" is just plain rubbish. Are you genuinely suggesting the military requires a gov't ID to buy gas at that Citgo station?

Tell me something, in all honesty- if you people are presenting yourselves as truthers who are only interested in revealign the facts of the evenst of 9/11, then why do you consistantly distort and misrepresent everything to sucker people into believing these "no planes" claims?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev

Depends on the skill of the craftsman, a baseball bat may be a better match though.


You're still making stuff up. Windshields are made of safety glass, in that they're a sheet of touch plastic sandwitched by layers of glass. They do this so that the windshield won't become shrapnel and kill the driver if something hits it. The impact area would neceasarily be as big as the object striking it, and the impact area of that windshield is pretty big.

Are you demanding that we have to document the physical composition of automobile windshields now to placate you? I mean, seriously?



Sheet metal, I could dent a lot of the panels with my fist. Some parts are harder and reinforced like around the windows, but with a 200 - 300 pound light pole falling it would make a mess of what ever it came in contact with.


Since it bashed the windshield it would necessarily mean that the part of the dashboard beneath the windshield would have taken the brunt of the damage. Directly beneath the dashboard is the vertical firewall separating the engine compartment from the passenger compartment and is one of the strongest sections of the automobile frame. What evidence do you have that the firewall wasn't a mess, or are you making that all up?



I have not currently found any photos of the other side of the cab. I do find this a little strange if it did happen to sustain some damage as you say and no one took a photo of it. What I find stranger with your proposition is where the pole is in relation to the car. I find it hard to accept that if some people where going to remove the pole resting on the left side of the car that they would place it in front of the car and too the right. It is a long way to remove a pole that would only needed to be moved a couple of feet if your theory was correct.


OR, it could be the case that Ingersoll didn't care about documenting what happened to every rivit of the cab to placate you conspiracy mongors. Ingersoll's priority was to document the attack on the Pentagon itself.

It's clear that you're so much in love with the idea there's some secret coverup afoot that you atually want it to be true, and you're all but accusing Ingersoll and the cab driver as being accomplices to this ridiculous conspiracy story. Even if Ingersoll did take photos of the opposide side of the cab that the lightpole hit you'd only be accusing those photos of being staged and/or photoshopped as well. I can see that so clearly that it might as well have already happened.




Not yet, but catching up. Looking into further it does look like some of these poles have been cut and broken from their base. The use of explosives is another theory that has been presented as to how the poles fell without a plane. A grinder or just hitting it with a car like has been proposed here are other possibilities for how the poles fell. I have not found any results for any forensic analysis that may have taken place. From what I have come across there has been no forensic analysis on these poles. Does anyone has any further information here?


Yes, I do- here's a document from the gov't of Australia specifying the technical details of your own frangible poles. You Aussies don't want motorists getting killed from wrapping their vehicles around lightpoles amy more than we do...

Frangible poles specifications




I am just looking for answers and have made a few false and misinformed conclusions while digging through all the available information, as well all have. There is enough around though to prove that there is something not right with the official version. This is a tough, messy and complex one to find out exactly what happened, but thanks to people like you, hooper and others questioning everything it has helped sort out some of the details along the way


Then would you mind terribly explain why you're refusing to accept the gigantic numbers of eyewitnesses who are specifically telling you that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon?

Eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack

Let's face it- the only reason why this is a "tough, messy and complex matter to find out" is because you're getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy websites that are deliberately trying to instigate false abject paranoia. Did you even know there were all these people who specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


That link is dead, I had to take it from 9/11 myths.

The video you mentioned is the one in that list you posted.

However, notice, that someone took the mention of 85 videos confiscated by FBI, and twisted it to mean, 85 videos taken of the Pentagon all confiscated to hide what really hit the Pentagon. Were there 85 videos? Yes. Of those, two had any actual relevance. The other is the Double Tree Hotel video that just barely shows the tail and the blast.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The only thing I know for a fact is that you conspiracy people don't give a flip about the facts.

Yet the very reason that this thread was created, was because you got your facts wrong, GoodOlDave. You made a false claim that you had to retract, after it was pointed out to you.

Remember that.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


There was a bright flash recorded from the aircraft (United 175) hitting South Tower

Conjecture is that was the crew O2 bottles (which are located under the cockpit) exploding on impact

Problem is that most conspiracy sites only publish what nonsense they want the the guillible fools to believe
in

Search for it will find plenty of footage showing the flash on impact - depends on what angle/distance the
pictures were taken....



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The only thing I know for a fact is that you conspiracy people don't give a flip about the facts.

Yet the very reason that this thread was created, was because you got your facts wrong, GoodOlDave. You made a false claim that you had to retract, after it was pointed out to you.

Remember that.


Sorry, but your games don't work on me. First, it wasn't a false claim. I made a mistake which I corrected. A false claim would be if I attempted to knowingly tried to pass off an incorrect claim as being true, and let's face it, it's you conspiracy people who are notorious for doing this (I.E. no interceptors were scrambled, no witnesses saw what hit the Pentagon, etc), not me. Second, the difference whether it was lying on top of the cab or lying next to the cab is significant only to you conspiracy people. You insist on the delusion that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon so you have to resort to grasping at any straw you can find to keep the claim alive, up to and including bickering over frivolous things like the exact details of how the pole hit the cab. One guy here even had to resort to asking why England received a new cab as a replacement instead of a used one. You really don't see how ridiculous your side is behaving?

The fact still remains that the whole reason I mentioned it ito begin with is because Ingersoll was the one who took that supposedly fake photo as well as the Pentagon damage photo you conspiracy people always use to look for discrepencies you're "so sure" has to be there somewhere. You people are therefore picking and choosing what evidence you want to use and what you want to sweep under the rug and hope noone finds out about, even if the evidence is all coming from the same person.

I addressed my end. Why do you refuse to address your end?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
First, it wasn't a false claim. I made a mistake which I corrected.

You made a claim that was false. So yes, it was a false claim. You have retracted the claim though, as you realised your factual error. I have no problems with you wanting to call it a 'mistake' though, if that makes you feel better about it.

The photo did not show the light pole lying on top of the cab. You do stand corrected.

Your claim that "The only thing I know for a fact is that you conspiracy people don't give a flip about the facts." is also demonstrably false. It highlights your extremely poor logical skills.

This thread is a counterexample to your claim. Some conspiracy people do 'give a flip' about the facts, GoodOlDave.

Again, you have been proven wrong.
edit on 10-7-2011 by tezzajw because: typing



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




You're still making stuff up.


I am considering different theories that help explain the facts, like any investigation does. Unfortunately, the public investigation that did take place left a lot questions remaining. Anyone who is serious about the truth and answers will not find it with a closed mind.



Are you demanding that we have to document the physical composition of automobile windshields now to placate you? I mean, seriously?


It is obvious that something hit the windscreen, the contention is with what is was. I have not seen inside the cab to asses what damage took place and further aid with the diagnosis as to the cause of damage. I am more concerned about the damage to the poles rather than windscreen composition.



Even if Ingersoll did take photos of the opposide side of the cab that the lightpole hit you'd only be accusing those photos of being staged and/or photoshopped as well.


It is good to see you making stuff up as well, maybe there is still hope.



Then would you mind terribly explain why you're refusing to accept the gigantic numbers of eyewitnesses who are specifically telling you that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon?


I am keeping them in context with all the other available evidence around. I would not buy a product based only on a testimonial, but they do help in knowing where to look. When carefully looking at the witness statements there is a lot of conflicts with the flight paths and other details. This is a very natural occurrence as different people notice different things. Where it gets suspect is when everybody has exactly the same story.



Did you even know there were all these people who specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon?


Yes, there are also other witnesses that contradicted these events, canadawantsthetruth911.blogspot.com... as well as lot of other inconsistencies in the evidence.



Let's face it- the only reason why this is a "tough, messy and complex matter to find out" is because you're getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy websites that are deliberately trying to instigate false abject paranoia.


If this is all just one big fantasy then why do you even waist your time on it? WTC 7 got me started.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I was not aware exactly how many videos where confiscated, 85 videos sounds reasonable but with so much integrity in question I would not be surprised if it was higher. I know some of these videos have received a lot of public attention to help uncover them, there have also been allegations of a lot of intimidation to help other information remain hidden.



the Double Tree Hotel video that just barely shows the tail and the blast.


Here is a link to it www.youtube.com..., if you find a better source I would like to know. Why is there missing frames? Just look at the path the man takes and he jumps around. Also why is there a problem with the time stamp where it jumps back 2 minuets near the end of the video? I do not see this video standing up in a court of law with these discrepancies.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 




Conjecture is that was the crew O2 bottles (which are located under the cockpit) exploding on impact


With the official story claiming that the plane breached 3 of pentagon rings I do find it hard to accept that such damage occurred on the outer wall, yet thee was still enough integrity in the plane to breach another 5 walls along with internal supports and structures.

It is very reasonable to expect the O2 bottle blew up sometime, but for such an intense explosion on the moment of impact it is more compatible to the effects of a missile than a plane. I have not seen an O2 bottle explode to compare its energy potential to that of what was videoed, so does anyone have any links to confirm or deny this theory?



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
You made a claim that was false. So yes, it was a false claim. You have retracted the claim though, as you realised your factual error. I have no problems with you wanting to call it a 'mistake' though, if that makes you feel better about it.

The photo did not show the light pole lying on top of the cab. You do stand corrected.


I know you're fond of beating that dead horse, but you still haven't addressed the question that started this whole "taxi cab photo" discussion to begin with- Ingersoll took that photo of the cab, which you conspiracy people are saying is staged or faked, and he took the photo of the damaged Pentagon, which you conspiracy people are saying is real becuase you're using it as "proof" to back up these discrepencies you imagine are there. The same person produced both photos, so if the taxi photo is fake, then the Pentagon photo you people are using is fake. If the Pentagon photo you're using is legitimate, then the taxi photo is legitimate. You can't have it both ways.

You're the one who insiste on pursuing this thread, not me, so why are you refusing to address this?


Your claim that "The only thing I know for a fact is that you conspiracy people don't give a flip about the facts." is also demonstrably false. It highlights your extremely poor logical skills.

This thread is a counterexample to your claim. Some conspiracy people do 'give a flip' about the facts, GoodOlDave.

Again, you have been proven wrong


Your compatriot making up claims that the windshield was actually broken by a hammer or a baseball bat isn't "giving a flip about the facts". It's grasping at straws in desperation from the misfortune of having an agenda to push a conspiracy claim which is blatantly untenable. I've been asking you yourself to address why you conspiracy people are saying Ingersoll is an honest photojournalist in one moment and a dishonest disinformation agent the next moment, and getting a straight answer out of you has been akin to nailing jam to the wall. We both know why- it's because you attempted to use this stunt to "get me" and it only wound up blowing up in your face,

Rather than having two or three guys running out into traffic and bashing up a taxi with a gigantic baseball bat while two or three more guys are running out carrying a lightpole to throw onto the ground, and paying the cab driver off by letting him drive a brand new replacement cab, don't you think it would have been more logical that it really was knocked over by an airplane and it really did hit the cab like everyone says? You're not "searching for the truth". You're writing a Monty Python skit.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Well not sure if you remember but the OSers also used to claim there were pics of passengers still in seats at the pentagon, until I showed them in a thread that the so called photos of passengers were unidentified bodies, and they were not in aircraft seats.

They make lots of claims that turn out to be untrue.


Well I'm not sure you'll remember, but *you* said there were no eyewitnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon - until I provided proof (2X) that is - after which you went strangely silent.


Where Lloyd's cab was located was one of the only places you could see the impact point at the pentagon. There were dirt mounds erected just before 911 and removed right after. That whole scene had to be a set up, the light poles, Lloyd's cab etc.

Wrong again. The dirt mounds in front of the Citgo are still there and is simply part of the landscaping. The other dirt mounds were removed - but as I told you earlier - since they only blocked the view from the grave sites of Arlington National Cemetary - your point was actually "pointless"

Another "gem" from you:

But if the engines were not on the lawn, then where did they go? They didn't go inside now did they?

When asked how you came to that conclusion - no response from you.
All found here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems to me *you're* the one making a lot of claims that turn out to be untrue.

edit on 11-7-2011 by userid1 because: spelling



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Not surprised to see you here playing "piling on" with your friends as the last time you decided to make spurious claims about the Pentagon attack you had your ass handed to you. Multiple claims - all challenged/debunked.
Found here and continuing on and off until end of thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good 'ole Lloyd had more credibility than you do...



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
I am considering different theories that help explain the facts, like any investigation does. Unfortunately, the public investigation that did take place left a lot questions remaining. Anyone who is serious about the truth and answers will not find it with a closed mind.


You're waffling again. No investigation would ever waste its time trying to find out what "really" smashed the windshield like you are doing. This is because a real investigation wouldn't carefully pick and choose the evidence to suit someone's personal tastes. England's testimony that it was knocked over by an airplane matches all the other eyewitness testimony of a passenger craft hitting the Pentagon as well as numerous other lightpoles getting knocked over. An investigation's course of action is to either accept the gigantic bulk of the evidence that conforms to each other, or to spin a gigantic convoluted conspiracy scenario entirely for the sake of spinning gigantic convoluted conspiracy scenarios.

So which one are you doing?



Even if Ingersoll did take photos of the opposide side of the cab that the lightpole hit you'd only be accusing those photos of being staged and/or photoshopped as well.

It is good to see you making stuff up as well, maybe there is still hope.


All right then, let's test this statement. Here are photos of several passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon ruins. These are photos that were submitted as evidence to the Moussaoui trial which the defense accepted as legitimate and admissible. In other words, even the lawyers representing a terrorist involved in the hijacking plot accepted these photos as being genuine:

Passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon (Warning: graphic)

Passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon (Warning: graphic)

Passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon (Warning: Graphic)

The last time I posted these, the person I was debating with threw a temper tantrum, accused me of "refusing to face facts" and then disappeared, which is conspiracy mongor speak for "I can't refute this but I don't want to admit my conspiracy claims are wrong, so I'll run away instead". This is because if you admit these passenger remains are real, then you're admitting that a plane really did hit the Pentagon and all this "what caused the light pole to fall" is non sequitor, and if you say they're fake, then you just proved me right when I say you'll refuse to accept any evidence that refutes these conspiracy stories you're pushing.

What do YOU think?




I am keeping them in context with all the other available evidence around. I would not buy a product based only on a testimonial, but they do help in knowing where to look. When carefully looking at the witness statements there is a lot of conflicts with the flight paths and other details. This is a very natural occurrence as different people notice different things. Where it gets suspect is when everybody has exactly the same story.



You're just making up excuses now. When everyone sees a plane hit the building, of COURSE everyone is naturally going to say they saw a plane hit the building. There may be differences in the testimony on what kind of plane they saw hit the building and there were, but noone is going to say that it was an elephant that hit the building.


Yes, there are also other witnesses that contradicted these events, canadawantsthetruth911.blogspot.com... as well as lot of other inconsistencies in the evidence.


None of these people are eyewitnesses to the attack. These people all arrived after the fact, or like April Gallop, was indoors at the time and didn't see what hit the Pentagon, so that damned fool conspiracy website you're getting this bit from is pulling a bait and switch. What eyewitness to the attack is actually "contradicting these events" as you claim they are?
edit on 11-7-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 





It is very reasonable to expect the O2 bottle blew up sometime, but for such an intense explosion on the moment of impact it is more compatible to the effects of a missile than a plane.

Missiles do not explode with that bright orange fire ball. That comes from a liquid fuel. And not just a few barrels of it either. Try Youtubing for explosives. Everything from hand grenades to artillery shells and missiles have a totally different appearance to their explosions. None of which have the orange fireball. The big fireball does nothing to destroy concrete structures.





new topics
 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join