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.

 

Ingersoll Pentagon/Cab photos - please help?

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




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?


Looking for an answer that accepts all the facts, not just most of them and ignores a few important details.



What do YOU think?


There where fatalities at the Pentagon, I have no doubt about that. From the photos, parts of the fire where very intense but other parts where not, as demonstrated by the clothing still intact. So if this was a plane, where are the seats? Ok, parts of the fire where very hot and they may have melted away, but other parts did not reach such intensity and would remain and be visible as they are built to withstand crash events.



What eyewitness to the attack is actually "contradicting these events" as you claim they are?


There is a lot of evidence that something was flying at the time, the contention is what it actually was. Pilots for 9/11 truth have classified a lot of these statements into a North path that contradicts the official story with the poles getting knocked over and the released Flight Data Recorder information and a South path that supports the official version pilotsfor911truth.org... .

But lets cut through a lot of these damn fool conspiracy sites and witness what hit the Pentagon for ourselves. This is a zoomed in section of the object that hit the Pentagon.



It is taken from the released Pentagon security footage.


Google Video Link


Whatever the object is, it does not match the size of the alleged plane. Just one of those little details.
edit on 11-7-2011 by kwakakev because: removed bad link




posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


1 - Cut through these "damn fool witnesses"? Well, that would make trying to debunk the OS easier - but you've really got no reason to eliminate their testimony out of hand do you?
2 - "So if there was a plane, where are the seats"? Nevermind the fuselage parts, the landing gear parts, tires and rims, etc. Why pick on the seats? Perhaps no one felt a need to photograph them? Maybe they were photographed, but never released to the internet for distribution? There are records of rescue workers stating they found passenger remains still strapped into the seats. Why is the photographic evidence of a seat the only thing that satifies your skepticism considering everything else found and photographed - I really don't understand that.
3 - the photographs of impact really don't have a sense of scale to me to determine what exactly A - we are seeing, or B - how big it is. If you feel it does - that's on you.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
Looking for an answer that accepts all the facts, not just most of them and ignores a few important details.


The problem is that you seem to have a completely different viewpoint of what the "important details" happen to be. To everyone else, important details are passenger remains, broken engines, landing gear, and even pieces of wreckage all over the front lawn, as well as many eyewitnesses stating it was a passenegr jet that hit the Pentagon, all of which can be found with a 30 second Google search. YOUR "important detail" is examining exactly how the windshield broke on that taxi. Please explain to me why I shouldn't consider this as an exercise in excuse making on your part.



There where fatalities at the Pentagon, I have no doubt about that. From the photos, parts of the fire where very intense but other parts where not, as demonstrated by the clothing still intact. So if this was a plane, where are the seats? Ok, parts of the fire where very hot and they may have melted away, but other parts did not reach such intensity and would remain and be visible as they are built to withstand crash events.


Take a look at this photo again:

Passenger remains (WARNING: Graphic)

Look at the lower right corner, and you'll see two curved bars parralel with each other. Those are arm rests to a seat. Not that it matters, as the black box was recovered as well as plane wreckage as well as the passengers being matched by DNA as well as the passenger effects were found and returned to the next of kin, so your demanding to know what happened to the seats is only a mark of desperation on your part.

Oh, and you did know the personal effects of the passengers were recovered and returned to their next of kin, right?

Susanne Calley's wedding ring returned



There is a lot of evidence that something was flying at the time, the contention is what it actually was. Pilots for 9/11 truth have classified a lot of these statements into a North path that contradicts the official story with the poles getting knocked over and the released Flight Data Recorder information and a South path that supports the official version pilotsfor911truth.org... .


Pilots for 9/11 Truth is one of the very damned fool conspiracy websites that is attempting to sow false paranoia by spreading disingenuous information that I've been complainign about. Their entire argument is over interpretations of the flight recorder data that noone else supports as well as speculation on how hard it is to fly in a circle. Founder Robert Balsamo has zero expertise in interpreting black box data, he has zero experience in aeronautical physics, and nothing in any of his statements refute any of the multitude of eyewitness accounts who specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon, and in fact he doesnt even address these eyewitness accounts. The reason why is the same reason why you refuse to address eyewitness accounts- he has no way to refute them so he pretends they don't exist.



But lets cut through a lot of these damn fool conspiracy sites and witness what hit the Pentagon for ourselves. This is a zoomed in section of the object that hit the Pentagon.

Whatever the object is, it does not match the size of the alleged plane. Just one of those little details


There is absolutely no way you can tell the size or shape of the object hitting the Pentagon from these blurry images. You know that and so do I. This is why we're required to rely on the eyewitness who specifically saw what it was that hit the Pentagon. You likewise know that and so do I.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


1. You need to use the waybackmachine.org to access it, but here is one link that questions the integrity of the witness statements www.911-strike.com... . I cannot set up a direct link due to the web address structures between ATS and the Wayback Machine.

2. A hand full of parts from 10,000's leaves a lot missing. As for the fuselage parts, again, where are they?



And again, where are the seats?

3. Here is an approximate frame of reference. This is on everyone.



edit on 11-7-2011 by kwakakev because: fixed up image size



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by userid1
 



1. You need to use the waybackmachine.org to access it, but here is one link that questions the integrity of the witness statements www.911-strike.com... . I cannot set up a direct link due to the web address structures between ATS and the Wayback Machine.

Boy, there sure do seem to be a *lot* of witnesses discredited because they fit this author's definition of a "deep insider". But you don't find that odd/convenient? However, I *do* notice a lot of these witnesses say exactly the same thing - the plane, regardless of approach, hit the building. How do you account for that?


2. A hand full of parts from 10,000's leaves a lot missing. As for the fuselage parts, again, where are they?
Try looking here - www.oilempire.us... Notice the big painted piece right on the lawn? Would you say that's a piece of fuselage or not?


And again, where are the seats?

Seems to be your strongest argument as much as you're repeating it. How does it compare to the other debris that has been photographed?

3. Here is an approximate frame of reference. This is on everyone.



edit on 11-7-2011 by kwakakev because: fixed up image size

1 - Your 71' mark is in the foreground compared to the impact point which automatically makes your 35' measurement (many yards behind it) suspect. How exactly did you come up with a 35' mark to "scale" when the two points of measurment are so far apart?
2 - How tall do you think a 757 with gear up is?
edit on 11-7-2011 by userid1 because: clarity



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Here is another series of pics showing debris, and it particlarly gives good detail of the chunk of fuselage I was mentioning earlier: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




The problem is that you seem to have a completely different viewpoint of what the "important details" happen to be


Absolutely.



Please explain to me why I shouldn't consider this as an exercise in excuse making on your part.


It has been an active debate from both sides of this issue.



Look at the lower right corner, and you'll see two curved bars parralel with each other. Those are arm rests to a seat.


With all the planes I have been on the arm rest fold up and down and are not fixed. There are lots of different styles and designs of aircraft seating around and I am not currently in a position to confirm or deny your explanation. While plausible I do hold some reservations until able to verify.



Oh, and you did know the personal effects of the passengers were recovered and returned to their next of kin, right?


I have come across some reports of this.



The reason why is the same reason why you refuse to address eyewitness accounts- he has no way to refute them so he pretends they don't exist.


I have presented evidence that refutes the witnesses that claim they saw a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. There is a lot of strong evidence that something was flying and hit the Pentagon.



There is absolutely no way you can tell the size or shape of the object hitting the Pentagon from these blurry images. You know that and so do I. This is why we're required to rely on the eyewitness who specifically saw what it was that hit the Pentagon. You likewise know that and so do I.


Now who is on an excuse making exercise? This one piece of evidence that cuts through all the witness conflicts and provides some answers and direction with who to believe.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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...

GoodOlDave, you regularly exhibit this behaviour so I'll point it out to you now.

It is difficult to discern when you are typing the word 'you' meaning 'the individual me', or the word 'you' meaning 'the collective us'.

I can't answer for the 'collective us', GoodOlDave because I am not a part of any collective group, that you reference with your sweeping 'you' label.

Once again, it is a sign of your extremely poor logical skills in action. You can not collectively group people together, when they do not hold the same beliefs, or opinions about what might have happened.

I don't need to answer for anyone, GoodOlDave. Your insistance that I should, shows your desperation in wanting me to be a part of your imaginary collective group - which I am not.

Please, for the sake of your future credibility, you really need to study an entry level course in logic and reasoning. Your arguments fail basic logic. If you need to learn one thing, then please learn that false generalisations are easily disproven with a single counterexample.

While you continue to make your false generalisations, you will continue to be shown how ridiculous they are.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right then, let's test this statement. Here are photos of several passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon ruins.
Passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon (Warning: graphic)
Passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon (Warning: graphic)
Passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon (Warning: Graphic)

GoodOlDave, I agree that those are tragic images. I don't enjoy viewing them.

However, would you please prove to me that those were remains of passengers?

The images each include the following caption:

Photograph of a body part found inside the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building [Viewer discretion is advised]

I don't see where the images specifically state that those body parts were from passengers.

I look forward to you proving that those remains were of the passengers.

No, I don't enjoy the nature of the subject material, I am not ghoulish.

I just want to make sure that you have not dug yourself into another logical black hole of misunderstanding. This very thread only exists because you got your facts wrong. Have you done so again?



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 




Boy, there sure do seem to be a *lot* of witnesses discredited because they fit this author's definition of a "deep insider". But you don't find that odd/convenient? However, I *do* notice a lot of these witnesses say exactly the same thing - the plane, regardless of approach, hit the building. How do you account for that?


Witness collaboration, intentional and unintentional. When a crime takes place people notice different things and fill in different details as these are usually very brief events. So with a bank robbery for example, some people will say they had a black shirt, other will say a red shirt or other different details. This is all very standard and it is important that witnesses are kept isolated before questioning. What happens if they do start talking with each other or start seeing other versions of the events is that their memories and recollection changes to adapt to the most dominant versions of the story, despite generally being inaccurate. All the media coverage around this has tainted the witness statements as the witness question what they saw with what they where told.



Try looking here - www.oilempire.us... Notice the big painted piece right on the lawn? Would you say that's a piece of fuselage or not?


Why is there non of these parts on the grass when the first responders where on the scene? Why are their photos of office men interfering with these parts when there are a lot more pressing issues at hand?



The events surrounding these fuselage parts on the grass is clear evidence that staging of events has taken place.



Seems to be your strongest argument as much as you're repeating it. How does it compare to the other debris that has been photographed?


Not the strongest, but is a strong one like the seats themselves as they are made to survive crash events. Still where are the seats?



1 - Your 71' mark is in the foreground compared to the impact point which automatically makes your 35' measurement (many yards behind it) suspect. How exactly did you come up with a 35' mark to "scale" when the two points of measurment are so far apart?


I acknowledge there is some room for error in the calculation and did call it an approximation. While the objects are far apart, they do share a similar depth of field which allows for a general perception of size. Even if the flying object happens to be twice as far away as the point of impact it is still too small to be a Boeing 757.



2 - How tall do you think a 757 with gear up is?


44 feet high, 178 feet long.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
I have presented evidence that refutes the witnesses that claim they saw a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. There is a lot of strong evidence that something was flying and hit the Pentagon.


No you haven't. Not even remotely. What you *have* done is list the opinions posted on some damned fool conspiracy website. It's all either anal retentive picking over the precise wording the eyewitnesses used (I.E. someone referencing the poles as telephone poles rather than light poles, bickering over what "head first" means, arguing over the precise time it takes for someone to stop a car and get out, etc) or, they're dropping innuendo on how they're really secret disinformation agents. First, everyone was shaken at what they just saw so noone is going to be eloquent speechmakers when they're interviewed a half hour later, and second, this was the Pentagon, right next door to Washington D.C. Of COURSE a large proportion of the people in the area is going to have gov't connections in one way or the other. Why does this really need to be explain to you?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not here to insult you or to make you feel bad about yourself. I'm simply here to point out how those damned fool conspiracy websites are instigating false abject paranoia and if it wasn't for their self serving mischief, you wouldn't even remotely be taking these inane "someone ran out into traffic and hit the taxi with a giant hammer" stories seriously. Up until now, all you've been able to come up with as a reference is a never ending list of those very damned fool conspriacy web sites feeding you this bit to begin with, so you have to acknowledge that point at least.



Now who is on an excuse making exercise? This one piece of evidence that cuts through all the witness conflicts and provides some answers and direction with who to believe.


Excuse me?!? You have seen on this very thread how people are bickering over how the lightpole was knocked over and accusing the taxi cab accident of being staged/faked. You yourself were making up stories on how the windshield damage was really caused by a hammer, and you yourself are dropping innuendo via your damned fool conspiracy web sites that the eyewitnesses are all secret gov't disinformation agents. I've even shown photos of passenger remains recovered at the Pentagon and you cannot even accept that. If memory serves, it was *you* who stated how "suspicious" it was that all the eyewitness accounts matched each other perfectly, so even if this photo showed the plane in crystal clear detail you would only similarly continue to grasp for excuses why you shouldn't have to believe it either. I can see this so clearly that you might as well have already done it.

That reminds me, you never answered the question- I've shown you photos of passenger remains, proving that the thing that hit the Pentagon was more likely flight 77 than it was something other than flight 77. This means that if the photo is real, all this bickering over lightpoles, impact videos, picking over the precise wording of eyewitness accounts, all of that, is irrelevent because it really was flight 77 that caused it all to happen, and if it's faked, then you'll have proved my point correct that you'll refuse on principle to accept anything that refutes your conspriacy claims.

So, do you believe the photos of passenger remains are faked or real?



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
However, would you please prove to me that those were remains of passengers?


Becuase according to YOUR OWN CONSPIRACY WEB SITES the section that the plane hit was being renovated so it was largely empty of occupants. Also, according to YOUR OWN CONSPIRACY WEBSITES April Gallop was sitting right there in the location when flight 77/cruise missile/bomb/UFO/whatever struck, and she survived along with her infant son, and I don't need to tell you how fragile infants are. So, if human remains were found at the Pentagon it logically means these are either passenger remains or they're photos that weren't taken at the Pentagon at all. OR, your conspiracy web sites are completely wrong like I've been saying all along.

Which is it?



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Once again, it is a sign of your extremely poor logical skills in action. You can not collectively group people together, when they do not hold the same beliefs, or opinions about what might have happened.

I don't need to answer for anyone, GoodOlDave. Your insistance that I should, shows your desperation in wanting me to be a part of your imaginary collective group - which I am not.

Please, for the sake of your future credibility, you really need to study an entry level course in logic and reasoning. Your arguments fail basic logic. If you need to learn one thing, then please learn that false generalisations are easily disproven with a single counterexample.


This is as much of a weasel answer as a weasel answer gets. I've now asked you this question FOUR TIMES and you've consistantly run away from it the same way three card monty players do when the cops show up. Please stop waffling and answer the question. This whole taxi cab thing is a topic that YOU keep bringing up, after all, not me-

The photographer who took the photo of the damaged taxi cab that everyone says was faked/staged was James Ingersoll, the same person who took the photo of the damaged Pentagon. That photo is consistantly being used by the conspiracy mongors to search for the supposed inconsistencies in Pentagon damage they perceive are there, so they clearly consider that photo to be genuine. These two photos were taken by the same person, so if the Pentagon damage photo is genuine, then the taxi cab damage photo is genuine and all this bickering over the damage from the aircraft is irrelevent. If the taxi cab damage photo is faked/staged then the Pentagon damage photo is faked/staged and all their gripes about how suspicious the damage looks on the staged/faked photo is irrelevent. The conspiracy proponents are therefore artificially picking and choosing what evidence they accept as genuine and what they declare false, even when the evidence is all coming from the same person.

What is your position on this? I don't need to ask you to answer for other people, I'm asking you to answer for yourself, because it's clear you're one of the people who considers the taxi cab photo to be suspect so you're up to your neck in this contradiction as much as those other people are.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


I watched a documentary and they went and talked to the cabbie and he kept his story the same they told him the camera was off and he talked about how they had set it up and how they paid him money to be in the right place at the right time. The team also caught him in many lies ill try to find it and post a link



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




No you haven't. Not even remotely.


With your commitment and passion I would be very surprised if I did. These forums are about more than you or me, it is about public debate and discussion and up to the public to decide.

I know these witness statements are an important issue. Lets say someone gets shot in a pub, everyone says Kev done it so the police lock him up. Later the investigation looks over the surveillance video and it shows Dave shooting the victim. How will the court decide? I thought it was crazy when I first heard of the missile theory, but that is a closer description than an Boeing 757 when reviewing the Pentagon surveillance video. Combine this with strong evidence that fuselage parts where staged after the impact and serious questions about the integrity of the investigation develop.



I'm not here to insult you or to make you feel bad about yourself.


I can take it, you do come across as more emotional than objective though. So lets present a possible scenario that tries to answer my remain questions.

1/ The road along the impact site was closed to stop too many witness.
2/ The fallen poles where staged with the taxi to sell the flight 77 story.
3/ A small plane / missile flew over and hit the Pentagon.
4/ Fuselage parts where scattered on the grass to further sell the flight 77 story.
5/ The actual passengers of flight 77 where killed with DNA placed on the scene.
6/ Witnesses and the media intentionally and unintentionally collaborated to further sell the flight 77 story.

So why go to such lengths?

The part of the Pentagon hit was undergoing renovations, as well as investigating the missing Trillions that Rumsfeld announced the day before. A surgical strike was required to contain the damage and help bury its skeletons. There was no way they could trust an inexperienced pilot to hit the right spot so they done it themselves.



So, do you believe the photos of passenger remains are faked or real?


I do believe people died at the scene. I am not in a position to confirm or deny if these people where passengers of flight 77 but I do accept that they where taken within the damage at the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
I know these witness statements are an important issue. Lets say someone gets shot in a pub, everyone says Kev done it so the police lock him up. Later the investigation looks over the surveillance video and it shows Dave shooting the victim. How will the court decide?


Giving a hypothetical scenario to explain another hypothetical scenario isn't proof. It's circular logic in that you're simply rephrasing the the original statement in diffferent terms in order to prove itself. Give me an example of a police case where every witnesss said suspect A did it and the surveilance showed person B did it, as that would be the grounds for a major TV special.

What you're really doing here, is that all the eyewitnesses say Kev did it and the surveillance video is all blurry and doesn't show who shot the victim one way or the other, and yet you're insisting Dave really shot the victim and all the eyewitnesses are being paid by Dave to say Kev did it. The only reason you'd come to that conclusion depite what the eyewitnesswes are saying and despite the poor surveilance video not saying anything is if you yourself wanted to believe Dave was the one who shot the victim.

Your own hypothetical scenario only backs up my claims and only refutes yours.


I thought it was crazy when I first heard of the missile theory, but that is a closer description than an Boeing 757 when reviewing the Pentagon surveillance video. Combine this with strong evidence that fuselage parts where staged after the impact and serious questions about the integrity of the investigation develop.


There is zero evidence that the "fuselage parts were staged". The only "evidence" you've offered was a photo of personnel collecting fuselage wreckage, as if you expected them to keep the wreckage on the Pentagon lawn forever. That photo looks like it had been cropped from a larger photograph which means there's a lot of information missing from what the photo normally would have shown, which tells me that you got that photo off one of those damned fool conspiracy websites you go to. Am I right?



1/ The road along the impact site was closed to stop too many witness.
2/ The fallen poles where staged with the taxi to sell the flight 77 story.
3/ A small plane / missile flew over and hit the Pentagon.
4/ Fuselage parts where scattered on the grass to further sell the flight 77 story.
5/ The actual passengers of flight 77 where killed with DNA placed on the scene.
6/ Witnesses and the media intentionally and unintentionally collaborated to further sell the flight 77 story.


Before you continue any further, you need to know you're only digging yourself deeper into that conspiracy hole of yours. The Pentagon wasn't out in the middle of the desert or on the bottom of the ocean. It's in the middle of an industral park surrounded by office buildings, highways, and even a marina. Plus, it's just across the river from the Washington monument, one of THE most visited landmarks in the area. If even one of these events you're making up here occurred, there would've been a lot more eyewitnesses who would have seen this than, well, none whatsoever. Plus, the personnel needed to make this supposedly "secret" conspiracy happen would have numbered in the thousands.



The part of the Pentagon hit was undergoing renovations, as well as investigating the missing Trillions that Rumsfeld announced the day before. A surgical strike was required to contain the damage and help bury its skeletons. There was no way they could trust an inexperienced pilot to hit the right spot so they done it themselves.


Yet another quote mining stunt those damned fool conspiracy websites are pulling to instigate false abject paranoia. This "trillions of dollars missing" was entirely accounting oversights, and no money was missing whatsoever. It was Rumsfeld who said this himself during a later Q&A session, and since you consider his earlier statement of the "missing trillions" legitimate, this later statement must be considered legitimate as well.

There's a Youtube clip of Rumsfeld explaining this, but you'll forgive me if I say I don't have the time to post the link to it right now.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




Giving a hypothetical scenario to explain another hypothetical scenario isn't proof.


This hypothetical scenario is about the quality of different types of evidence. While the Pentagon surveillance does not clearly identify what type of object was flying, it does clearly show that it is too small to be Boeing 757.



There is zero evidence that the "fuselage parts were staged".


No visible wreckage



Visible wreckage



Plane crashes are messy things so why is there wreckage in one photo but not the other? Another really strange thing is wreckage that can go around corners as with the next photo. If you check the location of this wreckage with the impact site, there is not a direct line of sight. I would not call this zero evidence.



I have been getting these photos from lots of different sites, if there is one that shows more of an area and proves me wrong, great. I wish I was wrong with where all of this is going, unfortunately logic tells me otherwise.



Before you continue any further, you need to know you're only digging yourself deeper into that conspiracy hole of yours.


I read and seen enough to know what happens to those who ask the hard questions of authority, but I am not going to live in fear. The events of WTC 7 is proof beyond reasonable doubt that there is a great sickness in the system and only by confronting it will we have any chance of overcoming it.



This "trillions of dollars missing" was entirely accounting oversights, and no money was missing whatsoever


This is not an acute accounting slip, but a chronic structural flaw. There is a lot more out there about this than Rumsfeld's public comments.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by userid1
 


Witness collaboration, intentional and unintentional. When a crime takes place people notice different things and fill in different details as these are usually very brief events. So with a bank robbery for example, some people will say they had a black shirt, other will say a red shirt or other different details.

So...you're suggesting that the identification of the color of a T-shirt and whether an object was a commercial jet liner are on a par???? With over 100 witnesses?


This is all very standard and it is important that witnesses are kept isolated before questioning. What happens if they do start talking with each other or start seeing other versions of the events is that their memories and recollection changes to adapt to the most dominant versions of the story, despite generally being inaccurate.

That's mass hallucination, not rounding the corners on rough memories.


All the media coverage around this has tainted the witness statements as the witness question what they saw with what they where told.

Then by that logic, no witness to a crime who has EVER spoken to the press before trial can be viewed as credible - right? In fact, by your logic, they should never be eligible to *be* a witness. Is that how it works where you're from? What you're so obviously attempting to do is eliminate all witnesses (including the ones your citation called "credible") based on unfounded allegation(s). How far do you think your argument would go if left to a judge or jury?


Why is there non of these parts on the grass when the first responders where on the scene?

Who says they weren't? Are you cherry picking pictures to make your case? Also, by inference, that means that people had to "plant" debris while everyone else who was there to watch the smoke and flame, or help victims looked on in silence - a silence that lasts to this day. Step back and ask yourself, it that scenario in the least bit probable - or even possible for that matter?


Why are their photos of office men interfering with these parts when there are a lot more pressing issues at hand?

A - You don't know who they are.
B - You don't know what they're doing.
But it's just *got* to be nefarious - right? Based on what?


The events surrounding these fuselage parts on the grass is clear evidence that staging of events has taken place.

Your claim - but where's your proof? Without proof, we'll call it unsubstantiated, of little value to the discussion, and move on



Not the strongest, but is a strong one like the seats themselves as they are made to survive crash events. Still where are the seats?

Don't really care - between engine parts, landing struts, tires, and wheels - I'm not overly concerned that no pictures were taken of seats - and since you can't prove that pictures were ever taken of them or not - you really shouldn't be hanging an argument on this either. We don't see pics of personal effects, but we have reports of them being returned to loved ones don't we?


I acknowledge there is some room for error in the calculation and did call it an approximation. While the objects are far apart, they do share a similar depth of field which allows for a general perception of size. Even if the flying object happens to be twice as far away as the point of impact it is still too small to be a Boeing 757.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I believe your "approximation" is wildly innaccurate and likely something more akin to 10'. However, since I have neither the math nor the photographic experience to support this - we're simply at opposite ends.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev

1/ The road along the impact site was closed to stop too many witness.



Was it?

I've never heard that.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


1/ The road along the impact site was closed to stop too many witness.
2/ The fallen poles where staged with the taxi to sell the flight 77 story.
3/ A small plane / missile flew over and hit the Pentagon.
4/ Fuselage parts where scattered on the grass to further sell the flight 77 story.
5/ The actual passengers of flight 77 where killed with DNA placed on the scene.
6/ Witnesses and the media intentionally and unintentionally collaborated to further sell the flight 77 story.

So why go to such lengths?

The part of the Pentagon hit was undergoing renovations, as well as investigating the missing Trillions that Rumsfeld announced the day before. A surgical strike was required to contain the damage and help bury its skeletons.


Here's the major flaw with that theory. The area that was hit contained (among others not even remotely related to finance) a small group from the Army Budget Office - NOT the DoD Comptroller's office. The Army doesn't have oversight of all DoD funds - and Rumsfeld was discussing DoD funds as a whole. So, knocking out part of the Army Budget Office has no net effect on any investigations.

Of course, if hampering the investigation was the point, wouldn't it have been a LOT simpler to have an attack BEFORE Rumsfeld made the announcement thus keeping the public in the dark about the whole issue due to the shock and continuing coverage of the attack?

Beyond that, the whole scenario you posed is well...really quite fantastic isn't it? Do you actually subscribe to this conspiracy you've just laid out?




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join