Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crowd

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Killtown
So does anybody have a good explanation of why the "thousands of witnesses" at the WTC matter and the "hundreds of witnesses" at the Pentagon don't?

I'm unclear as to how this matters within the context of these discussions. Perhaps if you provide some additional background on why this questions matters to you, we will have the additional context we need to understand what you're looking for.

Do you believe that a 757 *did not* hit the Pentagon?

Originally posted by Killtown
Do you believe that a 757 *did not* hit the Pentagon?

I believe a large aircraft struck the building. I don't believe the combination of available witness data and impact data is consistent with a missle or bomb. However, I do not believe Islamic terrorists were in command of the operation, nor whatever aircraft struck the building.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Killtown
Do you believe that a 757 *did not* hit the Pentagon?

I believe a large aircraft struck the building. I don't believe the combination of available witness data and impact data is consistent with a missle or bomb. However, I do not believe Islamic terrorists were in command of the operation, nor whatever aircraft struck the building.

Watch The PentaCon.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Watch The PentaCon.

I have seen your video, and others. I have spoken with those who saw the aircraft, and saw it strike the building. I have also conversed with many who bore witness to the events of the day in DC.

I appreciate the rare effort you've made of a focused journalistic effort, but you work has not convinced me of a "fly over". I'm sorry.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Killtown
Do you believe that a 757 *did not* hit the Pentagon?

I believe a large aircraft struck the building. I don't believe the combination of available witness data and impact data is consistent with a missle or bomb. However, I do not believe Islamic terrorists were in command of the operation, nor whatever aircraft struck the building.

Then this thread isn't for you.

Originally posted by brotherthebig

A WESCAM camera supposedly took that shot, one of the most sophisticated cameras on the market. You wouldn't think so buy such a bad quality shot.

However, being fake would explain why a sophisticated camera took it and the quality is so lousy.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

I appreciate the rare effort you've made of a focused journalistic effort, but you work has not convinced me of a "fly over". I'm sorry.

That's fine.

Why weren't you convinced that it flew on the north side of the citgo if I may ask?

Since this is off topic please respond in the "pentacon is not a hoax" thread.

Originally posted by Killtown


However, being fake would explain why a sophisticated camera took it and the quality is so lousy.

So you have the original image/footage?

Originally posted by talismanBut here is the catch in all of this. IF people truly believe CGI was done on New York. Then why wasn't it done at the Pentagon? Why the hiding? So a similar question can be asked in the reverse.

I can only speculate, but how far was the average distance of the WTC plane to witnesses eyes on the ground compared to the distance of the Pentagon plane to the witnesses eyes on the ground?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT4. They used the same M.O. at the Pentagon that they did for the towers. Real planes were used as a psychological tool of deception while the actual destruction was caused with pre-planted explosives.

You see KT.......the problem with your "research" is that you have never gone to the area, surveyed the topography, or spoken with witnesses.

What problem is there, you seem to agree with my position at the WTC (your #4).

Killtown

I think it would be very difficult to get an average like that. Craig Ranke CIT would know a lot more about the land near the Pentagon then myself so I wouldn't be at all qualified in that regard.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by KilltownHowever, being fake would explain why a sophisticated camera took it and the quality is so lousy.

So you have the original image/footage?

Where did I imply that?

Originally posted by talisman
Killtown

I think it would be very difficult to get an average like that. Craig Ranke CIT would know a lot more about the land near the Pentagon then myself so I wouldn't be at all qualified in that regard.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by talisman]

Ok, but you would agree that the distance between the witnesses on the ground at the WTC was much greater than at the Pentagon?

Originally posted by Killtown

What problem is there, you seem to agree with my position at the WTC (your #4).

Nope.

Clearly a real plane hit the building.

The psychological deception was fooling people into accepting that the plane was the cause of the catastrophic destruction of the building.

Subsequently the real planes hitting the buildings in New York are what helped sell the deception that the real plane hit the building in Arlington.

Since the perps obviously did not plan catastrophic destruction of the Pentagon it makes perfect sense that they would want complete control of the damage.

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by KilltownHowever, being fake would explain why a sophisticated camera took it and the quality is so lousy.

So you have the original image/footage?

Where did I imply that?

By making a statement about the camera in relation to the quality of the image.

Unless you have the original you can not possibly know what the real quality of the image is.

Originally posted by Killtown
Then this thread isn't for you.

I believe I comprehend your posit. However, we're all working together to analyze these events in a collaborative way. This thread is on ATS, and I'm a member.

The premise seems to be, why *we* (as a subset of conspiracy theorists) believe the testimony of New York eyewitnesses as to the presence of commercial airlines, yet discount similar (and fewer) testimony from the vicinity of the Pentagon.

First, if we following the evolution of the "no plane" at the Pentagon theory, the popularity originated in 2002 as part of a for-profit effort via cable network television commercials. While the motives of contemporary researchers are not necessarily profit-centered, the body of evidentiary material remains polluted.

However, those with "something to gain", be they activists ore "research groups", continue to promote the idea that something other than a large passenger airline struck the Pentagon. This notion is provocative enough to provide a continuance of attention in what has shaped up to be a "conspiracy turf war" among dozens of groups.

But, if we delve more deeply past those who seem merely entertained by online conspiracy theory as a pastime, or use it to attract attention, we discover that most of us with lengthy experience on conspiracy speculation tend to believe a large passenger-style aircraft approached the Pentagon at an extremely low altitude (nod to CIT). As a result, back to your point, we place significant weight on the veracity of the totality of eye witness accounts at both locations.

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by talisman
Killtown

I think it would be very difficult to get an average like that. Craig Ranke CIT would know a lot more about the land near the Pentagon then myself so I wouldn't be at all qualified in that regard.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by talisman]

Ok, but you would agree that the distance between the witnesses on the ground at the WTC was much greater than at the Pentagon?

Ludicrous and irrelevant comparison.

Most witnesses on the ground at the Pentagon had more distance between them ON THE GROUND to the point that they couldn't even see the building.

Very few of the published witnesses could see the building.

This is clearly not the case in Manhattan.

(massive quote removed)


Clearly in YOUR eyes a plane hit the towers, so if TV made you think a real plane hit there along with the rest of the world, then that "helped sell the deception that the real plane hit the building in Arlington."

You do agree that our military uses the media to fool the people, right?


[edit on 8-6-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

(massive multi-quote removed)


You know the original image doesn't matter, only the images they showed us on TV, print media, and on the internet.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

Originally posted by Killtown

Clearly in YOUR eyes a plane hit the towers, so if TV made you think a real plane hit there along with the rest of the world, then that "helped sell the deception that the real plane hit the building in Arlington."

You do agree that our military uses the media to fool the people, right?

Yep.

Just as conspiracy theorists who don't do any real on site investigations/research do.

Go to New York killtown.

Talk to people.

Bring back real evidence to prove your point or you don't have one.