“I can Prove That It Was Not An Airplane” That Hit The Pentagon : Retd. Major General

reply to post by totallackey

He is not clearly talking about the Korean War

Actually he clearly is...

Major General Stubblebine states he saw a missile in the footage he was presented.

And the next time he saw it he saw a plane.... obviously they altered the footage

I do not know what footage he saw. Neither do you

Well there are only two videos of the impact in the pubic domain and neither of them show a missile.

Plus, you have no proof the footage presented in support of a plane strike has not been altered prior to presentation.

Yes but there is no proof that it was actually altered in any way in the first place....

trying to prove a negative is rather tricky

reply to post by GenRadek

But there was no bunker buster missile there,

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, based on whatever you desire to consider as fact. And, regardless of how you so desperately make statements in the affirmative, you have no factual basis to make an affirmative statement such as this.

The only thing you have are reports and media-provided testimony. If this is enough for you, great. I do not readily accept reports based on assumptions and already know eyewitness testimony is frequently wrong as to accurate identification.

If people write things based on assumptions, I find it inconclusive. You may find it conclusive.

People certainly see something, but what that something is may not always be what they think it is, therefore, I find it inconclusive. You may find it conclusive.

Whatever trips your trigger is fine by me.

Bunker busters dont have such a massive fireball and black smoke

Of course not...wait...what?



Just in case the video does not embed (I still have trouble with this) I suggest you watch this bunker buster video.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Actually he clearly is...

No point in arguing this, as you are obviously incorrectly interpreting what you hear. If you can provide an exact quote where he states the SR-71 photos were taken DURING the Korean War or at any other point prior to 1964, then I will concede. Otherwise, I suggest your interpretation of the commentary made by Stubblebine is faulty.

At around the 1:02 mark, he states, "I was sent to Korea early in my life..." then proceeds through the 2:16 mark to describe the SR-71 photos he saw in another room after being appointed by the commanding officer to "redo the order of battle."

So, understanding Stubblebine's career (he retired in 1984 according to the information I have seen), he would have served from 1952 through 1984, 32 years. The words, "early in my life..." do not necessarily mean to encompass the Korean War...

I will not hold my breath for your reply.

And the next time he saw it he saw a plane.... obviously they altered the footage

And?

Well there are only two videos of the impact in the pubic domain and neither of them show a missile.

Who is to say he was presented with a video that has ever been provided to the public? The videos I have seen present no definitive evidence of a plane striking the Pentagon.

Yes but there is no proof that it was actually altered in any way in the first place.... trying to prove a negative is rather tricky

But the objective in question is to PROVE what caused the damage at the Pentagon. It is not an objective to prove a negative.
You, through very weak analysis and commentary, were engaged in castigating the comments made by Stubblebine in the video. I pointed out, quite correctly, you have no clue as to what video he was presented or what he saw in that video. You do not even know whether any video evidence presented to the public in support of a plane strike at the Pentagon is virgin and unaltered.

reply to post by totallackey


My opinion is based on facts, corroborated by actual evidence, eyewitness accounts, and first responders. Also, a lot of the eyewitness accounts were USED in the final reports of what happened on 911. Not, the other way around. People actually saw it happen in front of them or right on top of them. I do not see how HUNDREDS of people can be wrong.

I have yet to see ANY evidence that says otherwise. If you have please post it here, I am willing to look. However, in the many years of being in this, there hasnt been one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.


Just out of curiosity, have you ever been in the DC area, specifically around the Pentagon area? If so, then you will see that trying to convince everyone that there wasnt a plane crashing into the Pentagon is like trying to deny the sky is blue on a sunny clear day. With the amount of traffic at 9am there, you would be hardpressed to fake a plane crash and use a missile, when in reality a real plane would do.
Fact is, the plane, a boeing 757 with AA marking impacted the Pentagon and there are MANY of eyewitness accounts, all credible by the way, that CONFIRM a 757 AA impacted. Some had the damn plane directly over head, directly in front of them, or just on their side split seconds before impact. No mention of any missiles, rockets, or bombs.

Also you must realize that people that use similes in describing the aircraft is not indicative of a missile. Someone saying it hit like a missile, or it flew like a missile, or looked like a missile, does not mean it was a missile. Just like someone saying a tornado sounded like a freight train going by does not mean a freight train decided to jump the tracks and roll past the house (unless the tornado sucked the train into the funnel). Yeah id say a plane flying at high speed into a building looked like a missile. And if you are going cherrypick accounts that fit your idea, by selectively going through and looking for the vaguest account that doesnt specifically say a 757 did it, or it looked like a missile, then Im pretty sure you could also say someone saw Elvis himself piloting the missile and rocking his hips as he rode the missile into the Pentagon. And Bigfoot was there to plant evidence.

reply to post by GenRadek


watch this from start to finish.. Listen CLOSELY to the part about eye-witnesses and then tell me again how your conclusion is based upon FACTS...




One man's FACTS is another man's BS...


I call BS on your facts.


There are too many variables and too many loose ends.

Originally posted by totallackey

But the objective in question is to PROVE what caused the damage at the Pentagon. It is not an objective to prove a negative.

And it has been proven. Beyond all doubt. You just cannot accept the facts or the truth.

I wonder if you believethat in reality Truman was defeated by Dewey:

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by totallackey

But the objective in question is to PROVE what caused the damage at the Pentagon. It is not an objective to prove a negative.

And it has been proven. Beyond all doubt. You just cannot accept the facts or the truth.

I wonder if you believethat in reality Truman was defeated by Dewey:

Show me the proof. I have failed to see any "proof". For every one you think you can show, I can PROOVE to you have that there is counter "proof".

reply to post by theRhenn


Ill take your truther video and raise you with actual facts and eyewitness accounts:
911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by theRhenn


www.abovetopsecret.com...

You dont have to go far.

reply to post by GenRadek


Truther huh? Didn't even realise how what you just said was total BS based on even the still image for the video. Funny...


You didn't watch it... as you would have seen it as a news article.

So... What was that again?

Typical denier and naysayer. You just assume, so you wont even bother reading "proof" to counter yours. So how are you any different than what you claim of others?

Originally posted by theRhenn

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by totallackey

But the objective in question is to PROVE what caused the damage at the Pentagon. It is not an objective to prove a negative.

And it has been proven. Beyond all doubt. You just cannot accept the facts or the truth.

I wonder if you believethat in reality Truman was defeated by Dewey:

Show me the proof. I have failed to see any "proof". For every one you think you can show, I can PROOVE to you have that there is counter "proof".

edit on 11-8-2013 by theRhenn because: (no reason given)

Ok, I posted this link earlier and no-one has responded to it. Why were Arlington police in a real time recording from 9/11 calling in a plane crash and specifically ( at 0.32 ) an " American Airlines plane " ?

www.youtube.com...

What is your counter proof ?

reply to post by theRhenn


No Im pretty much spot on in my assessment.

Eyewitnesses dying? Wow, what else is new? People die all the time from numerous reasons. I just had to watch and skip through to find what you were trying to get at in regards to eyewitnesses. Im not going to spend 25 mins watching something that has been thoroughly discredited.

Philip Marshall? Thats about all I can say about that.

Eyewitnesses saw a plane impacting the Pentagon. Period. No counter proof has been given to suggest otherwise. Please, post some evidence here.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by theRhenn

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by totallackey

But the objective in question is to PROVE what caused the damage at the Pentagon. It is not an objective to prove a negative.

And it has been proven. Beyond all doubt. You just cannot accept the facts or the truth.

I wonder if you believethat in reality Truman was defeated by Dewey:

Show me the proof. I have failed to see any "proof". For every one you think you can show, I can PROOVE to you have that there is counter "proof".

edit on 11-8-2013 by theRhenn because: (no reason given)

Ok, I posted this link earlier and no-one has responded to it. Why were Arlington police in a real time recording from 9/11 calling in a plane crash and specifically ( at 0.32 ) an " American Airlines plane " ?

www.youtube.com...

What is your counter proof ?

Here ya go..



Oh yeah... I'm likin this...



Here we go again...

You're going to like this one... Better watch it all... That guy had front row seats...



Soooo much info here: Bet you wont even bother to watch anyways... But I'll waste some time on you.. I'm just that kinda guy.



Here are more counter witnesses



And last, but certainly not least... We can't forget this one...




Once again.. You wont even bother to go through it. You asked for counter proof.. I gave it. You'll still sit on your log and deny deny deny.

Can't help you there. it's up to you to understand what people are trying to say. Of COURSE it'll be covered up. Why wouldn't it?

Post TO the Topic and NOT the Member

Repeat violations in the 911 forum are subject to account termination

Hope everyone understands this

STAY ON TOPIC

Semper

reply to post by GenRadek


Your opinion is based on the information we have received to this point. I have already demonstrated that much, if not all, of this information is subjective (i.e., able to be manipulated, falsified, or manufactured) and not objective.

Thanks for your participation and fervent defense of your viewpoint. It does not steer me any closer toward acceptance of any previous offered explanation as to why, how, or what, exactly happened that day.

Next one is an account ban

LAST warning