| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="SHERITON HOTEL"]
Isn't it nearly always dodgy when a defendent changes his/her story?[/quot
Yes it is. I feel sure they are keeping something back, but what on earth am i supposed to think?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would’ve preferred something better than the crudely drawn illustrations provided but I like the concept and I’d like to see a more detailed analysis.
http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/Pentagondemolition1.htm
A CLOSE LOOK:
The 9/11 Pentagon TARGET WALL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Danner
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 55
Location: Hagerstown,Maryland
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:51 am Post subject: I can not help it. |
|
|
You know I am always saying well that is all I have to say etc. But as I read this thread I can not just wonder why all of the fuss. Popular Mechcanics mag is great but they feel that they and McCain have the final word on the whole Damn thing and they do not. One of the weridest things I saw there was being told by white shirts to pick up every scrap of metal that we could find. Then when I ask just one question as to why we were not involed in NSTB Protocal I was told to my face that it was none of My damn business. How close I came to getting arrested! You have a 60 ton aircract unloaded and add 100,000 lbs of JP4 and then the passenger Manifest and then the Luggage and now we have over a 100 ton aircraft. And with a 16ft Hole mind you! And then another strange thing. We were all told to stand back. So this we did. And lo and behold the whole Damn bulding fell down as if on cue from a Movie director. Why were the pieces of the alleged 757-300 so small? The blue tarp held the biggest piece of wreckage and those guys carrying the crate with the Blue tarp were not firemen. The same office workers that I had been with. There was not 1 Damn body there? When the space Shuttle burned up coming back on a mission and broke up in a Million pieces they had many parts from ALL of the crew members. And this was over 4 States of the US. Now does it make any sense that a Cadavar dog could not find one body part? B#llsh#t!!! And why about all of that fake Luggage stacked up in the far left lawn? O yea that is for the relatives of the deceased. Well it looked like the Feds went out to Wal Mart and just bought the Luggage. No burns , No shredded Luggage. And then Rumsfeld comes out and said by the slip of the touge that is was a missle. And listen up! The Washington Post even quoted Dick Cheney the great Vice President THAT THE ORDER STILL STANDS. Seeing from My vangtage point as I saw the whole thing you can not help but wonder if it was a sence right out of the Twilight Zone? You may think that I am full of SH#T then go ahead a think it. And one more thing. Look at all of the Pentagon pictures on the Inernet. Just look at them .Looks like a Damn golf course!!! WWW.Pentagonresearch.com is about the the best you will find on the Pentagon and Mr. Russell Pickering whom I have had the pleasure to take too has it all figured out. He lives in Cody Wyoming when this Happened and I was there when this Happen. I am so fed up with this Boeing 757-300 being the airplane that hit the Pentagon. If you were there, you would see that whole place did not look right nor did the whole place smell right because of the use of cordite an explosive. And one of the worst things I did not like were the Pr##ks of the Goverment going through there play with all of there lines Memorized. Well Mates that is the reality of the whole Pentagon Issue. I have never been to Buckingham Palace. If a 757-300 hit that building I could not tell you anything! God forbid such a thing even Happen!! So have any of My friends here been to the Pentagon? And your 7/7 is a Great mistery. Was it a Blair inside job?
Sam Danner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bratcat808
Minor Poster
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 34
Location: Tiny rock in big water
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is an excellent pictorial review on this site:
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies3.htm
It will take a while to get through it, as there are many pics and some documentation as well. I do believe it explores many facets of the event and raises many questions as to how things can be one way, but then official reports and even photos are different.... >_>
Very interesting to see.
_________________
9/11 Truth
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." T. Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: | It is not our responsibility to prove that Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon, It is the responsibility of those who we democratically elected and who have told us that it did to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.
|
Would DNA analysis of Pentagon crash victims do ?
Plane parts clearly belonging to that model of the aircraft? (Loose Change is just straight wrong on that score, btw)
You might not like the original verdict, but it's been delivered. You have now become the prosecutor here. There's no court in the USA or UK where the defence has to prove anything. Innocence is presumed.
SO -
stop whining on Internet CT forums
get together with your US counterparts
collect money ($1 each would be plenty)
pursue a court case |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: |
Now this is where I hit a problem. You expect me to simply accept the official story and not question our 'infallable' government? Correct? |
No. Not correct. That's not even remotely like what I said.
What I said - very clearly - was that if you don't like the official verdict then the roles change. You are now pushing the prosecution case. If you want the verdict changed the burden of proof is on you.
SO -
get the money together
pursue the case
How hard could that be with millions of CT'ists out there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bratcat808
Minor Poster
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 34
Location: Tiny rock in big water
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | Would DNA analysis of Pentagon crash victims do ? |
I ask you to consider this: Supposedly the plane and entire contents were incinerated, and no body parts, luggage, or seats etc. were found. So how did they find and extract the DNA samples to have "identified 184 of 189 passengers? Further, despite the claims of terrorists being on board, no 'DNA evidence' has been linked to any of them.
| Quote: | | Plane parts clearly belonging to that model of the aircraft? (Loose Change is just straight wrong on that score, btw) |
I highly recommend that you spend some time examining the photos and notes found here:
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm
Comparative analysis of those parts show that at least some of the reported parts found DO NOT match the components of a passenger airliner. (other 'parts' remain questionable) In addition, if you study the 'photographic evidence' presented by the 'officials' you can see that even 'if' they were the correct parts, the placement of where they were 'found' and the condition of the parts do not correlate with other claims about how the plane was supposed to have hit and the results (massive fires).
You might also question that if the vast majority of the plane was incinerated, and that fire also caused the steel and concrete to crumble due to massive heat, then how is it that nearby office equipment, and even an open book on a wooden stool remain totally un-scorched? (Stool in left photo is about 1/3 up, and center)
The famous "nose cone" piece, supposed to be the definitive evidence, is shown in official photos in different locations, and as well, it is not scorched. In those photos, there is no evidence of the 'impact' of the piece on the ground. Given the supposed velocity it would have been expelled by, you would expect to find some damage of impact.
| Quote: | | You might not like the original verdict, but it's been delivered. You have now become the prosecutor here. There's no court in the USA or UK where the defence has to prove anything. Innocence is presumed. |
There is certainly enough evidence to raise considerable doubt about the story of the "defense". Any defendant who continually changes their story and fails to back it up with hard evidence may be subject to being convicted on even 'circumstantial' evidence. This type of 'failure to prove' of the defense could be exampled by the refusal of the NIST scientists and the9/11 Commission members to publicly debate their 'findings' with experts and professionals who have reached different conclusions.
| Quote: | SO -
stop whining on Internet CT forums
get together with your US counterparts
collect money ($1 each would be plenty)
pursue a court case |
This forum and others like it, as well hundreds of collective groups ARE forming and becoming stronger to DEMAND that the obvious questions be answered and those who are responsible for the crimes be held accountable.
_________________
9/11 Truth
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." T. Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iro
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 376
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: Time to settle the Pentagon debate |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: |
I am convinced of the information presented here. If others are not, fair enough, but i would doubt your ability to apply critical reasoning to this issue. That, or i would say your pride is getting in the way of your judgement.
And before you ask, Yes i do still have questions about the Pentagon incident, but for now, based on this evidence i am forced to come to the conclusion that flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon. |
based on evidence!!?? is this some kind of joke...what evidence? there is nothing even remotely connected to evidence for ANY theory on this event. nothing that would even be worth of opening a case in court never mind closing it.
you are not forced to come to any conclusion - you have chosen it from eff all evidence and no facts. what nonesense. The only people who will ever know what hit the pentagon are those who seen it with their own eyes - and even then at the speed it was travelling and the angle they saw it at might not even be sure themselves...even if we get tapes released now it is highly suspicious to rely on those 'tapes' as so much time has passed and so much room for manipulation has been awarded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bratcat808
Minor Poster
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 34
Location: Tiny rock in big water
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: Time to settle the Pentagon debate |
|
|
| iro wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: |
I am convinced of the information presented here. If others are not, fair enough, but i would doubt your ability to apply critical reasoning to this issue. That, or i would say your pride is getting in the way of your judgement.
And before you ask, Yes i do still have questions about the Pentagon incident, but for now, based on this evidence i am forced to come to the conclusion that flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon. |
based on evidence!!?? is this some kind of joke...what evidence? there is nothing even remotely connected to evidence for ANY theory on this event. nothing that would even be worth of opening a case in court never mind closing it.
you are not forced to come to any conclusion - you have chosen it from eff all evidence and no facts. what nonesense. The only people who will ever know what hit the pentagon are those who seen it with their own eyes - and even then at the speed it was travelling and the angle they saw it at might not even be sure themselves...even if we get tapes released now it is highly suspicious to rely on those 'tapes' as so much time has passed and so much room for manipulation has been awarded. |
The factual evidence is clear, the speculations of the animation are just that... speculations that lacks true physical evidence to support it.
Any theory might be spun and twisted to suit the desired outcome. However, the basis for final analysis is in the HARD evidence which is scrutinized for validity by comparison to known facts and scientific testing.
The animation does not stand up under scientific laws of examination, testing, and comparison.
_________________
9/11 Truth
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." T. Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | What I said - very clearly - was that if you don't like the official verdict then the roles change. You are now pushing the prosecution case. If you want the verdict changed the burden of proof is on you. |
Hmmm.
And there was me thinking that the burden of an investigation into an air crash was first with the NTSB or is it the FAA who then pass it on to the FBI if it is criminal.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: Time to settle the Pentagon debate |
|
|
| bratcat808 wrote: |
The animation does not stand up under scientific laws of examination, testing, and comparison. |
Er, why not exactly?
Take the security camera frames for example. This animation shows quite clearly that the shape seen in the footage may well have been a large plane?
Do you agree with this?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bratcat808
Minor Poster
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 34
Location: Tiny rock in big water
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:29 am Post subject: Re: Time to settle the Pentagon debate |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | bratcat808 wrote: |
The animation does not stand up under scientific laws of examination, testing, and comparison. |
Er, why not exactly?
Take the security camera frames for example. This animation shows quite clearly that the shape seen in the footage may well have been a large plane?
Do you agree with this? |
Yeah, right.. those five frames are so very clear...>_> 
When you consider the number of cameras available at the Pentagon, as well dozens from other facilities, it does not strike you as odd that not one video has been shown to "verify" that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
If the government wants to put aside some doubt, surely all they would have to do is release one or two of the videos they confiscated within minutes of the "impact"? Yet all we have five extremely NOT clear frames which really show us nothing.
_________________
9/11 Truth
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." T. Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:28 am Post subject: Re: Time to settle the Pentagon debate |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: |
Yeah, right.. those five frames are so very clear...>_>
When you consider the number of cameras available at the Pentagon, as well dozens from other facilities, it does not strike you as odd that not one video has been shown to "verify" that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
If the government wants to put aside some doubt, surely all they would have to do is release one or two of the videos they confiscated within minutes of the "impact"? Yet all we have five extremely NOT clear frames which really show us nothing. |
Okay, first off, we are both members of the same movement and we agree on the basics. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you on the issue of 911 so please, keep things civil and try to resist the temptation to be patronising and confrontational. I get enough of that nonsense in critics corner.
| bratcat808 wrote: | | it does not strike you as odd that not one video has been shown to "verify" that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? |
Did you actually read my posts?
If you did you would already know that my answer to that question would be a resounding YES!!!
I DO believe that they could be hiding something important and are keeping back the many security videos to prevent us knowing what is on them. That does not mean i am going to predetermine what may or may not be on them. For now i can only study the information available and from where i'm standing there is almost no evidence of anything smaller or of a different shape than a large aircraft having hit the Pentagon.
| bratcat808 wrote: | | If the government wants to put aside some doubt, surely all they would have to do is release one or two of the videos they confiscated within minutes of the "impact"? |
I very mush agree with this but again, i can only go by what we have. Incidentally, regardless of what hit the Pentagon and what is on those tapes i am certain it was an inside job. The flight path of the aircraft convinces me of that.
| bratcat808 wrote: | | Yet all we have five extremely NOT clear frames which really show us nothing. |
I myself laughed out loud when both sets of frames were released. They are nonsense. But to say they show nothing is inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. There is what appears to be the fin of a plane with the correct dimensions for such an object as the one the official story claims hit the Pentagon.
Could it be fake? Of course. The date stamp alone raises the possibility. Can this be proven? Not as far as i can tell. As the animation shows, it does support the official story, in at least as much as it was a large aircraft that crashed.
Now, i was courteous enough to answer your points. Could you now please answer my original question?
Why does this video not stand up under scientific laws of examination, testing, and comparison. I am trying to get my facts and data as correct as possible and if you have information that shows this animation to be incorrect please let me know.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:21 am Post subject: Re: Time to settle the Pentagon debate |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: |
Yeah, right.. those five frames are so very clear...>_>
When you consider the number of cameras available at the Pentagon, as well dozens from other facilities, it does not strike you as odd that not one video has been shown to "verify" that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
If the government wants to put aside some doubt, surely all they would have to do is release one or two of the videos they confiscated within minutes of the "impact"? Yet all we have five extremely NOT clear frames which really show us nothing. |
Okay, first off, we are both members of the same movement and we agree on the basics. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you on the issue of 911 so please, keep things civil and try to resist the temptation to be patronising and confrontational. I get enough of that nonsense in critics corner.
| bratcat808 wrote: | | it does not strike you as odd that not one video has been shown to "verify" that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? |
Did you actually read my posts?
If you did you would already know that my answer to that question would be a resounding YES!!!
I DO believe that they could be hiding something important and are keeping back the many security videos to prevent us knowing what is on them. That does not mean i am going to predetermine what may or may not be on them. For now i can only study the information available and from where i'm standing there is almost no evidence of anything smaller or of a different shape than a large aircraft having hit the Pentagon.
| bratcat808 wrote: | | If the government wants to put aside some doubt, surely all they would have to do is release one or two of the videos they confiscated within minutes of the "impact"? |
I very mush agree with this but again, i can only go by what we have. Incidentally, regardless of what hit the Pentagon and what is on those tapes i am certain it was an inside job. The flight path of the aircraft convinces me of that.
| bratcat808 wrote: | | Yet all we have five extremely NOT clear frames which really show us nothing. |
I myself laughed out loud when both sets of frames were released. They are nonsense. But to say they show nothing is inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. There is what appears to be the fin of a plane with the correct dimensions for such an object as the one the official story claims hit the Pentagon.
Could it be fake? Of course. The date stamp alone raises the possibility. Can this be proven? Not as far as i can tell. As the animation shows, it does support the official story, in at least as much as it was a large aircraft that crashed.
Now, i was courteous enough to answer your points. Could you now please answer my original question?
Why does this video not stand up under scientific laws of examination, testing, and comparison. I am trying to get my facts and data as correct as possible and if you have information that shows this animation to be incorrect please let me know. |
I haven't got it to hand at the moment, but if I recall correctly the 3-D animation and the black box flight recorder reconstruction animation do not agree with each other in the final moments (the heights are all wrong). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Like many others, I believe that the entire Pentagon scenario has been engineered to be as confusing as possible. This is deliberately perpetuated by the release of murky footage and in my opinion, we do exactly what is expected of us, we pick over every pixel and shout 'fake'. The people who designed 9/11 aren't stupid, they know we can magnify and stop and compare - it is all designed to be obtuse and we get suckered every time.
The government will obviously not release any video evidence that shows a missile, this would simply destroy everything that has been achieved thus far. By the same token, releasing clear footage of a/the plane captured by cameras along the flightpath, then hitting The Pentagon would very much end The Pentagon debate and be highly counterproductive.
There is no way of knowing if the government anticipated how the Truth Movement would evolve, and it is probable that new counter stories and strategies are being created on the hoof to take into account what is currently happening.
For example, did they foresee movies like Loose Change? I can only guess, BUT - it is my belief that the release of footage that shows The Pentagon plane (real or manufactured/fake), is going to be a timed event. This will solely be to discredit everything that is currently being worked for, a kind of 'We told you so, now shut up about 'conspiracies'.
How will holding the footage back be explained away?
This a secondary issue and any number of excuses could be used, matters of national security, impending legal action/whatever. The question of why has it been held back will pale into insignificance when the footage does emerge and it will destroy a huge part of the core beliefs of The Movement, rippling out like a wave and impacting all other 9/11 issues.
I have followed this in minute detail on the American equivalent of this site. The difference there is that the people you are conversing with there are actually going to Lloyd England's house and interviewing him, going to the hotels where the camera footage was removed and seeing the manager, taking comparitive photos of where The Pentagon cameras were on the day as to where they are now. We are beholding to these guys.
It is hoped and expected that we will squabble and bicker over beliefs about frames, lamp poles, angles of approach and lack of wreckage. This is exactly what they want, the more we do it, the more confusing it becomes and it genuinely, in my belief, serves no purpose whatsoever other than to play into their hands.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The people who designed 9/11 aren't stupid |
Are you sure? They are certainly arrogant and that can lead to them being wide open to error.
Anyone who thinks they will suddenly release incontrovertible evidence of the 757 hitting the Pentagon is showing a complete lack of faith in their own logic. It is impossible for it to have done so and all the evidence shows that. If they come up with a video of a 757 hitting the Pentagon it will be fake. If they had a real one we would have seen it by now, but they can't have a real one because OBVIOUSLY it never happened. Why do you doubt BLATANT evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bratcat808 wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | Would DNA analysis of Pentagon crash victims do ? |
I ask you to consider this: Supposedly the plane and entire contents were incinerated, and no body parts, luggage, or seats etc. were found. So how did they find and extract the DNA samples to have "identified 184 of 189 passengers? Further, despite the claims of terrorists being on board, no 'DNA evidence' has been linked to any of them. |
"supposedly" is the right word. The CT sites claim the bodies were vapourised. Nobody else does.
| bratcat808 wrote: |
| Quote: | | Plane parts clearly belonging to that model of the aircraft? (Loose Change is just straight wrong on that score, btw) |
I highly recommend that you spend some time examining the photos and notes found here:
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm
|
I spent many a happy hour there when I was a fervent CT'ist. It's still in my folder of links, photos and reports.
Try this instead :
one the rotor hub at the Pentagon, the other a rotor assembly from a 757 (Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B engine) , the last the part Loose Change claims was there. LC is plain wrong.
| bratcat808 wrote: |
Comparative analysis of those parts show that at least some of the reported parts found DO NOT match the components of a passenger airliner. (other 'parts' remain questionable) In addition, if you study the 'photographic evidence' presented by the 'officials' you can see that even 'if' they were the correct parts, the placement of where they were 'found' and the condition of the parts do not correlate with other claims about how the plane was supposed to have hit and the results (massive fires).
You might also question that if the vast majority of the plane was incinerated, and that fire also caused the steel and concrete to crumble due to massive heat, then how is it that nearby office equipment, and even an open book on a wooden stool remain totally un-scorched? (Stool in left photo is about 1/3 up, and center)
|
That argument would apply no matter what hit and caused the explosion, no? 757,drone,cruise missile,an old fighter? What are you saying, there was no impact and explosion?
Whan I look at that photo I see the bottom front floor burnt out, and the burnt-out rooms extending upwards the further we look into the building. When we get to the very back of that front layer, even the loft room is burnt.
Then the upper floors collapsed later, as we know, exposing the undamaged areas.
If you have a better explanation that still involves impact and fire I'd be very willing to listen.
| bratcat808 wrote: |
The famous "nose cone" piece, supposed to be the definitive evidence, is shown in official photos in different locations, and as well, it is not scorched. In those photos, there is no evidence of the 'impact' of the piece on the ground. Given the supposed velocity it would have been expelled by, you would expect to find some damage of impact.
|
Here you have me. I can find no photos of the nose cone (and have never previously looked) only reports. Carbon fibre would be smashed to shreds in such a crash, but if carried through into the open by the nosegear I can see no reason why parts shouldn't survive ("Lt. Kevin Schaeffer from the Navy Command Center recalled that "on a service road that circled the Pentagon between the B and C rings, a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear lay on the pavement a few feet away, resting against the B Ring wall." )
n.b. "a chunk of ... nosecone"
Regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Anyone who thinks they will suddenly release incontrovertible evidence of the 757 hitting the Pentagon is showing a complete lack of faith in their own logic. It is ........BLATANT evidence? |
We have not seen it yet for the very reasons I have stated. You only have to look the threads here to witness we chase our own tails and cannot decide on anything. Your response highlights this admirably, why would they want this stopped?
You blatantly avoid the flyover theory which would have necessitated an aircraft flying along the same flightpath, captured by whichever cameras along the route and with 80 odd to choose from, they can be selective as to the footage released. Therefore, an 'impact shot' would not be captured by said hotel cameras but still show the correct make and model aircraft. I point out though, that we have shots from many sources of the second WTC plane impact and we have people shouting about holograms! It matters not what is released, we will still scream 'fake'.
However, we all simply speculate and hopefully time will show one way or another exactly what transpired.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | We have not seen it yet for the very reasons I have stated. You only have to look the threads here to witness we chase our own tails and cannot decide on anything. Your response highlights this admirably, why would they want this stopped?
You blatantly avoid the flyover theory |
"We" can chase "our" own tails as long as "we" like. I saw the footage and heard the descriptions and know without a shadow of a doubt that no 757 hit the Pentagon. No tail chasing going on here.
I did not blatantly avoid the "flyover theory" - I do not care about it any more that I care about holograms. I do not speculate on how they caused the damage or where the passengers are or if the flight even existed. I care that it is clear that no 757 hit the Pentagon and we need a proper enquiry to see if we can discover who did what and why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | "We" can chase "our" own tails as long as "we" like. I saw the footage and heard the descriptions and know without a shadow of a doubt that no 757 hit the Pentagon. No tail chasing going on here.
.....we need a proper enquiry to see if we can discover who did what and why. |
From whom will 'we' enquire?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | From whom will 'we' enquire? |
As an example a commission with a genuine wish for truth would be given the power to call witnesses under oath and to have access to documentation and evidence currently being withheld. The Pentagon videos would be a good start. Eyewitness accounts from firemen, ignored by the original commission, would be allowed. The questions not asked, to the fury of the bereaved relatives who protested loudly and were threatened with removal for doing so, would be asked. The evidence of molten iron weeks after the event would be addressed. Passenger list anomolies would be investigated etc. etc. etc.
Fairly obvious to anyone not a troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | As an example a commission with a genuine wish for truth would be given the power to call witnesses under oath and to have access to documentation and evidence currently being withheld. The Pentagon videos would be a good start. Eyewitness accounts from firemen, ignored by the original commission, would be allowed. The questions not asked, to the fury of the bereaved relatives who protested loudly and were threatened with removal for doing so, would be asked. The evidence of molten iron weeks after the event would be addressed. Passenger list anomolies would be investigated etc. etc. etc.
Fairly obvious to anyone not a troll. |
Of course you are correct in your assumption that being 'under oath' magically changes things. Having spent 14 years as a serving Met Police officer, I never once heard anyone lie under oath, it just never happens.
'Promise not to tell a lie?'
'Yep, I do, I really do.'
And no-one ever does. So I give you that point.
What really puzzles me is that you believe the government will willingly release anything that compromises their position just because of 'power' bestowed upon a commission? This is truly bizarre.
What makes you think that any videos still exist? Their existence will either be denied or they have already been destroyed. So you don't believe them, where are you going to look - in Bush's desk drawer?
Passenger list anomalies will be explained away in any number of ways.
You can 'address' molten steel issues all you like - our expert is played off against their expert - you will get nowhere whatsoever.
I loved the 'would be investigated etc. etc. etc.'.
Whilst I fully accept there are countless discrepancies with the entire 9/11 story, I fully believe the only way to prove it was a government sponsored operation is with tangible proof and not opinion based circumstantial evidence or paper trails, it will end up more confused due to dead ends than before.
Try to remember, just because someone does not agree with you, they are not automatically a troll. And by the way, I was lying about the oath thing, people regularly don't tell the truth, especially in matters of national security.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Quote: | As an example a commission with a genuine wish for truth would be given the power to call witnesses under oath and to have access to documentation and evidence currently being withheld. The Pentagon videos would be a good start. Eyewitness accounts from firemen, ignored by the original commission, would be allowed. The questions not asked, to the fury of the bereaved relatives who protested loudly and were threatened with removal for doing so, would be asked. The evidence of molten iron weeks after the event would be addressed. Passenger list anomolies would be investigated etc. etc. etc.
Fairly obvious to anyone not a troll. |
Of course you are correct in your assumption that being 'under oath' magically changes things. Having spent 14 years as a serving Met Police officer, I never once heard anyone lie under oath, it just never happens.
'Promise not to tell a lie?'
'Yep, I do, I really do.'
And no-one ever does. So I give you that point.
What really puzzles me is that you believe the government will willingly release anything that compromises their position just because of 'power' bestowed upon a commission? This is truly bizarre.
What makes you think that any videos still exist? Their existence will either be denied or they have already been destroyed. So you don't believe them, where are you going to look - in Bush's desk drawer?
Passenger list anomalies will be explained away in any number of ways.
You can 'address' molten steel issues all you like - our expert is played off against their expert - you will get nowhere whatsoever.
I loved the 'would be investigated etc. etc. etc.'.
Whilst I fully accept there are countless discrepancies with the entire 9/11 story, I fully believe the only way to prove it was a government sponsored operation is with tangible proof and not opinion based circumstantial evidence or paper trails, it will end up more confused due to dead ends than before.
Try to remember, just because someone does not agree with you, they are not automatically a troll. And by the way, I was lying about the oath thing, people regularly don't tell the truth, especially in matters of national security. |
In essence a lot of what you say is true. However the problems of having to work through the medium of an existing bureaucracy means that some evidence will always remain, and in such a system the absence of previously recorded evidence is equally telling, though of course not proof.
However there won't be a great deal of goodwill or benefit of the doubt flying round during the Nuremberg of our time.
I also believe it's likely that when the players in the Bush admin (and don't forget Bush won't have Cheney to coach his answers like last time - assuming they both live that long) - the promoted Generals and the first few key CEO's are endighted, witnesses will come forward. Even if only to save their own necks by distancing themselves from the headline acts.
It must be done right - and I hope Bob Bowman is taking plenty of notes from Webster Tarpley (and that both those gentlemen remain alive) - as a sudden rash of top military 'suicides' might prevent getting to the sub-layer roots of the regime that really matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jim Hoffman of 911research.wtc7.net has quite an old essay (Nov 2004) where he himself has to agree it was indeed a 757 that hit the Pentagon that day.
In fact he describes The Pentagon discussion as a "Booby Trap" for CT'ists.
Among other things he discusses those CCTV films etc, the apparent lack of a big enough hole etc etc
And if you want photographs of the remains of passengers at The Pentagon, here are some. They are not pretty viewing, so here's a link. Be warned (scroll down a page or 2):
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Pentagon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned no 757 hit the Pentagon. It is very simple. Where the tail plane and engines would have hit, the damage to the Pentagon's facade is incorrect. Hani Hanjour could not fly the plane the way the official conspiracy theory would have you believe. Ask any commercial pilot who flies 757s. Please refer to my much earlier post:
_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Of course you are correct in your assumption that being 'under oath' magically changes things. Having spent 14 years as a serving Met Police officer, I never once heard anyone lie under oath, it just never happens.
'Promise not to tell a lie?'
'Yep, I do, I really do.'
And no-one ever does. So I give you that point. |
Well thank you for pointing out that being under oath does not make someone tell the truth. I did not know that. Maybe if I had the benefit of your worldly experience of being a police officer I might have known that. Thank you!! I wnder why we even have the oath in courts - its not as if perjury exists or anyone caught lying under oath gets punished any more than if the oath never existed. Just ask Lord Archer. Don't wonder why Bush refused to testify to the 9/11 Commission under oath - its an irrelevance!
I do not believe the government will "willingly" hand over any evidence and I do not know if the videos exist. Demanding evidence and being denied it or demanding the videos and being told they have been destroyed is itself incriminating and people could make their own judgement on such events. Are you suggesting any enquiry is pointless? Is any investigation worthless into anything? Is that what being a policeman has taught you - don't even bother investigating suspicious events? And you wonder why I suspect you are a troll!!!
| Quote: | | opinion based circumstantial evidence or paper trails, it will end up more confused due to dead ends than before. |
As if the evidence they omitted to examine is merely "circumstantial"!!! And you wonder why I callyou a troll!!
Last edited by blackcat on Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bongo Brian wrote: |
So you want to dismiss the whole 9/11 story based on one piece of information, which in any event is unproven?
|
That's a monumental strawman as you well know, but -
Wreckage of the plane and the dead bodies of those who are known to have taken the flight counts as "unproven" in your book?
If that's the case, then no re-investigation will ever satisfy you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin wrote: | I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned no 757 hit the Pentagon. It is very simple. Where the tail plane and engines would have hit, the damage to the Pentagon's facade is incorrect. Hani Hanjour could not fly the plane the way the official conspiracy theory would have you believe. Ask any commercial pilot who flies 757s. Please refer to my much earlier post:
|
Please go here;
http://omroep.vara.nl/tvradiointernet_detail.jsp?maintopic=424&subtopi c=4177
Then scroll about 2/3's the way down to the 'english version'.
Then play the video and fast forward to 27:38.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bratcat808
Minor Poster
Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 34
Location: Tiny rock in big water
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:51 am Post subject: Re: Time to settle the Pentagon debate |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | Now, i was courteous enough to answer your points. Could you now please answer my original question?
Why does this video not stand up under scientific laws of examination, testing, and comparison. I am trying to get my facts and data as correct as possible and if you have information that shows this animation to be incorrect please let me know. |
The five frames show only what can be imagined. If you had not been programmed to believe it was an aircraft tail section, then you may form a very different opinion of what those light and dark areas are.
IMO, due to the suspect story and subsequent suspect "evidence" provided by the official line, I would not place any bets on even that small bit of video to be authentic or important in the larger questions.
Even if at some time, they do release some video footage, I would be very skeptical of it's authenticity as well. Considering that i know many people who are capable of creating and editing very real looking videos, then a release of a video by the government at this late date would most likely be a fabrication offered to try to undermine the efforts to reveal the truth.
_________________
9/11 Truth
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." T. Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And if you want photographs of the remains of passengers at The Pentagon, here are some. They are not pretty viewing, so here's a link. Be warned (scroll down a page or 2): |
No - these images have clearly been taken with flash and are inside the building/Pentagon, I quote;
'Photograph of bodies found inside the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building. (Exhibit #P200048)'
The images you cite are Pentagon workers and not aircraft passengers - this has already been discussed and debunked.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
