| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jack
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Posts: 115
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: Is it most likely that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? |
 |
|
What do people think of this presentation -
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
It's one of the best 9/11 research websites and I think they make a convincing case of the implausibility that anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
I'm glad that Loose Change Final Cut made less of a big deal out of the "what hit the Pentagon" question. It's got the classic "conspiracy theorist" appeal to intuition but there's not so much of a solid case.
I fear that clear video is being kept and will later be shown to "debunk" all questions raised by the Truth Movement.
Thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What final cut does very well is to frame the debate in such a way that leaves the audience to draw their own conclusions and points to the contradictions in evidence whilst not pretending to know what really happened.
On the one hand people say ........ whilst others point to .........
It mentions the hole, the lamposts, the flight path, the flight data, the failure to intercept, the contradictory witness statements, the piss-poor flight skills of the alleged pilot, the inconclusive CCTV, the Norman Mineta testimony and so on. It does not mention the pentagon's own missile defences or the proximity of the Andrew's base, but you can't have it all.
What it does do is demonstrate that it is not irrational to question whether or not Flt 77 hit but it doesn't reach hard conclusions: which if you want to open up a public debate and get this stuff talked about at the highest levels is the correct approach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: Re: Is it most likely that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? |
|
|
| ahh diddums... wrote: | I'm glad that Loose Change Final Cut made less of a big deal out of the "what hit the Pentagon" question. It's got the classic "conspiracy theorist" appeal to intuition but there's not so much of a solid case.
I fear that clear video is being kept and will later be shown to "debunk" all questions raised by the Truth Movement.
Thoughts? |
I'm all for keeping an open mind. this link was posted by TmcMistress a while back and is also worth a read....
http://www.pehi.eu/disinformation/911/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: Is it most likely that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? |
|
|
| ahh diddums... wrote: | What do people think of this presentation -
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
It's one of the best 9/11 research websites and I think they make a convincing case of the implausibility that anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
I'm glad that Loose Change Final Cut made less of a big deal out of the "what hit the Pentagon" question. It's got the classic "conspiracy theorist" appeal to intuition but there's not so much of a solid case.
I fear that clear video is being kept and will later be shown to "debunk" all questions raised by the Truth Movement.
Thoughts? |
There are also an awful lot of myths in danger of becoming regarded as 'established fact' about the Pentagon strike.
The original evidence gathering, location examination and in-depth witness interviews by CIT are well worth becoming familiar with for a better understanding.
www.thepentacon.com
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: Re: Is it most likely that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | ahh diddums... wrote: | What do people think of this presentation -
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
It's one of the best 9/11 research websites and I think they make a convincing case of the implausibility that anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
I'm glad that Loose Change Final Cut made less of a big deal out of the "what hit the Pentagon" question. It's got the classic "conspiracy theorist" appeal to intuition but there's not so much of a solid case.
I fear that clear video is being kept and will later be shown to "debunk" all questions raised by the Truth Movement.
Thoughts? |
There are also an awful lot of myths in danger of becoming regarded as 'established fact' about the Pentagon strike.
The original evidence gathering, location examination and in-depth witness interviews by CIT are well worth becoming familiar with for a better understanding.
www.thepentacon.com |
Spot on Chek, the Pentagon incident is full of implausible events and bizarre witnesses. The work already done to identify the E-4B being present shows that the Commission Report was lacking in detail and the dodgy light pole tale is being further exposed - either that was staged or there were 2 low-flying aircraft that day.
The important thing to remember is that we don't have to prove what hit the Pentagon (if anything did) - just that the OCT is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject: Re: Is it most likely that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | The important thing to remember is that we don't have to prove what hit the Pentagon (if anything did) - just that the OCT is a lie. |
Exactly so KP, as long as it is being exposed as a lie with evidence that is hard-to-impossible to refute.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
911Research is a really good site, IMO. They have a really excellent breakdown of Loose Change 2nd edition, showing all the strong and weak points of the film. 911R. generally seems to applaud Dylan and Korey for their efforts, but wanted to see them make a stronger film that holds up to criticism better.
It will be interesting to see the Final Cut, and what they think of it.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
is this the one you mean?
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html
I agree that LCSE contained a mixture of strong and flawed arguments, but I don't think you could say that about the final cut. it's a comletely different film and this time avery and co have been much more careful about making claims that they cannot substantiate. and I think you'll like the way they handle the pentagon issue - showing both points of view with regard to whether or not a plane hit.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, that's it.
| Quote: | | I agree that LCSE contained a mixture of strong and flawed arguments, but I don't think you could say that about the final cut. it's a comletely different film and this time avery and co have been much more careful about making claims that they cannot substantiate. and I think you'll like the way they handle the pentagon issue - showing both points of view with regard to whether or not a plane hit.... |
That's good. I have every intention of checking it out. Much like the page above, I didn't agree with everything in SE, but I respected the effort.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | .........It does not mention the pentagon's own missile defences or the proximity of the Andrew's base, but you can't have it all.
|
Ian, may I ask what evidence you have that there were missile defences at the Pentagon? They are sometimes mentioned, but I have never seen any evidence to support their existence, all that is usually said is that there must have been some.
Andrews AFB is primarily a transport base, the only fighters there are Air National Guard, and were not on alert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Andrews AFB is primarily a transport base, |
Come now BW - that's hardly the whole story is it, for a 'superbase' like Andrews, even 6 years ago.
Units
Andrews Air Force Base is home to Air Force District of Washington's 316th Wing -- the base's host wing -- with several partner units on base including Air Mobility Command's 89th Airlift Wing, the Air Force Office of Special Investigation headquarters, Air Force Reserve Command's 459th Air Refueling Wing, D.C. Air National Guard's 113th Wing, the Naval Air Facility, and Army and Marine Corps detachments.
http://www.andrews.af.mil/units/
| Bushwacker wrote: | | the only fighters there are Air National Guard, and were not on alert. |
"In addition, the Air National Guard has total responsibility for air defense of the entire United States".
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=160
When are designated Air Defence units not on alert?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Andrews AFB is primarily a transport base, |
Come now BW - that's hardly the whole story is it, for a 'superbase' like Andrews, even 6 years ago.
Units
Andrews Air Force Base is home to Air Force District of Washington's 316th Wing -- the base's host wing -- with several partner units on base including Air Mobility Command's 89th Airlift Wing, the Air Force Office of Special Investigation headquarters, Air Force Reserve Command's 459th Air Refueling Wing, D.C. Air National Guard's 113th Wing, the Naval Air Facility, and Army and Marine Corps detachments.
http://www.andrews.af.mil/units/
| Bushwacker wrote: | | the only fighters there are Air National Guard, and were not on alert. |
"In addition, the Air National Guard has total responsibility for air defense of the entire United States".
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=160
When are designated Air Defence units not on alert? |
As I said, primarily a transport base, with one squadron of ANG fighters. DC Air National Guard website. As I am sure you are aware, very few fighters are ready for immediate take-off at any one time, on 9/11 there were seven alert sites, each with two aircraft, covering the whole of North America. At the height of the cold war there had been 26, but the perceived threat was much less, and some consideration had been given to eliminating alert sites entirely. Andrews was not an alert site, and the fighters at Otis and Langley were scrambled, ineffectively.
What I am mostly interested in, though, is whether there is any actual indication of missile defences at the Pentagon, other than supposition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
... and probably by the most innocent of oversights you almost forgot about these:
"Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It hosts two 'combat-ready' squadrons:
* the 121st Fighter Squadron (FS-121) of the 113th Fighter Wing (FW-113), equipped with F-16 fighters;
* the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA-321) of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A (MAG-49 Det-A), equipped with
F/A-18 fighters.
THE 321st MARINE FIGHTER ATTACK SQUADRON (VMFA-321)
"In the best tradition of the Marine Corps, a 'few good men and women' support two combat-ready reserve units at Andrews AFB. Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 321, a Marine Corps Reserve squadron, flies the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet. Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 49, Detachment A, provides maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness. "
http://www.dcmilitary.com/baseguides/airforce/andrews/partnerunits.htm l
| Bushwacker wrote: | | As I am sure you are aware, very few fighters are ready for immediate take-off at any one time, on 9/11 there were seven alert sites, each with two aircraft, covering the whole of North America. Andrews was not an alert site, and the fighters at Otis and Langley were scrambled, ineffectively. |
Your fervent dedication to the 'asleep at the wheel' version of history is duly noted BW, even if it requires some fact bending to fit that comforting view
"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said. But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..."
--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001.
" Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."
--'Sunday Telegraph,' (London), 14 September 2001
And:
"WASHINGTON - …an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon. Terrorism suddenly was at the doorstep and clearly visible through the big glass windows overlooking the Potomac River. Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skies…
"A thick plume of smoke was climbing out of the hollow center of the Pentagon. Everyone on the train understood what had happened moments before."
--'Denver Post,' 11 September 2001
Funny how they were 'alert' enough to be airborne "within minutes" when the attack was over, isn't it? Pretty damn fast for units not on alert.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Awesome Chek.
You're now an advocate of all of the available planes that didn't chase any planes.
Brilliant.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | Awesome Chek.
You're now an advocate of all of the available planes that didn't chase any planes.
Brilliant. |
I'm not entirely sure how to decipher your deceptively cryptic sentence Mark - but if you mean I have highlighted NORAD's non-response and after the event cover-up then yes - that's was the purpose.
Or is this another of your insidious no planes defences in action?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Mark Gobell wrote: | Awesome Chek.
You're now an advocate of all of the available planes that didn't chase any planes.
Brilliant. |
I'm not entirely sure how to decipher your deceptively cryptic sentence Mark - but if you mean I have highlighted NORAD's non-response and after the event cover-up then yes - that's was the purpose.
Or is this another of your insidious no planes defences in action? |
Well, Chek.
My response was not intentionally deceptive. Or cryptic. I assure you.
Simply a statement of fact.
NORAD's alleged non-response lies at the very root of this story. Does it not?
Insidious codas notwithstanding.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | NORAD's alleged non-response lies at the very root of this story. Does it not? |
'Alleged' non response?
You phrase that as if there is some doubt about it Mark.
And no, NORAD's role is only one element in this story.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So how do you explain the alleged non-response of NORAD Chek?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | So how do you explain the alleged non-response of NORAD Chek? |
You ask me to 'explain' it.
Don't you think Rumsfeld who restructured Air Defence to be under his personal command in summer 2001, and Cheney in his bunker being repeatedly told 'the plane was x-y-z miles out' might provide rather better answers?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You espouse the myriad fighters available.
One might therefore expect you to explain their lack of response.
Chek.
Notwithstanding your Rumsfeld, Cheney and implied Mineta coda . . .
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | You espouse the myriad fighters available.
One might therefore expect you to explain their lack of response.
Chek. |
Might one, Mark?
When was speculating about 'explanations' for any of this sh*t expected Mark?
Expected by who exactly, Mark?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mason-free party wrote: | | Jack...you are a total * if you believe that jack * website...now * off back into your zionist whore hole |
???
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Mark Gobell wrote: | | So how do you explain the alleged non-response of NORAD Chek? |
You ask me to 'explain' it.
Don't you think Rumsfeld who restructured Air Defence to be under his personal command in summer 2001, and Cheney in his bunker being repeatedly told 'the plane was x-y-z miles out' might provide rather better answers? |
Did "Rumsfeld's restructuring of the Air Defence to be under his personal command in the summer of 2001" have any bearing on the events of 9/11.
Can you also explain what Mineta's testimony actually means?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | Did "Rumsfeld's restructuring of the Air Defence to be under his personal command in the summer of 2001" have any bearing on the events of 9/11. |
Yes, direct consequences on 911 as anyone who is familiar with Rumsfeld's movements on the morning of 911 would know.
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | Can you also explain what Mineta's testimony actually means? |
At the very least it seems to me that the Cheney bunker knew of the incoming plane while the interceptors did not.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is that it?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | Is that it? |
It's enough for you to be going on with.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aw Chek.
I thought you might be up for a discussion about these important parts of the story.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you mean so that you would have the opportunity to push Wood's threadbare paranoia.
But the only thing of value that I noticed in her new 'timeline' was that she's now married 'DEW' to 'TV fakery'.
As if we didn't already know.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
