Only One Confused Individual ?

[GEFBASS]

Hi, could this help?

(New to any forums, but just thought had to share this)

You can get both these videos from Google Video.

"911 Conspiracy"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5714975155113419363&q=911

"Loose change 9-11 Alex Jones Conspiracy"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=Alex+jo nes

Specifically about the Pentagon eye witness.

Watch from...

6 min 40 sec into "911 conspiracy"

18 min 50 sec into "Loose change 9-11 Alex Jones Conspiracy" (CNN interview)

Listen to the eye witness (singular).

Interesting ?......
Any Similarities ?......
Any Discrepancies ?....

[catfish]

This is that guy who saw the "...united airlines 757 jet..." when he looked out of his window in the pentagon, that's what he said on CNN.

However in the other clip he describes it as "...like a cruise missile with wings slamming right there into the Pentagon..."

I think he must have got a bit confused, airliners don't look like cruise missiles! Good spot GEFBASS

[GEFBASS]

Just hope it can help somewhere.

I was just surprised these Doc makers hadn`t used it to help their cases.

[xmasdale]

[GEFBASS]

It seems to me that if you want to prove a conspiracy you first have to look at what is there, solid, in plain sight (pun intended).
I have edited the clips together for ease of comparison.
Although I am no body language expert it seems to me this guy can`t look the CNN interviewer in the eye with his (told to say) line.

However in the, non affiliated off the cuff, remark about the cruise missile with wings there seems a genuine `honesty` of what he saw.

Question?
What would he have said at an inquiry ?

Then follow up surely should be.
Who told you it was an Aircraft ?

Surely this sort of evidence gathering is the best way to get to the truth...
( yes I know in the real world etc. etc. )

I believe that speculation is one thing, but holes in human stories is another.

[xmasdale]

[insidejob]

Hmm, obviously this witness was put straight by the nice security officials at the Pentagon. But there's something else...

...After reading a question on this site about seismic results of the Pentagon strike, a thought came into my head that, I think, clears up the did-a-plane-hit-the-Pentagon argument. It's so obvious. It just shows how confused I am by the official goobledygook that I didn't think of it before.

We are talking about a plane weighing nearly a quarter of a million pounds, travelling at 530mph. Just think. What impact would that make on the reinforced concrete of the Pentagon? And is that what we saw when we saw the CCTV images?

A 757 at that speed would create a massive explosion. Much of the Pentagon facade would be destroyed. There would be a huge explosion that would engulf a big proportion of the Pentagon. Parts of the plane would be found half a mile away. The noise of the crash would be heard ten miles away. It would be a massive explosion.

But is that what the CCTV showed?

The CCTV images are available on the Judicial Watch website, http://judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

Below is an eyewitness who actually sees a drone but is so deluded he thinks he sees a 757. It's evidence of how deluded the witnesses are. He didn't 'hear anything at all until' the plane was above him and although it was 20ft above him!!?? And the plane's turbulence did not affect to him!!??
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Pentagon_crash_eyewitness_comforted_victi ms.html
'"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.'

What was he on?

Extract from Boeing webpages:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200back.html
Commercial Airlines
757-200 Background
‘…The 757-200 takeoff weights range from 220,000 pounds (99,800 kilograms) up to a maximum of 255,000 pounds (115,660 kilograms) for greater payload or range. A freighter configuration of the 757-200 also is available….’


BBC version shows the plane travelled at 530mph:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3919613.stm#third
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77 FROM WASHINGTON TO LOS ANGELES
'...The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.
At 09:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, travelling at approximately 530mph....'


People fear that if they come out strongly on the Pentagon, Karl Rove will come up with some magic, CCTV, digital tomfoolery that will make us look silly. Don't worry about it. They'll just dig a bigger hole.


insidejob

[GEFBASS]

Hi just found this link to Pentagon witnesses.

Had to share.

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

The guy in the videos being interviewed is Mike Walter from USA Today.

Open the link and search the page for `cruise`.

His Statement is on there.

It seems odd in context with the two video clips and his manner.

This is the Statement:

Washington, Mike Walter, USA Today, on the road when a jet slammed into the Pentagon: "I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' "And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. "Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out. And then it was chaos on the highway as people tried to either move around the traffic and go down, either forward or backward. "We had a lady in front of me, who was backing up and screaming, 'Everybody go back, go back, they've hit the Pentagon.' "It was just sheer terror."


******Now to be fair, maybe the doc makers should have put all of his statement together in one shot, Do you think he made that statement at the same time?

I don`t want to labour this point too much but surely by picking away at the small details hole will appear all over. ( No pun intended ).
I know there is a lot of holes already, but if it can convince one sceptic surely that`s not a bad thing.


I need to make this point also.
Why don`t all the doc makers get together and make one difinitive film.



Anyway I`m watching as much footage as I can and if I find anything else
I`ll let you know.

Geoff.

[Sinclair]

Keep diggin' Geoff. Your contribution is appreciated -Welcome.

[GEFBASS]

Thanks Sinclair, I haven`t been investigating long, it`s just the more you look the more you question.

I do need to say this:

If what I`ve found in separate documentaries is cherry picking sound bites to make separate cases, for example what I have found this time, surely it will make it harder to establish the FACTS that everyone can agree with.

That said I still think the two videos and statements are a bit odd.

Geoff. Thanks reading and listening.

[ian neal]

[GEFBASS]

I totally agree, I have already started on the deeper issues myself.

I have seen a lot of footage downloaded etc. I merely posted with thought that any entry level material that could lead any casual
observer to start to doubt the `real story` could be the catalyst for further investigation and to spread their thoughts.

I just think that the agendas of the people involved I.E. New World Order, Oil, Money, Police State to name but a few may not
be a starting point for debate or doubt.

Great site, will do more.

Geoff.

[ian neal]

Thanks Geoff

A mix of different approaches and evidence for different audiences is what I find works. For some it is PNAC and its blueprint for American Empire, for others it is WTC7 and so on.

Depending on where you are based info@nineeleven.co.uk can steer you towards fellow campaigners near you