damning photo

[pollenate439]

Yeah , that link is what some sort of pdf? I don't download strange files , have you another format for this official information?

That video is the offical government release , why no plane visible?

It is not a PDF file, it is an Excel file and if you don't have a running copy of Excel on your computer that's your loss!  You should have these tools available if you're going to do "research."

[Mike Philbin]

oh, nice, a question for a question session

Mike,

What do you think of the previous photos I posted?

[37]

I've seen all of those pictures before and don't find them convincing that a plane crashed at the Pentagon.

The charred remains are interesting.  The aluminum chairs were obliterated but charred flesh remains?  That makes total sense.

What else have you got?

[pollenate439]

I've seen all of those pictures before and don't find them convincing that a plane crashed at the Pentagon.

Well then you don't want to look at facts then, do you? 

You're using selective probability to state your case about the Pentagon crash. When someone like me comes along and shows you pictures, all you do is state what your opinion is, you're not viewing the facts nor do you want to view the facts!

I'm not going to post anything else because REALLY it's not worth it trying to discuss this stuff with those who have a 4th grade education.

pollenate439

[37]

Well then you don't want to look at facts then, do you? 

You're using selective probability to state your case about the Pentagon crash. When someone like me comes along and shows you pictures, all you do is state what your opinion is, you're not viewing the facts nor do you want to view the facts!

I'm not going to post anything else because REALLY it's not worth it trying to discuss this stuff with those who have a 4th grade education.

pollenate439

Or is it a case of you seeing what you want to see?

I'm not surprised you are giving up...

[Michal Ptacnik]

It looks a bit like a Mig 21 crashing there, or a Suchoi fighter bomber. I bet the Mig would not leave much scarring because of the delta wing profile, too...

Well, back to reality.

I am honestly not convinced what happened during the 9/11 event. It would not make sense for the scene to be this, well, amateurish. I mean, if I wanted to stage a false flag, I'd at least use a real plane! If I had the millions and the CIA, surely, that would not be a problem, we'd make more convincing terrorists than ol'Osama could himself!

[Kilika]

Well then you don't want to look at facts then, do you? 

You're using selective probability to state your case about the Pentagon crash. When someone like me comes along and shows you pictures, all you do is state what your opinion is, you're not viewing the facts nor do you want to view the facts!

I'm not going to post anything else because REALLY it's not worth it trying to discuss this stuff with those who have a 4th grade education.

pollenate439

Uh, in your attempt at getting people to hear what you pushing, you resort to saying people here have a 4th grade education?

Well, your misinformed as to the education level of some of the people who post here, including myself. Not only do I have a bonafide high school diploma, but a BA in Multimedia that I earned in less than 3 years, as well as extensive military training in not only in flight characteristics, but navigation, communications and weapons systems but also electronics repair and maintenance on combat flight simulators for the US Navy F-14 and the F-4 fighter jets. I know how to fly, especially at high speeds because the main flight trainer I worked on, the 2E6 at NAS Oceana, was an air combat simulator. I helped train fighter pilots in air combat, so I'm just a tad familiar with what's possible for aircraft at speed.

And knowing what I know is possible, and not possible, for a fighter jet, I can say till the day I die there is no way on God's green earth that a human flew a huge passenger liner into the Pentagon like the official story claims. NO WAY. NOT POSSIBLE. There is no way it could have even hit light poles without major damage either at the speeds they claim of 400 plus. Those poles at that speed would have acted just like a knife through butter. The skin of those planes is soft aluminum, and for good reason. It's light weight, and it doesn't play well with any contact with stuff that is not air.

Ever seen the damage from a bird strike? Or seen two planes that taxied into one another on the runway? Check out the damage they suffer. Those light poles would have cut those wings nearly off, and as the previous posts says, fuel would have been everywhere. Just look at the videos of jet crash tests. Watch how the fuel goes all over the place. It's a no-brainer for those who are being reasonable.

4th grade education? Whatever.

[pollenate439]

I have a bonafide high school diploma, but a BA in Multimedia that I earned in less than 3 years, as well as extensive military training in not only in flight characteristics, but navigation, communications and weapons systems but also electronics repair and maintenance on combat flight simulators for the US Navy F-14 and the F-4 fighter jets. I know how to fly, especially at high speeds...

Good for you! Hope you do well!

[pollenate439]

Amazing how this is right in front of you people and you tell me you're still convinced that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon!! Just simply amazing! This shows me that NONE of you really want to look at ANY facts!!  It's out there, there is transparency to each and every event that happened on September 11, 2001.  There were manhy witnesses (which I just provided a link and you didn't want to download), there was tons of evidence involving pieces of the planes, smell of jet fuel, dead bodies, and you just sit there and say "Oh, I'm not convinced."  Well then, what will it take to convince you?

[luckee1]

[KiwiClare]

An airplane did hit the Pentagon. It might be questionable whether it was flight 77 (I think it was flight 77), but there was definitely an airplane. The downed light poles and the 100+ eyewitnesses said it was an airplane. The missile theory is disinfo.

Watch National Security Alert - Sensitive Information
http://www.video4viet.com/watchvideo.html?id=j5FhQc-LJ-o&title=National+Security+Alert+-+Sensitive+Information

They interviewed eyewitnesses.  The downed light poles did not say it was an airplane. Listen to what the taxi driver 'witness' admits.

[grapecrusher1]

Watch National Security Alert - Sensitive Information
http://www.video4viet.com/watchvideo.html?id=j5FhQc-LJ-o&title=National+Security+Alert+-+Sensitive+Information

They interviewed eyewitnesses.  The downed light poles did not say it was an airplane. Listen to what the taxi driver 'witness' admits.

Ranke interviewed the light poles which claimed not to have been struck by a plane -- could be?  Just kidding Clare, but really you are finding the CITGO thing credible.

It is funny how this gets cycled through over and over.

[Waipio]

pollenate439 I read all of your posts, you are suspect. In fact it's easy to see the baiting speech in all of your posts.

At least it is out of the closet now.   

[Waipio]

Amazing how this is right in front of you people and you tell me you're still convinced that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon!! Just simply amazing! This shows me that NONE of you really want to look at ANY facts!!  It's out there, there is transparency to each and every event that happened on September 11, 2001.  There were manhy witnesses (which I just provided a link and you didn't want to download), there was tons of evidence involving pieces of the planes, smell of jet fuel, dead bodies, and you just sit there and say "Oh, I'm not convinced."  Well then, what will it take to convince you?

Maybe its just wet behind the ears
Doesnt seem  like an agent.

How old are you pollenate ?

[pollenate439]

How old are you pollenate ?

Doesn't matter!

[Waipio]

Doesn't matter!

OK, if  that is true why not answer the question ?

[Waipio]

pollenate



1) Where were you when JFK died?

2) Who killed him?

3) Why do you believe your answer to the previous question?

[grapecrusher1]

pollenate



1) Where were you when JFK died?

2) Who killed him?

3) Why do you believe your answer to the previous question?

Instead of spouting condescendingly, which in my opinion is unjustified, why dont you say something constructive?

[Mike Philbin]

and as far as the RIDICULOUS lightpoles debacle at the Pentagon on 9-11 goes, I found this 'lightpoles shearing a wing into bits' footage of a CONSTELLATION airplane being dumped in the desert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4rYj9UmmE4

I mean, COME ON.

[Kilika]

Those poles at that speed would have acted just like a knife through butter. The skin of those planes is soft aluminum, and for good reason. It's light weight, and it doesn't play well with any contact with stuff that is not air.

I rest my case.

[37]

Why did Ted Olsen lie about talking to his wife?

[jimd3100]

Why did Ted Olsen lie about talking to his wife?

That's a good question. But I don't think Olson is the liar.

This post isn't directed at 37, 37 simply posted what allot of people in the "truth" movement believe. They believe it due to David Ray Griffin. But I find DRG has never met a pentagon theory he didn't like (except for the most logical theory- planes flew into buildings on 9/11)

According to DRG...

"Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI

The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights.

In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted "0 seconds."

According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.

And yet the FBI's report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11."
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=75&contentid=5011&page=2

He is refferring to this .....


But doesn't want to mention that there were 5 other calls from the flight, presented at the same trial. How come?

5 other calls...made by someone on the plane....who? Who made these calls?


DRG is NOT telling you the truth. DRG says..."According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone."
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=75&contentid=5011&page=2

But according to the FBI DRG is a liar, not Ted Olsen.

The trial was in 2006. Ted Olsen wasn't on trial so there was no need to prove anything in regards to him or his phone calls. But the entire FBI isn't "in on it". They contacted the next of kin of all the passengers of the flights, and all those receiving calls....
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13499802/T7-B13-Flight-Call-Notes-and-302s-Folder-Entire-Contents

Right from the start the FBI stated that Ted Olsen didn't know if the calls were cell phone calls or Airphone calls. His secretary Lori Keyton is the one that took these calls at first, not Ted Olsen, and she states that they were collect calls, that means they were probably not from her cell phone and there should be operators that would confirm this. The FBI documents concerning this can be seen here....
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15072623/T1A-B33-Four-Flights-Phone-Calls-and-Other-Data-Fdr-Entire-Contents-FBI-302s-843

The FBI interviewed Olsens secretary Lori Keyton.....
FBI Document....

"Keyton provided the following information:
Keyton was working in Ted Olson's Office this morning. She is regularly called there to cover the telephones. At approximately 9:00am, she received a series of approximately six to eight collect telephone calls. Each of the calls was an automated collect call. There was a recording advising of the collect call and requesting she hold for an operator. A short time later another recording stated that all operators were busy, please hang up and try your call later."

"Keyton then received a collect call from a live operator. The operator advised that there was an emergency collect call from Barbara Olsen for Ted Olsen. Keyton advised that she would accept the call. Barbara Olsen was put through and sounded hysterical. Barbara Olsen said, "Can you tell Ted .. " Keyton cut her off and said, "I'll put him on the line."

"Keyton advised that there is no caller identification feature on the phone she was using. Keyton didn't know if Barbara Olson was calling from the phone on the plane or from her cell phone."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-FBI-FD302-lori-lynn-keyton.pdf

So as you can see, Ted Olsen has several witnesses backing up his story, one is his secretary, and others are the operators who put some of these calls through.

"Teresa Gonzalez, operator for AT&T Services AT&T, telephonically contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI to report an emergency phone call received by AT&T. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, she provided the following information:

"Mercy Lorenzo, also an operator with AT&T, received a call from a female passenger on flight 77 requesting to be transferred to telephone number 202-514-2201. The female passenger advised the plane was being hi-jacked. Hi-jackers were ordering passengers to move to the back of the plane and were armed with guns and knives. Lorenzo indicated the pilot might not yet be aware of the take over of the plane."

"Additionally, the number provided was the number of the passenger's husband. He is a Sergeant and resides in Washington, D.C."
http://www.911myths.com/images/9/95/265A-NY-280350-302-22170-Unredacted.pdf

Ted Olson was not a "Sergeant" he was United States Solicitor General.

Yes, that phone number is to the United States Solicitor General...just type in into google...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+202-514-2201&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

So Ted Olson's story is confirmed over and over again by people who don't even know him.

DRG has the nerve to say this.....

"And yet the FBI's report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.

"This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11."
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=75&contentid=5011&page=2

Yes, the FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and 2 years before the Moussaoui trial all this info was known to them, and they also confirmed Olsons story. DRG wants you to believe they proved Olson lied. Again DRG is the liar here as this document confirms......

"Event: Department of Justice briefing on cell and phone calls from AA Flight 77"
"Date: May 20, 2004"
"This work was conducted in support of the U.S. Justice Department's criminal case against Zacarias Moussaoui."

"While there was no direct evidence with respect to the "unknown calls," interviews with recipients (especially Lori Keyton who was answering the phone in Ted Olson's office on 9/11), plus interviews of family members of other Flight 77 passengers, has lead to the conclusion that all of these unknown calls were from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18886083/T7-B12-Flight-93-Calls-General-Fdr-52004-DOJ-Briefing-on-Cell-and-Phone-Calls-From-AA-77-408




"all of these unknown calls were from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office."[/i]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18886083/T7-B12-Flight-93-Calls-General-Fdr-52004-DOJ-Briefing-on-Cell-and-Phone-Calls-From-AA-77-408

DRG also thinks a one world government would be pretty neat. Maybe the truth movement should stop treating this guy as an infallible God?
"I believe we need global government"- DRG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-TZypcH9eg

For years I've seen over and over the "Ted Olson is a liar"  mantra put forth by the "truth" movement, lead by DRG when it is DRG lieing not Ted Olson. A real big clue of someone not "being in on it" is when they, or a person close to them are dead. Like John O'Neil. Because of 9/11 he is dead. That is a pretty good clue he isn't "in on it". Ted Olson had a wife that is dead due to 9/11. DRG doesn't have a shred of evidence that he lied or is "in on it", and neither dose anyone on this board. One may not like Olson or his politics, but to accuse him of "being in on it" with no evidence is extremely counter productive and IMO disgusting. The evidence shows me she was collateral damage. In the wrong place at the wrong time.

And before someone accuses me of being an "undercover agent of the NWO"  because I refuse to go along with everything put forth by our "truth" God  and One World Gov advocate DRG, I have 900 posts that dispute that.

I prefer the "truth" movement focus on truth, and have it's "facts" in order. Accusing victims of the attack as being "in on it" liars, when the evidence isn't there doesn't help a "truth" movement.

[37]

Why the unknown numbers?

The unconnected number(picture #1) was shown to call the dept. of justice.  Why don't the others say that?  She connected with the department of justice on a subsequent call, according to Olson's assistant.  Why do the five numbers say "unknown"?  Seems a little fishy. 

Keyton said the calls were collect, so there was an operator involved.  Here again...how is the number "unknown"? 

One of those calls reportedly lasted over one minute.

[tracer7]

I think we've all seen the official surveillance footage of the pentagon "attack". I didn't see a plane there , I see only a flash of light, and something that looks like a missile.

see for yourselves , no plane here..

video of pentagon hit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs

combine that with the just released pager messages from that day such as this one.... interesting

2001-09-11 09:50:03 Arch [1020272] A  ALPHA  it's reported that a US military helicopter circled the building then crashed into or next to the Pentagon - it's not clear to whether it was the White House or the Pentagon - they are being evacuated

[jimd3100]

Why the unknown numbers?

Yup, that would be the next logical question wouldn't it?

The unconnected number(picture #1) was shown to call the dept. of justice.  Why don't the others say that?  She connected with the department of justice on a subsequent call, according to Olson's assistant.  Why do the five numbers say "unknown"?  Seems a little fishy.  

Keyton said the calls were collect, so there was an operator involved.  Here again...how is the number "unknown"?  

One of those calls reportedly lasted over one minute.

Well, I can only guess right? My guess is this...... I think to use an airphone you either use a credit card and pay for it yourself, or you call an operator and have the other person pay as a collect call. If you use a credit card and pay yourself you dial the number yourself and a record from the airphone is then made. She did that once and it didn't go through...you have the one recorded call, and the number dialed from the airphone.  The others were made collect and therefor the operator dialed the number not the person using the airphone therefor the number called is unknown(not dialed on the airphone) but the time the airphone was used is known and recorded. By talking to the operators, Keyton, and the other family members it aint hard to figure out where these calls went.........


"Mercy Lorenzo, also an operator with AT&T, received a call from a female passenger on flight 77 requesting to be transferred to telephone number 202-514-2201.
http://www.911myths.com/images/9/95/265A-NY-280350-302-22170-Unredacted.pdf

she received a series of approximately six to eight collect telephone calls.
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-FBI-FD302-lori-lynn-keyton.pdf

The trial was in 2006, and the evidence presented was simply the calls. The airphone calls were classified as "unknown" because they were collect calls and no record from the airphone recorded the number dialed as the operator, ....not the person using the airphone, dialed the number. They could have gone ahead and presented the evidence to show who made these "unknown" number calls, as they already found out in 2004 as the documents show, but there was no reason to do that because Ted Olson wasn't on trial, and it would be irrelevant to the case and a waste of the courts time.
Anyway, that's my guess.

BTW- The reason I never claim the calls from the plane are fake is because there is no evidence they are fake, and the first calls from the planes were at 8:20. Guess what that means? It means When Bush stepped into the classroom at 9 am and was told that a COMMERCIAL AIRLINER  had hit the WTC he Rice and Rumsfeld were already aware that these were not "accidents" happening. Check out Rumsfeld, he claims to not be aware of anything until the pentagon was hit. This isn't believable. These calls blow their "I thought they were weird accidents" myth to smitheriens.

[phasma]

In Spoks Dad's Photo, the question becomes:

How did titanium, heavy guage aluminum, heavy guage rubber tires and landing gear all evaporate and a plastic monitor survive

and the inside of the building should be scorched to boot.

Not even David Copperfield could do this trick!

In exactly the same way that paper passports could survive when planes / buildings / black boxes / people couldnt !
In both 9/11 AND 7/7

[H0llyw00d]

I see upright lightpoles all around and no parts of plane.  What time was this photo taken on that day?

I see no people about, just vehicles.  What is going on here?

that was taken directly after impact, the outer wall didn't collapse till 20 minutes later. could have been a missile, could have been a smaller plane, but I'm positive, it wasn't flight 77. I'm thinking a much smaller aircraft possibly