PrisonPlanet Forum
May 21, 2013, 12:05:47 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What hit the Pentagon?  (Read 12326 times)
mr anderson
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,358



WWW
« on: September 01, 2009, 09:46:22 AM »

What hit the Pentagon?

August 20, 2009
http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/wordpress/?p=320




Tonight we welcome Dr. Frank Legge back to show for an extended discussion on one the most vexed questions about 9/11: what hit the Pentagon?

Dr. Legge has written an important paper on this topic which has been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

As Dr. Legge stresses, there are two essential points to note:

    * Nothing should have hit the Pentagon.
    * This implies a stand-down order existed, as appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission.The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not.

Many researchers are not satisfied with stopping at these reasonable claims however, and want to propose more detailed theories about what really happened. During the show we critically examine some of the theories, with the help of Dan Collins, a regular contributor to TNRA.

We present below several key pieces of evidence often cited in investigations of the Pentagon attacks.

Below we reproduce the Pentagon Building Performance Report image showing that “no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building”.

 

 

More Links:

    * The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows
    * Citizen Investigation Team

F4 Phantom Vs Wall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY
Logged

WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t
grapecrusher1
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,537



« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2009, 09:49:43 AM »

Nice to see this isnt another pro - CITGO misinfo post.

Excellent points by Legge in his paper where he spells out why this CITGO stuff is so dangerous.  Will listen to the audio.
Logged

"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
birgit
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,501


A red pill a day- keeps NWO at bay


« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2009, 09:54:16 AM »

What hit the Pentagon?

It was  hit by lies, lies, and more WMD lies
Logged

TRUTH  is  INCONTROVERTIBLE

  Malice   may  attack it
Ignorance  may  deride it
     But in the  end...
             HERE  IT IS ! 
                      ~ unknown
ChristSavage
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 972


« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2009, 09:58:10 AM »

It wasn't a 747 that's for damn sure as the media keeps pushing.  Higher probability of it being a cruise missile, then a small fighter jet crashed into it, hence to create the image of a wrecked plane on the ground while the damage done to the Pentagon highly resembles a cruise missile.  The 5 frames released from the Pentagon clearly indiciate no large, let alone say a 50 passanger airliner.  Also, that side of the Pentagon was the only side to have gotten a renovation before 9-11, and that was also the side where investigations were underway into how 1 Trillion Dollars just vanished inot thin air (when a trillion meant something back in the day).  Then you combine all that with the known thermite that was in the building, and confirmed by many eye witness accounts on that fateful day, and you got 1 helluva mess.



Logged
Anti_Illuminati
Guest
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2009, 10:40:19 AM »

Lordssyndicate had said that it was a Global Hawk (I suppose this is suggesting that it was modified to have explosives put into it but he didn't say anything about that.)

He said that no passenger jet could have gotten that close to the Pentagon without automatically being shot down by the Pentagon's missile defense system, because it has a civilian transponder that would have been transmitting and causing the defense system to shoot it down automatically.

Now that argument brings up some pretty incendiary backlash from people because they will say that there is no proof that the pentagon had a missile defense system.

I cannot remember what he said exactly about that but I believe he said that it was called for the be put in place under President Nixon.  He had more info about it but I have completely forgotten about what he said.  He had no reason to bullshit, and he doesn't just believe anything.

So assuming the missile defense system was real, a Global Hawk could get through the defenses because it has a military transponder which says "Hi, I am a friendly U.S. Airforce plane."

If he was still around he would explain it in his own way and with more detail.

EDIT:

He added that the material that the wings were made of would have been the only viable explanation for cutting the light poles (he said Titanium, but I'm not sure if that's what they're made of).  Also the Global Hawk could easily maneuver to pull off the aerial acrobatics to hit the Pentagon, and the guidance technology was already able to do that.  I believe (not positive though) that the Global Hawk would have been steered by either Raytheon's JPALS system, or SPC's (Dov Zakheim's corporation) guidance system (nto sure of the name offhand).
Logged
luckee1
Guest
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2009, 10:47:21 AM »

Lordssyndicate had said that it was a Global Hawk (I suppose this is suggesting that it was modified to have explosives put into it but he didn't say anything about that.)

He said that no passenger jet could have gotten that close to the Pentagon without automatically being shot down by the Pentagon's missile defense system, because it has a civilian transponder that would have been transmitting and causing the defense system to shoot it down automatically.

Now that argument brings up some pretty incendiary backlash from people because they will say that there is no proof that the pentagon had a missile defense system.

I cannot remember what he said exactly about that but I believe he said that it was called for the be put in place under President Nixon.  He had more info about it but I have completely forgotten about what he said.  He had no reason to bullshit, and he doesn't just believe anything.

So assuming the missile defense system was real, a Global Hawk could get through the defenses because it has a military transponder which says "Hi, I am a friendly U.S. Airforce plane."

If he was still around he would explain it in his own way and with more detail.
 

Not to mention skynet would have been all over it.  I cannot emphasize enough that we all need to read Tom Clancy books, yes all of them, it seems that boy knows alot more then the general populace and prints it off as fiction actually proves to be real.  The events of today might as well be scripted by him.
Logged
DarkKnightNomeD
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 998



« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2009, 10:49:25 AM »

9/11 commisioner on CNN: Pentagon hit by missile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOhYkBicI9g
Logged
grapecrusher1
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,537



« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2009, 10:49:50 AM »

Lordssyndicate had said that it was a Global Hawk (I suppose this is suggesting that it was modified to have explosives put into it but he didn't say anything about that.)

He said that no passenger jet could have gotten that close to the Pentagon without automatically being shot down by the Pentagon's missile defense system, because it has a civilian transponder that would have been transmitting and causing the defense system to shoot it down automatically.

Now that argument brings up some pretty incendiary backlash from people because they will say that there is no proof that the pentagon had a missile defense system.

I cannot remember what he said exactly about that but I believe he said that it was called for the be put in place under President Nixon.  He had more info about it but I have completely forgotten about what he said.  He had no reason to bullshit, and he doesn't just believe anything.

So assuming the missile defense system was real, a Global Hawk could get through the defenses because it has a military transponder which says "Hi, I am a friendly U.S. Airforce plane."

If he was still around he would explain it in his own way and with more detail.
 

Doesn't a lot of your research show how computer systems can be hijacked and controlled without trace?  Changing identity beacons seems much less a stretch than remote control and creating the circumstance for Norad to stand down, doesn't it?
Logged

"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
Anti_Illuminati
Guest
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2009, 10:59:51 AM »

Not to mention skynet would have been all over it.  I cannot emphasize enough that we all need to read Tom Clancy books, yes all of them, it seems that boy knows alot more then the general populace and prints it off as fiction actually proves to be real.  The events of today might as well be scripted by him.

Wel we might as well use the real terms instead of Skynet.  And back then this would just be C4ISR.  It is more than apparent that no one grasps the significance that I have posted actual diagram images of Ptech software that were from Ptech's website, showing that they used that software to do all of the battle command planning for Desert Storm in 1991 (which is very interesting because Ptech is plainly admitting that their own software existed BEFORE the company did, which is what I said in the Corbett interview.  C4ISR is Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance.

The type of flight trajectory or combat operation/strategy/points of attack, etc that ANY aircraft whether Global Hawk or Tomahawk missile, is graphically represented in ptech's own diagrams.  people do not understand this this software ENGINEERS WARFARE, IT FIGURES OUT HOW TO EXECUTE COMBAT OPERATIONS, TO EVERY MINUTE DETAIL, AND IT CAN CHANGE THEM IN REAL TIME, and where applicable, that DATA is FED to TROOPS and FORCES to act upon as they see fit, but it is the BRAINS behind everything today, it IS the basis for Future Combat Systems.


Reposted from here

The MIAA enables military information architects to create and maintain a structured, comprehensive, living "information back plane"--a set of integrated architecture models--that helps decision makers plan for and manage change in the information-related capabilities that are critical to the success of military operations and enterprises.

The MIAA creates and automatically enforces a consistent taxonomy (artifacts, interrelationships and rules) throughout all operational, system, and technical view products with domain-specific metamodels based on concepts and behavior rules adapted from the DoD C4ISR Architecture Framework, the CADM, and operational experience. The MIAA also incorporates the ability to organize architecture data according to Zachman, Boer and other architecture frameworks, and provides file-based interfaces to the Joint C4ISR Architecture Planning System (JCAPS) and powerful discrete event simulation capability (Design/CPN).

The Ptech Military Information Architecture Accelerator (MIAA) is based upon ideas and products outlined in the DoD C4ISR Architecture Framework, Version 2.1.  That document is “intended to ensure that the architectures developed by the geographic and functional unified Commands, military Services, and defense Agencies are interrelatable between and among organizations’ operational, systems, and technical architecture views, and are comparable and integrateable across Joint and multi-national organizational boundaries.”

Ptech’s military architecture capability addresses these intentions, enabling military information architects to:

    * construct fully integrated, interactive, C4ISR Architecture Framework-compliant models of the entire set of architectural data, and confirm the completeness and self-consistency of the data set
      
    * conduct initial analyses of the data set or any subset thereof
      
    * share both the model views and the analysis products among all stakeholders via web publishing and reporting

Our  consultants can help you design and capture your architecture data within a single, concordant KnowledgeBase.  This interactive, “living architecture” will enable you to represent and analyze data you have now, and will also form the basis for planning, assessing and managing future changes.”

Details

The Ptech Military Information Architecture Accelerator rests upon a conceptual model which governs the behavior of the modeling environment.  This conceptual model includes classes and associations arranged in a set of metamodels whose rules were adapted from C4ISR Architecture Framework, V. 2.1, CADM, and practical experience.  Our object-oriented modeling environment allows you to capture and analyze data in a single concordant KnowledgeBase.  All diagrams modeled in FrameWork are linked to each other through the metamodels that govern them and the objects they contain.  In FrameWork, you can also attach subdiagrams to objects, providing as much “drill-down” capability as the architecture may require.  Customized forms and reports augment the KnowledgeBase,  offering text-based interfaces to the information.  Taken together, these capabilities enable architects to slice and dice comprehensive, complex architecture data in a variety of ways.

Our Version 1.5 release supports modeling and reporting capabilities for:

      Operational Products: OV-1, OV-2, OV-3, OV-4, OV-5, OV-6a, OV-6b, OV-6c,

      System Products: SV-1, SV-2, SV-3, SV-4, SV-5, SV-6, SV-7, SV-8, SV-9, SV-10a, SV-10b, SV-10c

      Technical Products: TV-1, TV-2

      Other Products: AV-2

      Upcoming Products include: OV-7 and SV-11

The current release represents a step along the path toward the final version, which will incorporate the essential and supporting DoD Architecture Framework products.  Future releases will integrate these products, and maintain compatibility with prior versions.

What's New

Available Updates

Please contact us for the lastest versions

    * AV-2 Report Templates
    * Demonstrator KnowledgeBase

Strategic Partnerships

USAF SBIR 2000-116:  Decision Support System for Command and Control Acquisition (Phase I)

    * Created an interface between FrameWork and Design/CPN
    * Enables users to take their architectures to a high-quality simulation and conduct sensitivity analyses to support executive decision makers
    * Enables high-quality prediction of architecture performance and sensitivity analyses

JCAPS Interface development effort

    * USSTRATCOM-funded effort to create two-way batch file interface between FrameWork and JCAPS repository
    * Enables users to leverage unique capabilities of each system

Continuing Enterprise Architecture efforts in government & industry

    * FEAF, TEAF, IRS AF, ITAA
    * Will advance the theory and practical application of Information Architecture in general--should speed incorporation of specific additional capabilities

E-mail Our Support Staff

To report trouble or ask questions about the MIAA base extension, send a detailed email to:

C4ISR_Support@ptechinc.com
________________________________________________________________________
Technical Architecture Products

CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE PRODUCTS:

TV-1:  Technical Architecture Profile Matrix

      The TV-1 report enables analysis of the impact and timing of changing technologies on all systems.  FrameWork gives you the ability to make internodal, intranodal and intrasystem perspectives.  

TV-2:  Standards Technology Forecast Matrix

      The TV-2 report enables analysis of the impact and timing of changing standards on all systems.  FrameWork gives you the ability to make internodal, intranodal and intrasystem perspectives.  
________________________________________________________________________
Operational Architecture Products

CURRENTLY AVAILABLE OPERATIONAL ARCHITECTURE PRODUCTS:


OV-1:  High-level Operational Concept Graphic

      The OV-1 model diagram is intended to represent a general overview to the lines of communication in your architecture.  In FrameWork, it is a fully integrated subset of the data that adds significant richness and value on its own, and functions as a gateway to the rest of your KnowledgeBase.  


OV-2:  Operational Node Connectivity Description

      The OV-2 contains data on needlines and information exchanges between operational nodes.  Through our forms interface, FrameWork allows you to enter one or more IERs per needline, as well as record specific characteristics for each IER.  Our OV-2 model diagram also offers you the capability to organize operational nodes according to functional and process areas.

(Image not available)
OV-3:  Operational Information Exchange Matrix

      The OV-3 matrix reports on the IER specifications including media, quality, quantity, and direction, emphasizing the logical and operational characteristics.  In FrameWork, the matrix is created through our code generation capability and output as a spreadsheet file.  


OV-4:  Command Relationships Chart

      The OV-4 depicts relationships among organizations in your architecture.  FrameWork supports Command, Coordination, and Internal Command relationship types, and also includes a feature designed to create user-defined relationships.  


OV-5: IDEF-like Activity Model

      The OV-5 describes activities and the exchange of information between those activities.  In FrameWork, you can build activity hierarchies, and IDEF-like activity models, including ICOMs and external exchanges.  


OV-6a:  Operational Rules Model

      The OV-6a captures business requirements and their relationshsips with operational activities in the form of structural assertions, action assertions and derivation assertions.  FrameWork also allows you to relate rules to Guidance Statements and Information Exchanges.  


OV-6b:  Operational State Transition Description

      The OV-6b describes the sequencing of activities in your operational architecture according to external or internal events, and business rules.


OV-6c:  Operational Event/Trace Description

      The OV-6c may be used in conjuction with the OV-6b to highlight a critical sequence of events.  The OV-6c also incorporates operational nodes that must take action based on  certain events within a specified time frame.  
________________________________________________________________________
Most of the images for the following are unavailable, 2 were however.

System Architecture Products

CURRENTLY AVAILABLE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE PRODUCTS:

SV-1:  System Interface Description

      The System Interface Description behaves as an intermediary between operational and system views, showing generalized representations of communication pathways and networks.  FrameWork gives you the ability to make internodal, intranodal and intrasystem perspectives.  

SV-2:  System Communications Description

      While the Interfaces on the SV-1 represent logical constructs, the Links depicted on the SV-2 represent actual physical pathways between Systems.  System and Link specifications such as status, classification, and interoperability level, are entered through supporting forms.  

SV-3:  System2 Matrix

      The SV-3 matrix reports on the system-to-system interface relationships created on the SV-1.  FrameWork creates the matrix through our code generation capability, whose output may be accessed through any spreadsheet application. Our matrix organizes systems according to their applicable functional and process areas.  

SV-4:  System Funtionality Description

      The SV-4 depicts the data flows between system functions.  In FrameWork, you can drill-down into the data flows to relate them with data exchanges and specific data elements.  You may also use the SV-4 to depict system functionality hierarchies.  

SV-5:  Operational Activity to System Funtion Traceability Matrix

      The SV-5 reports on interrelated leaf-level operational activities and system functions.  In FrameWork, you can automatically generate the SV-5 matrix as a spreadsheet report, once all the associations between activities and system functions exist in your architecture.  

SV-6:  System Data Exchange Requirements Matrix

      The SV-6 report is similar to the concept of the OV-3. It is a detailed report about all system data exchange requirements and the actual data exchanges that satisfy them.  

SV-7:  System Performance Parameters Matrix

      The SV-7 report is a detailed report that expresses the hardware and software elements that make up systems along with the parameters against which the system or element's performance will be measured, and to record details about the measurement.  


SV-8:  System Evolution Discription Description

      The SV-8 describes plans for modernizing an enterprise over time, capturing the sytems involved, the migration timeline and pertinent milestones.  

SV-9:  System Technology Forecast Matrix

      The SV-9 report is a detailed spreadsheet of the impact and timing of changing technologies on selected systems.  


SV-10a:  System Rules Model

      The SV-10a  captures contraints of system design or implementation as they are related to system functions.  These system rules may be structural assertions, action assertions or derivation assertions.  

SV-10b:  Systems State Transition Description

      The SV-10b is the systems counterpart to the OV-6b.  It describes events and states at the system level, and shows the sequencing of system functions.  

SV-10c:  Systems Event/Trace Description

      The SV-10c extends the SV-10b to allow the tracing of a critical sequence of events.  On the systems side, the SV-10c reflects the system aspects of the events described in the operational event/trace description.  
__________________________________________________________________
Logged
grapecrusher1
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,537



« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2009, 11:02:33 AM »



He added that the material that the wings were made of would have been the only viable explanation for cutting the light poles (he said Titanium, but I'm not sure if that's what they're made of).  Also the Global Hawk could easily maneuver to pull off the aerial acrobatics to hit the Pentagon, and the guidance technology was already able to do that.  I believe (not positive though) that the Global Hawk would have been steered by either Raytheon's JPALS system, or SPC's (Dov Zakheim's corporation) guidance system (nto sure of the name offhand).

So was this global hawk (wingspan -- 15 ft a guess) bouncing back and forth on its trajectory in order to hit these lightpoles.

The aerial maneuver would have been testing the upper range of capability of the plane but was still possible.
Logged

"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
Mike Philbin
Guest
« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2009, 08:28:25 AM »

there's a bit of an interesting perspective-corrected graphical/mathematical analysis of the released Pentagon footage from the CCTV location over on Above Top Secret right now...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread498700/pg1



Logged
Mike Philbin
Guest
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2009, 04:21:20 AM »

wow, so maybe nobody even cares about this stuff any more.

Sad
Logged
luckee1
Guest
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2009, 02:27:45 PM »

I have copied all of this Mike. No matter what; the criminals need to hang for this.  Innocents have died.

The responses might be limited due to people being called trolls and agents when anyone posts about this matter.  Search "disingo" in here and you will see what I mean.
Logged
Mike Philbin
Guest
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2009, 02:26:28 AM »

yeah, Pentacon's a  bit of a touchy subject...

Wink

think I should mention the UFO Disclosure agenda just one more time to show how TYRANNY has many heads and we shouldn't dismiss something (like religion) just because we think it's a corporate construct. God (or aliens) may not be real but they're a very real belief (aka controlling structure) that you can be guaranteed Our Rulers (and we are serfs in a feudal take-over of humanity) will use any system that suits their global plan.

Sorry, it's true.
Logged
scott75
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2009, 07:09:30 PM »

Nice to see this isnt another pro - CITGO misinfo post.
Excellent points by Legge in his paper where he spells out why this CITGO stuff is so dangerous.  Will listen to the audio.

Why do you feel that CIT's work was misinfo? I know that they can be somewhat.. touchy when criticized (I've been banned from both CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which essentially has the same stance) but while I disagree with how they jump to conclusions regarding their opponents' motives, and while I deeply respect Hoffman's work in regards to the Twin Towers and WTC 7, as well as Legge's work in the same area, I disagree with them in regards to their stance towards the 'no plane impact' theory. I even wrote a short critique against some points made by Hoffman's wife, Victoria Ashley, over at truthaction.org, but it was deleted shortly after I put it up; I resurrected it over at the loose change forum, which essentially supports CIT/PFT's position, but which I have found to be somewhat more tolerant towards dissenting views.
Logged
grapecrusher1
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,537



« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2009, 11:26:05 AM »

Here is a link to the bulk of the CIT discussion of this forum, it has been filed off wrongly.  Hoffman, Legge, Wollsey, and Jimd (moderator here) make a lot of sense to me and some of the CIT claims dont hold water when closely scrutinized.  Pretty much everything is gone over (often a number of times) in that thread.  If you have other questions feel free.  My bottom line is: nanothermite has been found at the WTC lets not pigeonhole ourselves with "solid speculations" in regards to the pentagon.
I will take a look at your thoughts on Ashley's paper.


http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4298.0
Logged

"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
scott75
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2009, 06:49:29 PM »

Here is a link to the bulk of the CIT discussion of this forum, it has been filed off wrongly.  Hoffman, Legge, Wollsey, and Jimd (moderator here) make a lot of sense to me and some of the CIT claims dont hold water when closely scrutinized.

Have you been keeping track of what's been going on in that thread? I'll quote the last post:

Quote
Quote from: Berminator on September 05, 2009, 05:16:59 PM
I don't think we should poo poo it, it's all we really got on the pent.

Forgive my atrocious spelling, I was not at all denigrating it.  It is well done and I personally am convinced of the utter false flag .   Too much bull shit in the original "investiation"  hell A_I's posts alone can prove it was an inside job and all the lies about what air craft was where.

I have found that Legge is somewhat cautious in his stance, as if he isn't quite sure that CIT is mistaken. I actually am a friend of someone who Legge worked with on a paper concerning the World Trade Center destruction, Tony (Anthony) Szamboti. Tony himself says that what happened in the pentagon isn't something he's really up on though. He's a mechanical engineer and he's focused pretty much excusively on the World Trade Center disaster.

The paper that he and Legge worked on together is called Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction; the other authors of the paper are Steven Jones, Kevin R. Ryan and James R. Gourley. Another friend of mine, Paul Tassopulos, has spoken to both Michael Wolsey as well as Craig Ranke. I would say that he's leaning in CIT's direction, but he hasn't exactly come out and said this. One must also consider the fact that CIT isn't alone; aside from its own adherents (I consider myself one despite the rough times I've had with them) Pilots for 9/11 Truth essentially backs them up. The same can be said of the loose change forum. Peter Dale Scott, who has edited a book with David Ray Griffin concerning 9/11, seems to be fence sitting a bit, but I personally think that it's only a matter of time before he too sees the logic in what they say. I think the biggest mistake of both CIT and PFT is their aggressiveness towards those who question their theories. Arabesque even pointed out this hostility outright and I know for a fact that it's there. Craig Ranke has claimed that they were attacked first, and that may well be true, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Pretty much everything is gone over (often a number of times) in that thread.  If you have other questions feel free.  My bottom line is: nanothermite has been found at the WTC lets not pigeonhole ourselves with "solid speculations" in regards to the pentagon.

What happened at the World Trade Center has generally ceased to be a matter of debate in the mainstream truth movement; that is, that it was brought down by controlled demolition. The same can't be said for what happened at the pentagon, although even Victoria Ashley believes that CIT/PFT's "no plane impact" theory has eclipsed the "plane impact" theory.


I will take a look at your thoughts on Ashley's paper.

Ok.
Logged
scott75
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2009, 07:59:05 PM »

Incidentally, Rob Balsamo, who is the founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, has rebutted many of Frank Legge's points to his latest revision of his paper on Saturday:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18088&view=findpost&p=10777266
Logged
grapecrusher1
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,537



« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2009, 09:39:02 AM »

I took a look at the critique and still support what Ashley has to say.  To follow-up.

(1)  Why doesn't CIT document in their movie the part of their many interviews where the subject says the plane banked and then flew into the pentagon?  By not doing so they imply tacit approval of their conclusions by the subjects which is patently disengenous.

(2)  Some points are rather weak -- no one says they saw poles knocked down -- That may not be recollected easily for obvious reasons.  That plane is moving very fast, it's big, and it hits the pentagon  --  chances are you didnt have time to count the windows of the airplane either

(3)  I think your post downplays the lack of witnesses to the supposed flyover by using the "this areas is frequented by many planes" excuse.  There are a multitude of witnesses of the approach (north/south) pre-impact.  It would stand to reason, at least for me and others, that more people would be seeing this supposed fly-over after the attention getting impact.  But there isn't.  The response that "there are planes here all the time" does not wash given the fact that something just smashed into the pentagon alerting anyone in the area to look and see a 757 just gleaning over the roof.  How bout all these people on the highway with a perfect view of the zone above the pentagon who are in gridlock traffic?
This is the main flaw in the CIT claim which is ignored by them.  The movie is 95% about the pre-impact yet concludes with a flyover theory -- lets hear more about the flyover that is their main assertion.

(4)  You say they exhibit logic I couldnt disagree more.  It is patent obfuscation of deductive reasoning.

Topically speaking Legge was just on visibility911 discussing why this is such a dangerous topic.  Notice how the birther issue was so easily derailed by throwing that bimbo Taitz up on the camera despite having well spoken Phil Berg there? game over for the birther issue.  Same with this.  All they have to do is show one of their films showing  a 757 pounding into the pentagon and the 911 truth game is over despite thermite residue at the WTC.  It isnt difficult to figure that the people who did this wouldnt have the intellilgence and resources to upset the course true investigation.  Rumsfeld supposed slip was a well calculated ploy, that general's slip was a well calculated ploy, that framed video release was a well calculated ploy, that quick coverup and cleanup was a well calculated ploy, CIT was a well calculated ploy, etc etc. 

http://www.visibility911.com/

Peter Dale Scott does not support the CIT notion of flyover as they have asserted.

http://citwatch.blogspot.com/ 
Logged

"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
PplVsNWO
Guest
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2009, 09:51:48 AM »

I took a look at the critique and still support what Ashley has to say.  To follow-up.

(1)  Why doesn't CIT document in their movie the part of their many interviews where the subject says the plane banked and then flew into the pentagon?  By not doing so they imply tacit approval of their conclusions by the subjects which is patently disengenous.
Which of the witnesses claim to have seen the "impact".  Take Sgt. Legasse for example, when asked how sure he was that the plane he saw was flying north of the Citgo, he said he would bet his life on it.  He believes the plane hit, but did not witness it, just like the other witnesses. What all the witnesses did see, though, was a plane flying on a path other than the official path and at a speed much slower and physically impossible to have hit the downed light poles and cause a damage path consistent with the actual destruction.
Logged
Scootle
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,209



« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2009, 02:31:53 PM »

My problem with the pentagon no boeing theory is that in order for Flight 77 to have not hit then that would mean

1) The plane shaped gash would have to have been made some other way... probably the only good thing about the recent Nat Geo documentary is it did demonstrate the difference between an explosion and a penetration.

2) All the photographs of plane parts and fuselage parts with an american airlines logo on them would have to have been faked or the parts were planted

3) The light poles would have to have been planted in advance, out of sight.

4) Lloyd England's scene would have to have been staged within ten minutes of the attack (the below photo was taken at 9:48, ten minutes after impact, and light pole #1 and Lloyd's cab are in position) ... when there were lots of cars and people around.



5) All the witnesses who either put the plane on the official flight path or describe seeing the plane actually hit the building are all either mistakan or are agents.

6) After flying through the fireball (which some believe is physically impossible) and over the building, the plane was able to not be seen clearly by ANYONE on the busy highways all around the Pentagon. Which is ridiculous when one considers the fact that no matter where you are on i395 you can see a clear view of the building's roofline.




See: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html

The air traffic controllers at Reagan International who also had a clear view of the attack also do not describe a flyover.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a938reaganalerts#a938reaganalerts

7) The doubletree hotel video, which does not show a flyover and would look something like the image below if this if there was one, would have to have been faked. There is no evidence of any such fakery.



Cool The DNA evidence was fabricated.

9) The plane and everyone on board was disposed of some other way but personal belongings of victims which were returned to family members were saved.

10) Either The photos of human remains are fake or the remains were planted. Firefighters and cleanup workers who are on record describing picking up airliner seats with burnt bodies still fastened to them aswell as jewellery and luggage from flight 77 are all either in on it or were fooled.

Ockhams Razor would dictate that the plane probably did hit. Considering the amount of stuff that would have the be faked in order to make it look like Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon when it didn't, it would be a complete waste of time, effort and an unnecessary risk to take to do so. They may as well just crash the plane into the building!
Logged

The truth will set you free
From global tyranny
Wake up American slobs
9/11 was an inside job
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OntBg2qwk_M&fmt=35

Century of Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mujq-C1UAw0

... Here's Tom with the weather!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CCIcjIngLA
grapecrusher1
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,537



« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2009, 05:00:23 PM »

Which of the witnesses claim to have SEEN the "impact".  Take Sgt. Legasse for example, when asked how sure he was that the plane he saw was flying north of the Citgo, he said he would bet his life on it.  He believes the plane hit, but did not witness it, just like the other witnesses. What all the witnesses did see, though, was a plane flying on a path other than the official path and at a speed much slower and physically impossible to have hit the downed light poles and cause a damage path consistent with the actual destruction.

I didnt type SEEN.  Details from witnesses are often wrong, large facts arent.  If you ask witnesses who watched an elephant stomp a banker -- was there an elephant (plane)? yes.  Was it an African(AA) or an Indian(flat grey missle) elephant? one witness says indian the other african despite the differences being significant.  Did the elephant skewer the banker with the left or right tusk? one says left the other right.  This short fictitous example is indicative of how witnesses can be wrong about details and is true to reality as far as witnesses being accurate in their accounts.  There are studies.
 
All the evidence points to a plane striking the pentagon as per official story despite how it looks or better yet was made to look.  I recently read one of those CIT agents (Rank or sidekick) saying the grass that was scattered on the pavement arount Lloyde's taxi with lightpole was taken out of the agent Lloyde's pocket  instead of it being displaced from the lawn by a big plane about to hit the pentagon.

WHERE are these people corroborating this massive elephant (757) tearing away from the pentagon???  Many saw it pre-impact why not after the attention getting impact.  Isn't that strange???




Logged

"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
PplVsNWO
Guest
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2009, 07:00:16 PM »

I didnt type SEEN.  Details from witnesses are often wrong, large facts arent.  If you ask witnesses who watched an elephant stomp a banker -- was there an elephant (plane)? yes.  Was it an African(AA) or an Indian(flat grey missle) elephant? one witness says indian the other african despite the differences being significant.  Did the elephant skewer the banker with the left or right tusk? one says left the other right.  This short fictitous example is indicative of how witnesses can be wrong about details and is true to reality as far as witnesses being accurate in their accounts.  There are studies.
 
All the evidence points to a plane striking the pentagon as per official story despite how it looks or better yet was made to look.  I recently read one of those CIT agents (Rank or sidekick) saying the grass that was scattered on the pavement arount Lloyde's taxi with lightpole was taken out of the agent Lloyde's pocket  instead of it being displaced from the lawn by a big plane about to hit the pentagon.

WHERE are these people corroborating this massive elephant (757) tearing away from the pentagon???  Many saw it pre-impact why not after the attention getting impact.  Isn't that strange???





A detail like where did the plane fly in relation to where you were standing is not a detail that is easily mistaken, especially if you are standing on the property in question(ie. the cops at Citgo).
I don't know anything about the grass clippings, but watching the interviews with Lloyd and then seeing him try to change his location to match CIT's witnesses' flight path, it obvious to me he is trying to cover something up and CIT is/was onto something with their work.
Logged
PplVsNWO
Guest
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2009, 07:40:43 PM »

My problem with the pentagon no boeing theory is that in order for Flight 77 to have not hit then that would mean

1) The plane shaped gash would have to have been made some other way... probably the only good thing about the recent Nat Geo documentary is it did demonstrate the difference between an explosion and a penetration.
Look real hard at precollapse damage, a plane does not fit the hole or damage pattern.  There have been many analysis on the pre-collapse images separate of CIT and P4T, and most agree the damage is not consistent with a 757.  Also, what was the secondary explosion later?

Quote
2) All the photographs of plane parts and fuselage parts with an american airlines logo on them would have to have been faked or the parts were planted
Correct, and not too difficult considering the size of the parts.  From the earliest images of the scene, it doesn't appear to have the debris on the lawn, but they are taken from a distance and may just be too small to make out.  Also, the parts could have been staged in advance, perhaps in the generator trailer or something else, and blown out into the lawn with a blast at the same time the pentagon wall was blown out.

Quote
3) The light poles would have to have been planted in advance, out of sight.
Not necessarily, have you seen http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=464?  People don't notice it in plain sight for 2 years?


Quote
4) Lloyd England's scene would have to have been staged within ten minutes of the attack (the below photo was taken at 9:48, ten minutes after impact, and light pole #1 and Lloyd's cab are in position) ... when there were lots of cars and people around.
How do you know how long that lane was shut down?

Quote
5) All the witnesses who either put the plane on the official flight path or describe seeing the plane actually hit the building are all either mistakan or are agents.
What witnesses place the plane on the official flight path?

[/quote]
6) After flying through the fireball (which some believe is physically impossible) and over the building, the plane was able to not be seen clearly by ANYONE on the busy highways all around the Pentagon. Which is ridiculous when one considers the fact that no matter where you are on i395 you can see a clear view of the building's roofline. [/quote]
A plane flying over then Pentagon is not something out of the ordinary for people in the area, Reagan is very close to the Pentagon.  How can you be sure what people did or did not see in the area?  There where no witnesses interviewed by CMH or the press that were on that side of the Pentagon and if anybody called 9/11 to report a plane flying away from the Pentagon after the explosion how would we know?? The FBI has confiscated 911 calls and have yet to make them public.


Quote
7) The doubletree hotel video, which does not show a flyover and would look something like the image below if this if there was one, would have to have been faked. There is no evidence of any such fakery.
I'm not going to touch on the doubletree video, because I never see a plane.  It's sure not evidence of the alleged aircraft impacting the Pentagon though.  You can't see the roof of the Pentagon in the video, so how can you be sure that a flyover plane would even be visible?


[/quote]
Cool The DNA evidence was fabricated.[/quote]
What was chain of custody on dna evidence?  Did the coroners personally collect tissue from passengers and perform DNA tests, or was samples brought to them by FBI? Also, there was a discussion on PP not too long ago about scientists admitting DNA evidents can be fabricated.

Quote
9) The plane and everyone on board was disposed of some other way but personal belongings of victims which were returned to family members were saved.
Touching on anything hear would just be speculation, with lack of any proof.
Quote
10) Either The photos of human remains are fake or the remains were planted. Firefighters and cleanup workers who are on record describing picking up airliner seats with burnt bodies still fastened to them aswell as jewellery and luggage from flight 77 are all either in on it or were fooled.

No doubt there are human remains, there was an explosion right where people where working.  Prove that there are remains from passengers.  There have been several debunkers on abovetopsecret that have tried to push the bodies strapped to airline seats, but when pushed for proof, a couple of quotes where all that they could offer as proof.  They showed photos of some guy in an orange jump suit that is obviously not a passenger and somebody sitting in an OFFICE chair.  Please show proof of any passenger bodies strapped to seats if you are going to use this as evidence.


Quote
Ockhams Razor would dictate that the plane probably did hit. Considering the amount of stuff that would have the be faked in order to make it look like Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon when it didn't, it would be a complete waste of time, effort and an unnecessary risk to take to do so. They may as well just crash the plane into the building!
Looking at the claimed speeds and the incredible pull up inches off the Pentalawn coupled with the fact that the aircrafts starboard engine would have had to have been below the grade and yet there was no damage to the foundation, along with all other non gov't controlled independently verifiable evidence leads me to the conclusion that Occam's razor is not a factor because an official story impact was impossible.
Logged
agentbluescreen
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,510


« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2009, 07:58:03 PM »

The answer is simple and you can find it in the Satan-God's Corporate Leviticanist/Constantinianist false book-idol Deity called the "bible" in Daniel Chapter 8! After the first two horns of the He-Goat travel over the ground without touching the ground and strike down the two mighty horns of the Ram by the river.., then...


"the third horn (of the He-Goat) went to the pleasant lands to the south and the east and struck down some of the host of the stars"

mystery solved...
Logged
grapecrusher1
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,537



« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2009, 08:02:56 PM »

A detail like where did the plane fly in relation to where you were standing is not a detail that is easily mistaken, especially if you are standing on the property in question(ie. the cops at Citgo).


Oh really. But a detail like a 757 grazing the pentagon and sailing off escapes the memoryof all "potential" witnesses because it is common to see planes in the area especially after being drawn to the point after a massive explosion.  Yet you have witnesses that dispute the trajectory of the plane/whatever  prior to impact which is so very important.  Where is the plane flying away with hundreds of potential witnesses???


This is the essence of the entire point---- Please address it --- If this rational deductive point is untrue then we can consider other points
Logged

"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
PplVsNWO
Guest
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2009, 08:24:14 PM »

Where is the plane flying away with hundreds of potential witnessesHuh

This is the essence of the entire point---- Please address it --- If this rational deductive point is untrue then we can consider other points
This is gross speculation, you have no idea how many people around the Pentagon where in a position to be able to see a flyover.  Assuming there was a flyover, and there were witnesses, how would they be tracked?  As I mentioned already, suspiciously, the 911 calls have not been made public.  You can't prove that nobody witnessed the plane flying away, just like I can't prove somebody did.
Logged
grapecrusher1
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,537



« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2009, 08:45:14 PM »

This is gross speculation, you have no idea how many people around the Pentagon where in a position to be able to see a flyover.  Assuming there was a flyover, and there were witnesses, how would they be tracked?  As I mentioned already, suspiciously, the 911 calls have not been made public.  You can't prove that nobody witnessed the plane flying away, just like I can't prove somebody did.

Many were in a position to witness a flyover (please look at Hoffman's work) and hundreds is not a ludicrous number as you suggest.  Over a hundred of people state they saw the plane strike the pentagon.  But lets stay on topic.

You support this CIT claim which asserts in a bassackward way that there is a flyover,  RIGHT?  THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES 

notice i ignore this crap about calls being made public etc  PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC ---- justify the supposed FLYOVER
Logged

"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
agentbluescreen
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,510


« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2009, 09:45:05 PM »

This is gross speculation, you have no idea how many people around the Pentagon where in a position to be able to see a flyover.  Assuming there was a flyover, and there were witnesses, how would they be tracked?  As I mentioned already, suspiciously, the 911 calls have not been made public.  You can't prove that nobody witnessed the plane flying away, just like I can't prove somebody did.

The whole thing with the corporate religionist's elaborately staged heretical prophesy "fulfilling" "Daniel Chapter 8 Show" stinks to high heaven.

In every modern NTSB crash investigation but 4 every single remnant and scrap of wreckage is meticulously photographed forensically at the scene, collected and reassembled - the only 4 planes in history this standard NTSB post-crash investigative regime was ignored on were the cases of the four 9/11 planes!

Dozens of high res security cameras were doubtlessly active monitoring the most well protected and defended building on the planet earth that day yet all are missing or were stolen and sequestered illegally by the FBI Mafia.

No witness account confirms, agrees with nor verifies the so-called "official" elaborate fabrication of the so-called Pentagon "attack" theory as hallucinated by the 9/11 Omission yarn.

As with the mysterious building core so-called "elevator" modifications to the Twin WTC Towers in the months prior to the Daniel Chapter 8 Show, another elaborate "modification" was also made to the one wing of the Pentagram-styled military industrial mafia headquarters.

The newly "hardened" and largely unoccupied renovated wing of the military industrial mafia headquarters that blew up was, however, most fortunately staffed with (now dead) forensic accountants investigating now conveniently destroyed records of billions of dollars of military industrial mafia frauds. It was also totally on the wrong side of the building for the approach vector of the attacking "airplane" necessitating a nearly impossible 180˚ last minute turn in order that it's front face only should have been hit.

Any attacker who sensibly wished to seriously attack the Pentagram Mafia structure would have aimed for the center of the Satanically donut shaped building thus insuring that damage to the inner rings would be inaccessible to firefighters, yet the supposed hijackers were instructed to hit the most recently hardened and newly renovated outer face of an outer ring!

The grounds and all forensic evidence of the so-called "crash" were completely graded, buried and re-sodded wthin weeks of the event to prevent any investigation


Had enough yet?
Logged
PplVsNWO
Guest
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2009, 04:11:44 AM »

Many were in a position to witness a flyover (please look at Hoffman's work) and hundreds is not a ludicrous number as you suggest.  Over a hundred of people state they saw the plane strike the pentagon.  But lets stay on topic.

You support this CIT claim which asserts in a bassackward way that there is a flyover,  RIGHT?  THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES 

notice i ignore this crap about calls being made public etc  PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC ---- justify the supposed FLYOVER
Who is Hoffman and where can a view his/her work?

Please list the "over a hundred of people state they saw the plane strike the pentagon."  I have seen no proof of this to date.  Please do not post the list of debunked names of out of context media quotes that have been parroted for years.(this is not off topic as it relates directly to what, if anything hit the Pentagon)

911 calls are public domain, normally.  Why do you ignore this as evidence of a cover up?  Do also ignore all the withheld security tapes?  What about the recent revelation about the Oklahoma City bombing and the security tapes that have the same segment of time cut out?  Is there no coverup there either, or do you have a grudge against CIT and their work?
Logged
grapecrusher1
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,537



« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2009, 05:17:23 AM »

Jim Hoffman's site 911research

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

pentagon

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html


Hoffman on Visibility911  ---  the best 911 radio program in my opinion. He discusses the potential witnesses which I have repeated.

http://www.visibility911.com/

Frank Legge has also opined on the pentagon issue on the most recent show and the danger it poses to the possiblility of a real investigation.  As I have mentioned before there is a coverup.  A coverup to intentionally perpetuate conjecture and false conclusions to distract from those that are concrete --- thermite at the WTC.  I dont think Rumsfeld saying a missile hit the pentagon was a slip at all -- it was a ploy to bolster the myth --- brilliant.  The cunning of these people cannot be underestimated.  Did you read my Orly Taitz analogy?
So yes I have a grudge with CIT because their product is disengenuous on many counts as I have illustrated, which leads me to believe they are either Misinfo agents or an accident that produces the same outcome.  If one steps back and analyzes their proposition it really makes no sense.  To me it goes like  

(a)  the plane approached from a trajectory 15 degrees off of the official story
      
(b)  all the evidence that supports the official impact is bunk -- Lloyde, lightpoles, damage, plane parts, etc
            
Therefore the plane flew over










Logged

"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
PplVsNWO
Guest
« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2009, 07:08:52 PM »

I don't see anywhere on Jim Hoffman's Pentagon site that addresses the eye witness accounts, either from the CMH or interviews done by CIT.  I have seen pretty much all the points that he uses to debunk a no-plane or flyover theory, and am not impressed with his conclusions/speculations/assertions.
I wonder if Mr. Hoffman would be willing to participate in a recorded debate with CIT and/or Pilots for Truth if he is so sure he is correct??
Edit: also, does mr. Hoffman address the lack of wings on the lawn?  Pre collapse photos show that the wings did not penetrate the facade, and hole wasn't even as large as the fuselage and engines.  There are no pics of wings or engines on the lawn.  Only a piece(one rotor?) from one engine.  So where did the wings go?
Logged
pac522
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,559


Peace sells, but who's buying?


« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2009, 07:47:26 PM »

Lets not forget about Pentalawn 2000 and the Pentanium Cable Spools.
Logged

This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".

Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.  ~EvadingGrid

The answer to 1984 is 1776.
grapecrusher1
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,537



« Reply #33 on: October 06, 2009, 07:30:59 AM »


I don't see anywhere on Jim Hoffman's Pentagon site that addresses the eye witness accounts, either from the CMH or interviews done by CIT.  I have seen pretty much all the points that he uses to debunk a no-plane or flyover theory, and am not impressed with his conclusions/speculations/assertions.
I wonder if Mr. Hoffman would be willing to participate in a recorded debate with CIT and/or Pilots for Truth if he is so sure he is correct??
Edit: also, does mr. Hoffman address the lack of wings on the lawn?  Pre collapse photos show that the wings did not penetrate the facade, and hole wasn't even as large as the fuselage and engines.  There are no pics of wings or engines on the lawn.  Only a piece(one rotor?) from one engine.  So where did the wings go?

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html#27_7

I believe this addresses the hundreds of potential witness and exposes the CIT project as a fraud.
 
I was on the missile strike train until I looked at all the claims.  We see the planes "melt" into the towers yet dont jump to the conclusion that it was holograms.  I havent seen a 757 slam into the hardened exterior of the worlds largest building before and dont have anything to reference it too.  The cleanup and coverup was swift.  Likely the wings got shredded, they are hardly solid, the lawn was littered with tiny pieces. 
I dont know? but I am not going to be pigeonholed as a no-plane pentagoner when there is solid evidence at the WTC.  If the main focus of the movement is the pentagon or even seen as in the top 10 issues all TPTB have to do is pull out a film of the 757 impacting the pentagon and there goes any chance of a real investigation.  Dont you find it curious how the FBI seized the CITGO film minutes after impact and all the other possible private recordings?   That really demonstrates some serious on the ball thinking or part of a deliberate orchestration of a magic show.  That 5 frame farce they released was a great way of creating more speculation.
Logged

"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
nillumnoom5000
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45



« Reply #34 on: October 10, 2009, 05:28:40 PM »

Nice to see this isnt another pro - CITGO misinfo post.


Sorry, I'm new here and new to the 9/11 Truth movement. What do you mean by pro-CITGO?
Logged
luckee1
Guest
« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2009, 01:34:51 AM »

They are referring to the witnesses who saw the plane flying on the other side of the citgo  than what the official reports stated.  The people who believe that a missle is what ihit the pentacon, are called pro-citgo.
Logged
nillumnoom5000
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45



« Reply #36 on: October 11, 2009, 09:35:21 AM »

What is the whole point about misinfo?  Were there no witnesses to the plane crashing at the Pentagon?
Logged
Scootle
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,209



« Reply #37 on: October 11, 2009, 04:10:14 PM »

I think most people have dropped the missile theory now... now the debate seems to be between people who believe a large plane hit the pentagon and people who believe a large plane flew over the pentagon while an explosion was detonated from inside the building.

The people who believe in the north of citgo / flyover theory are fuelled by...

- The supposed physical damage anomolies to the pentagon, the lightpoles and the taxi cab
- CIT's 13 witnesses who put the plane on the north side
- The "evidence" that certain witnesses who either saw the plane hit the pentagon or saw the plane approach from the south are plants or operatives.
- Lloyd England's "confession"
- The apparent aeronautical impossibility of the official final approach maneuvre (the G-Forces)
- A recently released FAA Animation which confirms CIT's flightpath.

Those that believe a 757 did hit are fuelled by

- A more detailed look at the physical damage which isn't as unusual as many people think.
- The fact that an explosion would look completely different as NatGeo demonstrated.
- The lack of direct evidence of a flyover or of Lloyd England's scene being staged in broad daylight
- The discrepencies in the testimonies of CIT's witnesses & and the fact that the witness accounts are generally unreliable
- The fact that a plane can't physically fly THROUGH a fireball.
- The fact that CIT and Pilotsfortruth hold some of the key identifiable traits of disinformationalists
- The fact that the media constantly uses the pentagon no-plane stuff to discredit us
- Ockham's Razor. If a plane didnt hit then alot of stuff would have had to have been faked. Why not just crash the plane?!
Logged

The truth will set you free
From global tyranny
Wake up American slobs
9/11 was an inside job
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OntBg2qwk_M&fmt=35

Century of Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mujq-C1UAw0

... Here's Tom with the weather!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CCIcjIngLA
nillumnoom5000
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45



« Reply #38 on: October 11, 2009, 04:47:22 PM »

I think most people have dropped the missile theory now... now the debate seems to be between people who believe a large plane hit the pentagon and people who believe a large plane flew over the pentagon while an explosion was detonated from inside the building.

As for the mainstream account from the still-frame security video, was there anything showing that a plane flew over the pentagon? I would think you would at least be able to see something like that, especially in those videos?
Logged
Scootle
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,209



« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2009, 06:01:05 AM »

None of the videos show a plane where there would be if it was flying through an explosion ...



In the above two frames you would expect to see the plane half way through the fireball or something if it was to be convincing.

The doubletree hotel video also does not show a flyover.
Logged

The truth will set you free
From global tyranny
Wake up American slobs
9/11 was an inside job
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OntBg2qwk_M&fmt=35

Century of Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mujq-C1UAw0

... Here's Tom with the weather!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CCIcjIngLA
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!