|
citizenx
|
 |
« Reply #440 on: February 04, 2011, 04:07:27 AM » |
|
Meh, could be.
But this thread is about HOW. No reason why another thread couldn't be started about WHY.
It IS a good question.
No argument here.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mr anderson
|
|
« Reply #441 on: February 04, 2011, 05:04:25 AM » |
|
The lack of evidence of something that punched out that hole is not evidence that it was a jetliner.
I haven't provided evidence for either theory concerning the hole in the inner walls. Nor have I claimed I know or suspect either theory to be factually true, it's something beyond my control. A missile on the other hand, tipped with DU might have penetrated the wall and collapsed a portion of it.
This would explain why there is not a big ass smushed-in jet liner nose poking through that hole.
That is not magical thinking.
Prove it... Again wild speculation without a shred of evidence, even circumstantial, fabricated or debunked evidence at that. " Might have.." "This would explain.." Would? Not this does explain, but this would. It's not magical thinking at all but there's nothing to back this up. Is this what you present to members of the public? To belive a jetliner punched that hole though it clearly isn't there, and though there is no evidenc of it ever having been there and penetrated the hole seems to me to be the very epitome of magical thinking.
I don't think you have to be Albert Einsteint to understand that. I certainly am not either.
How do you expain this, Mr. Anderson?
I am all ears.
How do I explain it? Simple. I have absolutely no idea what the cause of that hole was. I don't create theories and work backwards.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
WeAreChange BrisbaneI 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
|
|
|
|
citizenx
|
|
« Reply #442 on: February 04, 2011, 05:11:19 AM » |
|
You have no idea?
So you are willing to admit it might not have been a jetliner that punced out the innermost wall like that?
What am I not getting here?
I guess folks would say you were a "no planer" too, and if you are a "no planer and no missile-er"...well, I think that is even more of a stretch than a "one-small-planer and one-missile-er".
What in heavens name do you think made the hole?
I'm beyond puzzled now, but oddly comforted knowing even you don't really believe a jetliner made that hole.
What gives?
C'mon over. Be a coyote.
Awwoooooooh!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mr anderson
|
|
« Reply #443 on: February 04, 2011, 05:46:16 AM » |
|
You have no idea?
So you are willing to admit it might not have been a jetliner that punced out the innermost wall like that?
What am I not getting here?
I guess folks would say you were a "no planer" too, and if you are a "no planer and no missile-er"...well, I think that is even more of a stretch than a "one-small-planer and one-missile-er".
What in heavens name do you think made the hole?
I'm beyond puzzled now, but oddly comforted knowing even you don't really believe a jetliner made that hole.
What gives?
C'mon over. Be a coyote.
Awwoooooooh!
You must be daft. I haven't provided evidence for either theory concerning the hole in the inner walls. Nor have I claimed I know or suspect either theory to be factually true, it's something beyond my control. And I just told you what I "thought". This is concerning the hole in the inner walls. Not the Pentagon at large.. So stop putting words in my mouth to conform with your speculation about the outer walls of the Pentagon. There is a vastly greater quantity of evidence proving a plane did hit the Pentagon - Witness testimony, plane parts, bodies. It is not definitive it was flight 77 but it was a plane. You're an absolute waste of time and a testament to why evidence is purposefully withheld by the criminals - The stirrers of the honeypot. Enjoy.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
WeAreChange BrisbaneI 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
|
|
|
|
citizenx
|
|
« Reply #444 on: February 04, 2011, 05:54:11 AM » |
|
If something is either a "honeypot" or a "cover-up", in my experience, it is usually a cover-up. Things are usually simpler than they can be. But basically you are admitting you have no proof a massive jetliner punched out the inner wall, but you say we still have to be "daft" ("crazy" in America) to believe it was a missile instead of a 757.  Maybe, things just appear upside-down from where you are at. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mr anderson
|
|
« Reply #445 on: February 04, 2011, 05:58:33 AM » |
|
If something is either a "honeypot" or a "cover-up", in my experience, it is usually a cover-up. Things are usually simpler than they can be. But basically you are admitting you have no proof a massive jetliner punched out the inner wall, but you say we still have to be "daft" ("crazy" in America) to believe it was a missile instead of a 757. Maybe, things just appear upside-down from where you are at. You know for sure the inner and outer walls are related do you? I don't. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
WeAreChange BrisbaneI 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
citizenx
|
|
« Reply #447 on: February 04, 2011, 06:12:37 AM » |
|
...what are we doing? Fly-over theory, missile theory, Skywarrior theory, blue tents, punch-out hole theory. We don't know enough, therefore it's not provable or disprovable, yet.
Just to remind you of your own words. Let's go through the list: Neither abs nor I are necessarily advocating flyover theory (abs, correct me if I am wrong). I am highly skeptical of that, though I don't personally accuse CIT of being intentional disinfo artists as others have done. I do believe the damage done to the building is only explainable if a missile was used at some point, so I am definitely an advocate of "missile theory" as you call it and I think I am in good company there. I don't know what the hell you are talking about by "Skywarrior" theory. so barring some explanation on your part, I am just going to set that aside. Blue tents are abs's thing. He may be right or wrong. Personally, I think the missile probably was launched some way a way, maybe from a plane or ship at sea. It is not impossible it was from a standing (portable) launch assembly closer to home though. As for "punch out hole theory", from what I can see you are either one of us, or you are at least saying it is not necessarily wrong/disproven. Yes, I definitely think "punch out hole theory" has merit. The only other realistic explanations involve pre-placed demolitions/explosives -- definitely not in accordance with the official explanation. So, how can something be possible to believe and crazy at the same time? You've puzzled me 100 X more than jimd ever has. Seriously, you've lost me. I don't get it. As near as I can figure what it means is that you are just plain wrong and not ready to admit it. I think ego might be a factor, rather than emotion. Bu then ego has its own way of mustering emotion. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
citizenx
|
|
« Reply #448 on: February 04, 2011, 06:19:03 AM » |
|
Mr. Anderson,
Finally:
And how is it wooden cabinets weren't burnt up in this massive high temperature kerosen-jet fuel fire?
Give me a break, this is just friggin ridiculous at this point.
As I said to Julian Assange your countryman, "don't pee on me and tell me you are leaking."
I'm not having any of it.
As you all say down there: "G'day."
Intelligent conversation is definitely over at this point.
Go ahead. Have fun.
Because you are not doing anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scootle
|
|
« Reply #450 on: February 04, 2011, 07:43:58 AM » |
|
aaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH...
The constant nonsensical infighting about what hit the Pentagon is really starting to annoy me!
Ok, I'll make this very, very simple...
Hundreds of people saw a large plane at the very least approach a Pentagon. No-one in the truth movement denies a plane approached the Pentagon. Everyone here can agree on that.
The question is, did that plane that we can all agree approached the Pentagon hit the Pentagon, or did it not?
If it didn't hit the Pentagon, then one of three things happened ...
1) It flew over the building,
2) It flew under the building,
or
3) It ripped a hole in the fabric of space and time and disappeared.
Obviously, the second two options are ludicrous. So the debate is very simple: flyover or impact.
Reasons to endorse the impact theory:
A shit load of damage on the building's interior.
A damage path (light poles, c-ring hole etc.) consistent with a north side impact.
Photographs of plane parts.
No evidence whatsoever that the damage to Lloyd England's taxi was staged.
Witnesses who put the plane on the official approach path.
Witnesses who saw the plane hit the building.
Witnesses who describe the exact moment of impact
Witnesses who were in a perfect position to see a flyover but did not see a flyover.
The lack of witness evidence for a missile.
The testimony of firefighters who remember picking up airliner seats with burnt bodies still attached to them and removing engines embedded in columns.
The DNA evidence and passenger personal belongings collected at the scene.
The little video evidence we do have is consistent with a southern approach and an impact.
The utter implausibility of the government risking a highly compartmentalized operation by going through the unneccesary extra trouble of faking all of the above to make it look like a plane hit the pentagon, when they could just fly a plane into the Pentagon!
The fact that the media loves to use Pentagon no-plane speculation to discredit serious research.
The fact that the logic people go through to deny a plane crashed is completely circular and is basically the same logic employed by WTC no-planers.
Reasons to endorse the flyover theory:
Percieved damage anomalies based on no reference. Have you ever seen a 757 smash into a concrete building at 500mph? Do you know what it's supposed to look like?
A few witnesses who put the plane on the wrong side of the Citgo gas station, a number of whom actually saw the plane hit the building.
Some survivors who claim they didn't see any plane debris... So what? Some people did! Some people took photos! Some people removed debris from columns! Is it possible that those that didn't see any debris could simply have missed it in all the comotion?
The lack of video evidence. Errrmm ... Maybe there isn't any? Maybe the government's holding on to it because they like it when we engage in pointless infighting?!
It's a fairly open and shut case if you ask me!
Cognitive dissonance or scientific method?
It's not cognitive dissonance driving the 'belief' that a 757 really did hit the Pentagon. Especially considering most of us who do hold that 'belief', myself included, originally believed in the Pentagon no-plane theories. But upon weighing the evidence and using the scientific method, we now see that the most likely explanation is that the Pentagon was in fact hit by a 757. The only people here suffering from cognitive dissonance are the people who don't want to admit that their favourite 9/11 film that woke them up may have been wrong about the Pentagon. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mr anderson
|
|
« Reply #451 on: February 04, 2011, 07:52:52 AM » |
|
Mr. Anderson,
Finally:
And how is it wooden cabinets weren't burnt up in this massive high temperature kerosen-jet fuel fire?
Give me a break, this is just friggin ridiculous at this point.
As I said to Julian Assange your countryman, "don't pee on me and tell me you are leaking."
I'm not having any of it.
As you all say down there: "G'day."
Intelligent conversation is definitely over at this point.
Go ahead. Have fun.
Because you are not doing anything else.
Equally how did the plane parts on the lawn get there? How did the plane parts inside the Pentagon get there? (Round and round we go asking questions we no not the answers to, yet) - To what degree can you prove they were planted there to bolster the official story? All questions full of speculation that do not help our cause you see? Oh ok you're done are you? You've just begun with adding extra sweetness to the honeypot. More the fool I am for playing your little game of eating one's own tail in an endless minutia of loose ends that reinforce why the key evidence was omitted, so multiple theories contradictory and counter-productive can flourish. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
WeAreChange BrisbaneI 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
|
|
|
|
DAVIDE MTL
|
|
« Reply #452 on: February 04, 2011, 09:07:17 AM » |
|
aaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH...
The constant nonsensical infighting about what hit the Pentagon is really starting to annoy me!
Ok, I'll make this very, very simple...
Hundreds of people saw a large plane at the very least approach a Pentagon. No-one in the truth movement denies a plane approached the Pentagon. Everyone here can agree on that.
The question is, did that plane that we can all agree approached the Pentagon hit the Pentagon, or did it not?
If it didn't hit the Pentagon, then one of three things happened ...
1) It flew over the building,
2) It flew under the building,
or
3) It ripped a hole in the fabric of space and time and disappeared.
Obviously, the second two options are ludicrous. So the debate is very simple: flyover or impact.
Reasons to endorse the impact theory:
A shit load of damage on the building's interior.
A damage path (light poles, c-ring hole etc.) consistent with a north side impact.
Photographs of plane parts.
No evidence whatsoever that the damage to Lloyd England's taxi was staged.
Witnesses who put the plane on the official approach path.
Witnesses who saw the plane hit the building.
Witnesses who describe the exact moment of impact
Witnesses who were in a perfect position to see a flyover but did not see a flyover.
The lack of witness evidence for a missile.
The testimony of firefighters who remember picking up airliner seats with burnt bodies still attached to them and removing engines embedded in columns.
The DNA evidence and passenger personal belongings collected at the scene.
The little video evidence we do have is consistent with a southern approach and an impact.
The utter implausibility of the government risking a highly compartmentalized operation by going through the unneccesary extra trouble of faking all of the above to make it look like a plane hit the pentagon, when they could just fly a plane into the Pentagon!
The fact that the media loves to use Pentagon no-plane speculation to discredit serious research.
The fact that the logic people go through to deny a plane crashed is completely circular and is basically the same logic employed by WTC no-planers.
Reasons to endorse the flyover theory:
Percieved damage anomalies based on no reference. Have you ever seen a 757 smash into a concrete building at 500mph? Do you know what it's supposed to look like?
A few witnesses who put the plane on the wrong side of the Citgo gas station, a number of whom actually saw the plane hit the building.
Some survivors who claim they didn't see any plane debris... So what? Some people did! Some people took photos! Some people removed debris from columns! Is it possible that those that didn't see any debris could simply have missed it in all the comotion?
The lack of video evidence. Errrmm ... Maybe there isn't any? Maybe the government's holding on to it because they like it when we engage in pointless infighting?!
It's a fairly open and shut case if you ask me!
Cognitive dissonance or scientific method?
It's not cognitive dissonance driving the 'belief' that a 757 really did hit the Pentagon. Especially considering most of us who do hold that 'belief', myself included, originally believed in the Pentagon no-plane theories. But upon weighing the evidence and using the scientific method, we now see that the most likely explanation is that the Pentagon was in fact hit by a 757. The only people here suffering from cognitive dissonance are the people who don't want to admit that their favourite 9/11 film that woke them up may have been wrong about the Pentagon. at the end of the day it's a mute point, to wake up people to 9/11 truth we should concentrate on tower 7, I had a conversation with someone the other day and she asked did a plane hit the pentagon, my response was yes (eventhough deep down I'm not sure) I don't think I would have done any good saying no plane hit....the smoking gun is bldg 7...all this infighting is a waste of time |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
agentbluescreen
|
|
« Reply #453 on: February 04, 2011, 09:37:17 AM » |
|
Well the good news is that FEMA seems to have most of their life story online, and walking in the uncollapsed front door there does seem to be some airplane, in front, stuck to some beams and trapped under the collapse. There's plenty of high res goodies though, the whole, famous jet rotor, both I and Jimd have yet to further discuss: http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4414.jpgI was hoping this was a wing but it wasn't. it's just a heating pipe. http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4421.jpgThis was something stuck with Kevlar to a beam but it's not much of an "engine" http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4422.jpgthis is looking towards the front of the collapse from inside the shored section: http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4423.jpgand still working on that, there does certainly appear to be a wing root to the right, proof of an airplane!http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4424.jpgBut whatever plane-wing/engine they was, it seems to have stopped here at the back of E Ring. http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4425.jpghttp://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4435.jpg...so enough with the right side of what's left of the airplane Still under the standing shored-up area, we're just walking back to the "D ring", the back of the collapse now, and looking over to our right - WHOAAA! http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4436.jpglotsa explosion or whut? Looks like a nuke went off back under there back over your right shoulder. Seems to be good amount of front brick wall and plane bits here, though nothing left that looks like more than parts, pretty much what you'd expect, looks like the fire stopped off to the left and ahead at D Looking back to the south. Interesting round cowling on the left here, way too small to be from a passenger jet though... http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4442.jpgLots more pics up front at north, (42-54) then though as they walk to the back the ceiling looks bad and then the beam they stop at is bent sideways towards the collapse like an explosion happened to the further-back left of them. http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4456.jpghttp://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4558.jpghttp://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4459.jpgThe record ends. To be fair they had already cleared away the junks and dragged that missile thingy out and disposed of it before they let FEMA-man and his dogs in. But it just seems unbelievable a piece of unsquished, intact air-anything could have made it that far back in the building let alone, anything from any crashed plane at all, without a hundred gallons of jet fuel following it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
agentbluescreen
|
|
« Reply #454 on: February 04, 2011, 10:09:35 AM » |
|
aaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH...
The constant nonsensical infighting about what hit the Pentagon is really starting to annoy me!
We, (well I) ditched the stupid fly-over (CIT) theory, it was a rather dishonest pile of mistakes based on bad altitude and last record data (that said the recorder couldn't have been where they found it -even) from a doctored flight recorder the manufacturers themselves didn't know how to unscramble. That still-bad data, by the way, still says that Burlingame was the only pilot in the cockpit though (?) because it insists that the cockpit door never opened. Anyways get with the program we're talking-over the "Two Pentagon Attacks Theory" now. This means a "Dov Zakheim-Guided dummy decoy plane" (probably a tricked-out A3) and a missile both struck the building exactly 9 seconds apart, as "clearly" shown to us all, in the "clear" Slaves-Definition Judicial Watch evidence-videos. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
agentbluescreen
|
|
« Reply #455 on: February 05, 2011, 04:13:27 AM » |
|
http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4436.jpgThis may have originally been a plane crash, back where brick walls were smashed and beams were broken right off and then aluminum was wrapped around them, and the mixed, shattered remaining debris then spread out under the collapsed section. But what incinerated everything and bent all those deep beams so further back to the left in this photo afterwards was most definitely not. This is bomb damage, from a warhead detonated over all that wreckage afterwards, that literally stuck it all to the ground. Had the wreckage carried this force alone it (itself) would have all spread further past those oddly elevated "force-periphery" bent-beams In the WTC context, if this is what a "757" does, then a whole floor (or half of one pie-side) of beams would have bent and blown out like this at once. We know such thing (as this weird beam-bending) didn't happen there
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
agentbluescreen
|
|
« Reply #456 on: February 05, 2011, 04:36:29 AM » |
|
http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4436.jpgAlso a quarter way across the top of the debris field by the rear jet fuel containing wall (what was) is a titanium rotor, which though tips/outer ring are broken-missing, appears to be far too small to be from a 757 engine. Also all the identifiable aluminum fuselage parts appear to have a silver paint atop an older, sturdier, green paint, looking sort of camouflaged now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
iks83
|
|
« Reply #457 on: February 05, 2011, 10:17:25 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
agentbluescreen
|
|
« Reply #458 on: February 06, 2011, 05:05:13 AM » |
|
Where's the Jet Fuel? How could this stuff not be on fire?  All of the only possible and likely answers are below!And, they agree with all of the evidence. Both a silver-repainted green airplane and a missile, 9 seconds apart struck the Pentagon. This bathroom wreckage is not burning because no part of any aircraft crash made that hole. The Judicial watch videos and other photographs prove the second strike. There is more than enough evidence here to obtain arrest orders.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
citizenx
|
|
« Reply #459 on: February 06, 2011, 05:12:45 AM » |
|
agentbluescreen,
Maybe you just need to throw in some cheesy anime characters to get yourpoint across with these guys.
I must be a different generation or something. I never could stand cheap animation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
agentbluescreen
|
|
« Reply #460 on: February 06, 2011, 06:29:12 AM » |
|
agentbluescreen,
Maybe you just need to throw in some cheesy anime characters to get yourpoint across with these guys.
I must be a different generation or something. I never could stand cheap animation.
You know despite the original witness tales and more recently uncovered evidence that some sort of a beigy-silver repainted green jet plane no doubt did hit the building, I was also quite certain all along that this hole could never have been caused by a Boeing Airliner crash into the Pentagon. We all saw airliner crash into WTC 2 and whatever went through the 220 foot building on impact had also ushered out hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel with it, out the other side. I was also equally sure about the tent launcher. I had just forgotten about, rather than was holding back on that clear, unmistakeable evidence of a missile strike because I kept picturing the other two pictures of the hole taken while they were removing the missile chassis and other debris long after the fires had been out. Now we have a clear evidence based explanation for both phenomenon. Even when I considered the incriminating 7 and 9 second missing-frame edits in the Judicial Watch Videos I still hadn't fully grasped it, because I was still being thrown off by the CIT flyover silliness. This earliest photo of the hole seals the deal, confirming all the other evidence of a missile that was a second strike. But now that we see the wrong sized, beigy-silver scraped green plane wing-root (and other fuselage parts) in there, it all finally fits together and makes sense. BTW I love Gintamo and Bleach |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
citizenx
|
|
« Reply #461 on: February 06, 2011, 06:55:25 AM » |
|
BTW I love Gintamo and Bleach
Gintama and Bleach -- I looked it up. I guess you must be younger than me, too. But you're OK. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #462 on: February 06, 2011, 07:08:08 AM » |
|
BlueScreen: I may be just showing my ignorance here, I don't know. But I read somewhere a statement from a workman ... I believe he was government supervisor ... who says the workers busted this hole (or dramatically enlarged it) with sledge hammers, very early on looking for survivors. He said something like, "Who do you think scibbled PUNCH OUT on the wall?" I tried to find this testimony earlier when you first posted the picture ... couldn't find it. Does this ring a bell? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
agentbluescreen
|
|
« Reply #463 on: February 06, 2011, 09:55:04 AM » |
|
BlueScreen:
I may be just showing my ignorance here, I don't know. But I read somewhere
a statement from a workman ... I believe he was government supervisor ... who
says the workers busted this hole (or dramatically enlarged it) with sledge hammers,
very early on looking for survivors. He said something like, "Who do you think
scibbled PUNCH OUT on the wall?" I tried to find this testimony earlier when
you first posted the picture ... couldn't find it. Does this ring a bell?
This is the first photo of the wall-hole, the place is still smoking, it had no "instructions"  painted on it nor anything burning in it either... The only large "projectiles" that appear to have popped out of it were that garbage can and busted urinal. There's plenty of flammable junk in there, there was no jet fuel tidal wave at the time of the explosion that made this. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
citizenx
|
|
« Reply #465 on: February 07, 2011, 10:53:07 AM » |
|
The explosion upon impact of the first projectile (plane) at the Pentagon seems a fraction of the size of the explosion of the second plane at the WTC.
Thanks for pointing that out agentbluescreen.
The exit hole is another matter entirely, but I agree with you there as well. Wheere's the jet fuel? Where's the evidence of a massive high temperature fire at the exit hole?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ghost hacked
|
|
« Reply #466 on: February 08, 2011, 07:58:09 AM » |
|
Agent Blue Screen ....
Is there a direct line of sight between the entrance hole and the exit hole??? I think you know where to go with this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'We play the game with the bravery of being out of range.' - Roger Waters
|
|
|
|
mr anderson
|
|
« Reply #467 on: February 08, 2011, 06:47:30 PM » |
|
Richard Gage Completely Withdraws Support from CIT
February 8, 2011
Author: Richard Gage
Source: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 TruthIn early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed). These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station. Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path. My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers. I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue. I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts. After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss. I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of "National Security Alert" and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon). Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me. I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters. Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does. Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of "National Security Alert", Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses: They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011
And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon, by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show', Victoria Ashley, July 2009
Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010) There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true. One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work. I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure. Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind. One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle. In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources. Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.” And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”. We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers. The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement. Sincerely, Richard Gage, AIA
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
WeAreChange BrisbaneI 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
|
|
|
|
citizenx
|
|
« Reply #468 on: February 08, 2011, 07:04:16 PM » |
|
OK, so we all muzzle ourselves temporarily and they break out the videos showing that the first projectile was not a 757 or showing the second was a missile or both and we are all discredited as well. Seems like they're are a lot of ways they could game this.
Several ways "we" could "game" this too -- if that is what it is all about.
Gage, is entitled to his opinion as are you, Mr. Anderson.
However, I do not favor silencing any position on the Pentagon attack held by investigators for any purpose whatsoever.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Murder will out.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
citizenx
|
|
« Reply #469 on: February 09, 2011, 05:10:03 AM » |
|
Mr. Anderson, re. motive and the missing trillions: Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark SideBy wmw_admin on February 9, 2011 First in a series – by Mark H. Gaffney February 9, 2011 In his important 2006 book Nemesis, the Last Days of the American Republic, the third and concluding part of a trilogy, the late Chalmers Johnson, who was an expert on Japan and US foreign policy, writes that as much as 40% of the Pentagon budget is “black,” meaning hidden from public scrutiny. If the figure is even approximately correct, and I believe it is, the number is alarming because it suggests that democratic oversight of US military research and development has broken down. In which case our democratic values and way of life are presently at risk; not from without, as there is no foreign enemy that can destroy the US Constitution, but from within.
I would argue that Chalmers Johnson’s estimate was corroborated on September 10, 2001, on the eve of the worst terrorist attack in US history, when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged during a press conference that the Department of Defense (DoD) could not account for $2.3 trillion of the massive Pentagon budge, a number so large as to be incomprehensible.[ii] Any remaining hope that the US military might still get its budgetary house in order were dashed at 9:38 AM the next morning when the west wing of the Pentagon exploded in flames and smoke, the target of a terrorist strike. Incredibly, the exact point of impact was the DoD’s accounting offices on the first floor. The surgical destruction of its records and staff, nearly all of whom died in the attack, raises important questions about who benefited from 9/11. Given the Pentagon’s vast size, the statistical odds against this being a coincidence prompted skeptics of the official story to read a dark design into the attack. As Deep Throat said: “Follow the money.”
Was the Pentagon accounting office destroyed because diabolical individuals had planned it that way? No question, the west wing presented a much more challenging target than the east wing. Targeting the west wing required a difficult approach over the Arlington skyline. The final approach was especially dicey and amounted to a downhill obstacle course, skirting apartments and also a large building complex known as the Naval Annex, which was smack in the way. The Annex is located about a quarter-mile from the Pentagon and sits atop a hill that rises from the flat ground along the Potomac River. When I interviewed Army Brigadier General Clyde Vaughn over the telephone, in April 2008, he explained that he was on his way to work at the Pentagon, on the morning of 9/11, via Shirley Highway (I-395) when the strike occurred. In my opinion, Vaughn is an especially credible witness because some of his remarks to CNN, that morning, did not conform with the official narrative about what happened.[iii] The general told me that the hijacked aircraft (presumably AA 77) just missed the Naval Annex and would have hit the US Air Force memorial that presently occupies the site, had the 270 feet-tall monument existed on 9/11. The new memorial was constructed in 2006 and dedicated the same year.
Why did the terrorists not take the easy approach up the Potomac River? The river approach would have afforded a reasonably good chance to crash the offices of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which which were located on the opposite side of the building, in the middle of the outer “E” ring. The location of their offices was no secret. Surely terrorists would have been more interested in decapitating the command structure of the US war machine than going after a bunch of accounting clerks.
That morning, there were other striking anomalies. The crash of AA 11 into the North Tower at 8:46 AM should also have raised red flags because the point of impact at the the 95th and 96th floors was too remarkable to be happenstance. Both floors were occupied by Marsh & McLennan, one of the world’s largest insurance brokerages, with family ties to the private intelligence firm, Kroll Associates, which held the security contract at the World Trade Center. Indeed, the network of corporate ties is so entangled, that were I to trace all of the links they would easily fill a book. Here, I will sketch out only the most salient connections.
The CEO of Marsh & McLennnan on 9/11 was Jeffry Greenberg, son of Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, owner of AIG, the world’s largest insurance conglomerate (or second largest, depending on the source). Greenberg’s other son, Evan, was CEO of Ace Limited, another large insurance company. Maurice Greenberg had been a director of the New York Federal Reserve Bank for many years, and in 1994-95 served as its chairman. Greenberg was also vice-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which in 1996 published his report, “Making Intelligence Smarter: The future of U.S. Intelligence”; as a result of which Senator Arlen Specter floated Greenberg’s name as a candidate for the directorship of the CIA.[iv] Although George Tenet eventually got the job, the mere fact that Greenberg was in the running shows the extent of his influence. In 1993, Greenberg’s huge insurance conglomerate AIG reportedly bankrolled the Wall Street spy firm, Kroll Associates, saving it from bankruptcy. Thereafter, Kroll became an AIG subsidiary. After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Kroll acquired the contract from the Port Authority of New York to upgrade security at the World Trade Center, in the process beating out two other firms.[v] Kroll continued with the WTC security contract through the period leading up to the September 11 attacks. One of Kroll’s directors, Jerome Hauer, also managed New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management, which was located on the 23rd floor of WTC-7.[vi]
Notice, this means Kroll had unfettered access to all three of the buildings destroyed on 9/11. This startling coincidence should have been reason enough for the 9/11 Commission to investigate Kroll’s shady background as well as its relations with AIG, Ace, and Marsh & McClennan. The commission was armed with subpoena authority and might have probed deeply enough to learn the truth. Unfortunately, the official investigators were not interested in connecting the dots. Although Kroll was based in New York City, it served (and still serves) an international clientele through 60 offices in some 27 countries. Over the years, the firm has repeatedly been accused of, and/or formally charged with, conspiracy. In 1995 the French government expelled several Americans from the country, including a Kroll employee named William Lee, for allegedly spying on French industry. Lee’s involvement with Kroll made French authorities suspicious that his Paris operation might be a CIA front.[vii] The French were surely aware of Kroll’s longstanding practice of hiring former CIA, FBI, and British Intelligence agents. Kroll/AIG made no effort to conceal the fact that between 1997-2003 the AIG board of directors included Frank G. Wisner, Jr., son of one of the founders of the CIA.[viii] Wisner Jr. is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Wisner Jr. also served as US ambassador to several nations, including Egypt, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[ix] As I write, Wisner’s name surfaced in the news. Last week, President Obama dispatched Wisner as his personal envoy to confer with the embattled Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak.- Even as popular pressure continued to build for Mubarak to step down, Wisner embarrassed Obama by publicly encouraging Mubarak to ride out the crisis and hang onto power. No doubt, his action reflects the view from Langley, which would much prefer to see Mubarak remain in power. The CIA has long supported the Mubarak regime and in return was allowed to use Egypt as a haven for renditions and torture. Wisner’s thumbing his nose at his own president, no doubt, is also an accurate measure of the US national security state’s low opinion of Obama. It certainly exposes Obama’s weakness as president.[xi]
Did the French government over-react in 1995 when it expelled a Kroll employee for suspected industrial espionage? Possibly, but the French had good reason to be wary of CIA meddling in their country. It is a safe bet the French have not forgotten Operation Gladio, the rogue intelligence network secretly organized in Europe by the CIA, NATO and British MI-6, after World War II.[xii] “Gladio” means “sword” in Italian and is the root of the word “gladiator.” Known as the “stay behind armies,” they were in every NATO country, and totalled thousands of paramilitary soldiers. Their ranks included known underworld criminals and drug traffickers; and crucially, the CIA kept the whole operation secret for nearly forty years.
Although the stay-behind-armies were supposed to form the nucleus of an armed resistance movement in the event of a Soviet invasion of western Europe, the invasion never materialized and the CIA-trained forces were sometimes used for other less savory purposes. These included smear and disinformation campaigns, mass bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and attempted coup d’etats; all of which was blamed on the communists. Before it was over, the CIA-staged terror campaign added up to hundreds of incidents in Italy, France, Greece, Belgium, and other European nations.
The news about Gladio first broke in the Italian press, in August 1990, at the time of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait; and immediately touched off a political earthquake on the continent. As they say, bad news travels fast. Shock turned to outrage as Europeans learned that for decades the CIA and NATO had been sponsoring terrorist attacks in the democratic nations of Europe. All of which, as noted, was blamed on the communists. The purpose of Gladio had been to strike fear into the population of Europe, and thus, to weaken the left-wing parties.
If this sounds like fantasy to the reader, it is only because the US media, to this day, has never informed the American people about the CIA’s long and ugly history of staging international terrorism. Here in the US, it is euphemistically known as “counter-terrorism.” Although the average American is ignorant of the fact, most Frenchmen probably also know that under Gladio the CIA lent support to an attempted putsch against French President Charles de Gaulle in 1958 by reactionary elements of the French army. The renegade French forces were opposed to de Gaulle’s controversial decision to end to the French military occupation of Algeria. Most of the people of France probably also know about the CIA’s involvement in at least one other conspiracy to assassinate de Gaulle in the mid-1960s; but which fortunately failed.[xiii] De Gaulle survived some thirty assassination attempts. At the time, the CIA’s involvement caused a near rupture in US-French relations. De Gaulle reacted angrily by pulling France out of NATO, and ordered US military forces out of France. The US was compelled to move NATO headquarters from Paris to Mons, in Belguim. Nor did the American people hear the truth about what really happened. In fact, they still do not know, because the US press has never informed them.
Given this brief background, one must ask: Were the French trying to send a wake-up signal to the American people when they leaked the following shocker about 9/11 to the world press? In October 2001 the prestigious French paper Le Figaro reported that in July 2001, just two months before 9/11, Osama bin Laden received dialysis treatments and other medical care for a serious kidney ailment at the American Hospital in Dubai, one of the Arab emirates in the Persian Gulf.[xiv] At the time, bin Laden was a wanted man, and had been indicted by the US Department of Justice for the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Yet, according to the detailed report in Le Figaro, the Americans treated bin Laden as a VIP guest. The Al Qaeda leader arrived with a retinue that included his personal physician, a nurse, four bodyguards, and at least one of his lieutenants. Bin Laden reportedly held court in his hospital suite, welcoming members of his large family, Saudi officials, and even the local CIA station chief, who evidently was a well known figure in the tiny country. The CIA official was evidently seen entering bin Laden’s room. Immediately after leaving, he caught a flight back to the US. The article in Le Figaro was closely followed by a story in The Guardian (UK), which added more details. It noted that bin Laden’s Saudi guests had included Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence. The story also named French intelligence as the source of the story in Le Figaro, and added that the information was leaked because the French were “keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.”[xv] If the story is accurate, it means Osama bin Laden was a US intelligence asset right up until the morning of 9/11. There is no other possible interpretation. In which case, the American people have been seriously misled, indeed, have been fed a pack of lies, about the events of that horrible day. I would add: there were no retractions. Le Figaro stood by its story. Meanwhile, the US media played dumb and never even reported it.
But I digress. Back to AIG/Kroll. In 2005 the government of Brazil formally indicted Kroll’s chief Brazilian executive Eduardo Sampaio and five other Kroll employees on criminal charges, including bribery and various breaches of Brazil’s data privacy laws. Sampaio reportedly escaped arrest by fleeing the country.[xvi]
In 2006 another Kroll affiliate made the news for “unacceptable billing practices” while representing the failed energy giant Enron in court.[xvii] The Enron Corporation had collapsed in late 2001 amidst allegations of fraudulent accounting; then, in January 2002, hired Kroll Zolfo Cooper to handle its chapter 11 proceedings. The US Trustee Program, which administers bankruptcy cases, uncovered the billing irregularities after Kroll sought an additional fee of $25 million for its services. The firm had already received a cool $100 million for scavenging the Enron corpse but wanted more, even as stockholders received nothing. Evidently, the folks at Kroll thought no one would notice a mere $25 million, which is chump change compared with the $30 billion in inflated energy costs that Enron gouged from the state of California, in 2000-2001. All of which must be good: because Enron got away with it. According to economist Paul Krugman, emails confirmed that Enron had rigged the markets.[xviii] The heavily Democratic golden state has yet to recover from what must be viewed as a partisan attack.
Also in 2006: a whistleblower named Richard A. Grove went public with stunning testimony about his involvement with the Greenberg empire, an up-close-and-personal experience, Grove says, that nearly cost him his life.[xix] During the period leading up to 9/11, Grove worked as a salesman for Silverstream Software, an enterprise company which marketed designer solutions to a number of Wall Street firms, including Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Banker’s Trust, Alex Brown, and Morgan Stanley. According to Grove, Silverstream “built internet transactional and trading platforms,” designed “to web-enable the critical business functions of Fortune 500 companies, basically integrating and making available on the web the disparate legacy applications and mainframes while simultaneously streamlining workflow and traditional paper processes.” The “end result [was] a lower cost of operation and more efficient transactions because inefficiencies such as people were being taken out of the loop.”[xx]
Grove was so successful as a salesman that (he claims) he became a millionaire before the age of thirty. He only realized, later, that the software he sold might have enabled fraudulent trading in the hours before and possibly during the 9/11 attacks. The most advanced software of all went to Marsh & McClennan, which, he says, placed an order in 2000 for a technological solution “beyond what we had done for any of the above-named companies; insofar as it would be used to electronically connect Marsh to its major business partners via internet portals, for the purpose of creating ‘paperless transactions’ and expediting revenue and renewal cycles.” Grove inked the software deal with Marsh & McClennan in October 2000. After which, his employer Silverstream stationed a team of 30-40 technicians in the client’s offices in WTC-1, led by several software developers who proceeded to design and build the software package “from the ground up.” During this period, Grove served as liaison between Silverstream & Marsh to insure that the software would perform as specified. The team worked around-the-clock, seven days a week, to meet Marsh’s pre-September 11, 2001 deadline. The end result was “a specific type of connectivity that was used to link AIG and Marsh & McLennan, the first two commercial companies on the planet to employ this type of transaction.”[xxi]
Grove says he first noticed fiscal irregularities in October 2000 when he and a colleague helped “identify about $10,000,000 in suspicious purchase orders.” Marsh’s chief information officer, Gary Lasko, later confirmed that “certain vendors were deceiving Marsh….selling….large quantities of hardware that were [sic] not necessary” for the project. But Grove did not worry too much about this at the time, nor did he run into personal trouble until the spring of 2001, when he learned, while negotiating a license renewal contract with Lasko, that his own employer Silverstream was over-billing Marsh “to the tune of $7 million, or more.” Grove brought the matter to the attention of Silverstream executives but was told to keep quiet and mind his own business. A Marsh executive advised him to do the same. By this point, a number of Marsh employees had earned Grove’s trust and when he shared his concerns with them, they agreed that “something untoward was going on.” Grove names these honest employees in his testimonial: Kathryn Lee, Ken Rice, Richard Breuhardt, John Ueltzhoeffer, in addition to Gary Lasko, all of whom perished on 9/11.[xxii] Incidentally, a simple check confirmed that these names do indeed appear on the fatality list of World Trade Center victims.[xxiii]
The proverbial schtick hit the fan on June 5th, 2001, the day after Grove sent an email to his sales team informing them that “Silverstream was billing Marsh millions above and beyond the numbers we were being paid commissions on…” There were only two possibilities: either the members of his team were being cheated out of their rightful commissions, or Silverstream was defrauding Marsh & McClennan. Later that day, Grove received word from Gary Lasko that Marsh had decided to retain Silverstream for the the next phase of the project. The extension was good news and he immediately informed his boss. Grove was personally delighted because his rightful commission “would have been a payday worth well over a million dollars.” He never collected it, however; because the next morning, Grove was summoned to his boss’s office and abruptly terminated.
This is not the end of the story. Several weeks later, Grove suffered a medical emergency that required surgery and weeks of hospitalization. In August 2001, while still bedridden, a Silverstream company official visited him at the hospital and offered him $9,999 in cash plus an extension of his medical benefits if he would agree never to talk about the work he did for Silverstream. Grove needed the continuing medical coverage and agreed to the terms. However, after his convalescence he became suspicious about the secrecy agreement, and decided that, at very least, he should maintain contact with the honest employees at Marsh, several of whom were now close friends. Shortly thereafter, one of them arranged for Grove to attend a meeting at the offices of Marsh & McClennan, at which the honest employees planned to “openly question the suspiciously unconcerned executive who seemed to be at the center of the controversial secrecy.” The executive had agreed to participate via a video conference link from his apartment in uptown Manhattan. This was the same individual who, months before, had warned Grove to look the other way. Grove was in possession of documents proving illicit activity, and he planned to produce them at the meeting. However, on the day of the showdown he ran late, having been delayed by heavy Manhattan traffic. Grove says he was within 2-3 blocks of the World Trade Center when UAL175 hit the South Tower. By then, all or most of his friends in the North Tower were already dead, or trapped on the upper floors. All told, some 300 or more Marsh employees perished, that morning. None of whom had any idea what was in store for them.
to be continued…
Mark H. Gaffney is the author of The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America (2008). His next book, Black 9/11, will be released later this year. 9/11 Whistleblowers are encouraged to contact Mark at markhgaffney@earthlink.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
link:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=19712
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #470 on: February 10, 2011, 01:41:52 AM » |
|
100% of witnesses saw a plane
0% of witnesses saw a missile
even if there was 90% to 10% there may be some credibility to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
|
|
mr anderson
|
|
« Reply #472 on: February 10, 2011, 02:23:22 AM » |
|
100% of witnesses saw a plane
0% of witnesses saw a missile
even if there was 90% to 10% there may be some credibility to it.
9/11 - Pentagon witnesses http://www.pumpitout.com/pentagon.htmSteve Storti - Pentagon Eyewitness
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3482275/1/Phone call to Steve Storti 06/19/10 (Mp3 download):
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/ss_061910.mp3Steve Storti, Who used work as a fire lieutenant in Cranston , was asleep in Crystal City apartment when he was roused by a phone call from a friend ". . . 'What's going to happen next,' Storti, 46, recalls thinking as he stood on his balcony. Then he caught the glint of silver out of the corner of his eye. He looked up to see a passenger plane with the trademark stainless-steel fuselage and stripes of American Airlines.
Time seemed to slip into slow motion as he watched the plane cross over Route 395, tip its left wing as it passed the Navy annex, veer sharply and then slice into the Pentagon. 'I remember thinking that whoever is flying this knows what they’re doing,' Storti said. "The plane traveled straight as an arrow.'(sic) When it had plunged in as far as its tail fin, there was huge explosion"
http://mouv4x8.perso.neuf.fr/11Sept01/A0082_b_They%20saw%20the%20aircraft.htm |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
WeAreChange BrisbaneI 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
|
|
|
|
citizenx
|
|
« Reply #473 on: February 10, 2011, 04:36:06 AM » |
|
A New Model / A New Approach?Of course a missile might have hit after it flew under, I wont rule that out. Then a missile might have hit it also after the 757 flew into the building! I am starting to believe I have been misinterpreting this event at he Pentagon. Yes, some of the witnesses are highly credible. But, there does appear to be a second projectile headed toward the entrance hole for the first projectile/plane/jetliner (flight 77). Although we know the JW video was highly edited/doctored I do not believe it was fake or photoshopped and it does appear to show a "second bandit" My question is now -- for everyone -- could a missile have been fired into the entrance hole after the plane (whether it was flight 77 or a decoy)? And could that explain some of the damage at the Pentagon that does not seem to be explainable by the crash of an aircraft? Is this the missing piece of the puzzle -- the reason things haven't quite added up with either model (no plane at the pentagon and plane only)? I am asking this question in all sincerity and I am hopeing all on both sides will at least take this hypothesis (and it is only a hypothesis) in the spirit in whihc it is intended. Perhaps, they were worried that the plane alone wouldn't take out the parts of the building they wanted to take out (accounting/auditing dep't.) and also wished to sow confusion among future investigators. Could the "second bandit" be a honey pot? I'm really trying to be objective here, and I actually think this may be close to a complete picture of the crime that was carried out on 9/11 in our nations' capital city. So, object, question, or flame away.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kilika
|
|
« Reply #474 on: February 10, 2011, 05:04:04 AM » |
|
We definately need more info, but I have a problem in there being two different objects flying into the Pentagon. No, I do not believe something flew over or under. Whatever flew towards the building hit the building.
I'm not seeing a reason for a missle AFTER an aircraft, or for that matter before. Doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Reason being, if it was a 757 as claimed, that was almost empty of passengers, why didn't they just load it up with explosives? One shot would do it. No need to over-engineer the deal.
What I will say is I would not at all be surprised if a second object were inserted into video footage to cause confusion and distractions. That would't surprise one bit.
Beyond that, don't know.
We need a criminal trial to get the facts out, but that most likely will never happen, so we are stuck with a manipulated military investigation that has gone nowhere just like they want it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)
|
|
|
|
citizenx
|
|
« Reply #475 on: February 10, 2011, 05:06:08 AM » |
|
And let me be clear about what I mean by damage that does not seem to be expalined by a plane alone (whether a 757 or another type of aircraft).
The exit hole without a jetliner.
The absence of evidence of a large, intense, kerosene/jet fuel fire at the exit hole.
The presence of material that should have burned up in such a fire.
The likelihood that the malleable metal of the plane would have created the second entrance hole instead of being broken into bits by the reinforced columns.
(Would the fuselage have even plowed straight through the building like an arrow in jello even in compacted form?)
That exit hole begs a lot of questions.
Did a DU-tipped cruise missile create additional structural damage after the plane hit?
Is that impossible? Is it really unnecessary to explain the eveidence at hand?
Or is it absolutely necessary? For instance to explain the reported presence of uranium detected at the site as some have reported. 757's are not made of uranium and generally don't carry much.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
citizenx
|
|
« Reply #476 on: February 10, 2011, 05:26:46 AM » |
|
...I have a problem in there being two different objects flying into the Pentagon...
...I'm not seeing a reason for a missle AFTER an aircraft, or for that matter before. Doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Reason being, if it was a 757 as claimed, that was almost empty of passengers, why didn't they just load it up with explosives? One shot would do it. No need to over-engineer the deal..
But that is just it, perhaps it flew into the building passengers and all (not packed with explosives) exaclty as the official story goes. But it was followed up by a a "chaser". No need to over-engineer the deal by getting rid of the passengers in some other way and loading the explosives on to the plane in time to crash the plan into the Penatgon, whihc may well have been impossible.
What I will say is I would not at all be surprised if a second object were inserted into video footage to cause confusion and distractions. That would't surprise one bit.
Beyond that, don't know.
OK, but then the question must now be not "could it have been inserted?" but "was it inserted?" All I am saying is more forensic work must be done on the JW video at this point. Perhaps, it is possible to prove it had to have been inserted or could not have been inserted. I believe it is incumbent on us to either categorically disprove or prove that.
We need a criminal trial to get the facts out, but that most likely will never happen, so we are stuck with a manipulated military investigation that has gone nowhere just like they want it.
Quite possibly. But that is not a reason not to try to investigate this crime thoroughly and tease out ALL of the pertinent facts prior to such a trial, whihc should still take place and I remind everyone there is no statute of limitations on murder. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jesussdad
|
|
« Reply #477 on: February 10, 2011, 06:38:23 AM » |
|
i dont think an aircraft or missile hit the pentagon. since we know that the potential primary target there was the accounting department which was investigating the missing 2 trilly and we know that they were effectively silenced. an aircraft or missile hit would not be a reliable method of guaranteeing this objective but explosives would.
the only thing that could maybe sway me on this is if all the north side witnesses are liars. and i dont think they are since their testimony matches their cmh interviews.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mr anderson
|
|
« Reply #478 on: February 10, 2011, 07:41:41 AM » |
|
i dont think an aircraft or missile hit the pentagon. since we know that the potential primary target there was the accounting department which was investigating the missing 2 trilly and we know that they were effectively silenced. an aircraft or missile hit would not be a reliable method of guaranteeing this objective but explosives would.
the only thing that could maybe sway me on this is if all the north side witnesses are liars. and i dont think they are since their testimony matches their cmh interviews.
So what of the witnesses that did see a plane? Really... I mean really why would they make it up or exaggerate? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
WeAreChange BrisbaneI 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
|
|
|
|
jesussdad
|
|
« Reply #479 on: February 10, 2011, 08:17:46 AM » |
|
So what of the witnesses that did see a plane? Really... I mean really why would they make it up or exaggerate?
well for one thing its said around 130 people saw the impact but when i looked closer at this many of the witnesses say themselves that they did not actually see the impact but saw the aircraft and explosion and just added the two together. some other witnesses are just dodgy like the opus dei priest and steve storti who has blatantly lied on tape. i will add more later. people like bursil and hill who have tried to debate cit have had their arses handed back to them in my view. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
