New Pentagon composite photo

[MikeW]

Undicisttembre (http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/pentagon-hole-revealed-by-composite.html) posted this composite Pentagon by "an Italian 9/11 researcher, Pier Paolo Murru". Apparently, it was "obtained by blending 17 high-resolution photographs [...] compensating for perspective distortion where needed." I did a quick search & didn't see it mentioned, so thought I'd post it here.

http://www.911myths.com/images/composite.jpg

It's a pity we don't have more foreground, but I guess that's because he's clipping back to the image with the least available. It's a good effort, though, and worth bringing out for the few remaining people who cling to the "missile" theory.

[T.A.M.]

Seems to line up pretty accurately. Speaks to the size of the impact hole, but I am sure the truthers will cry foul.

TAM:)

[tomm]

Do you guys really think a Boeing 757 caused that hole? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

[funk de fino]

Do you guys really think a Boeing 757 caused that hole? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

What hit it then?

[TheRedWorm]

Do you really think that a missile caused that hole? If so, I have a large sum of money to send to you! All I need is you personal information, including bank account number.

[Totovader]

Do you guys really think a Boeing 757 caused that hole? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

And what do you think it was?

:rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

I had almost forgotten I had "tomm" on ignore until I saw his post via "the funk"...lol

TAM:)

[tomm]

Do you really think that a missile caused that hole?
Where did you get that I think a missile caused that hole?

[beachnut]

Where did you get that I think a missile caused that hole?
That is only due to your complete lack of knowledge on 9/11.

Why are truthers showing up with complete ignorance on 9/11?

[stateofgrace]

Where did you get that I think a missile caused that hole?


So what made the hole?

[Totovader]

So what made the hole?

Don't you know? It's a notamissile notaplane.

Translation: elves.

[BenBurch]

Don't you know? It's a notamissile notaplane.

Translation: elves.

Flying one of these;

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/potw/misc/santa-sleigh.jpg

[DGM]

Flying one of these;

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/potw/misc/santa-sleigh.jpg
Notice the suspicious absence of Rudolf.:D

[dudalb]

So what made the hole?

A really big Mouse.

[Locknar]

Undicisttembre[/URL] posted this composite Pentagon by "an Italian 9/11 researcher, Pier Paolo Murru". Apparently, it was "obtained by blending 17 high-resolution photographs [...] compensating for perspective distortion where needed." I did a quick search & didn't see it mentioned, so thought I'd post it here.

It's a pity we don't have more foreground, but I guess that's because he's clipping back to the image with the least available. It's a good effort, though, and worth bringing out for the few remaining people who cling to the "missile" theory.
Having been there the day of the attack, and the days that folllowed I can honestly say nice job to whom ever blended the pic.

Thanks for posting.

[jaydeehess]

Notice the suspicious absence of Rudolf.:D

Rudolf led the way. There is no reference to his actually being harnessed with the others. In that pic Rudolf is just out of the shot to the upper right and indeed not harnessed. This gives Rudolf greater latitude to find a path through the fog and to then turn and call the team to move directly towards the red light of his nose.

Those who JAQ about Rudolf without actually reading the answers do themselves a disservice.

[WildCat]

Where did you get that I think a missile caused that hole?
Another no-planer and no-claimer!

[Skibum]

Notice the suspicious absence of Rudolf.:D

Rudolph only flys when it's foggy. Sept 11 was a clear day.

[fezzic]

Do you guys really think a Boeing 757 caused that hole? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

Yes, so why do you think (since that is what you imply) it didn't?

[BenBurch]

Another no-planer and no-claimer!

But NOT a no-clamer!

http://photos1.meetupstatic.com.nyud.net/photos/event/6/2/c/8/event_145288.jpeg

[AMTMAN]

Do you guys really think a Boeing 757 caused that hole? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

So what evidence do you have that it was not? I'm guessing you have none.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Seems to line up pretty accurately. Speaks to the size of the impact hole, but I am sure the truthers will cry foul.


"Obviously manipulated." :rolleyes:

[Tweeter]

Lucky the plane didnt hit those cable reels.
Why are those two beams on the bottom left bent different ways?

[Reality Believer]

^^^ Resist response agents. This is just a flaming bag of dog poop on the doorstep.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do you guys really think a Boeing 757 caused that hole? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.
Why do you think a 757-200 did not cause that damage?

[Slayhamlet]

Lucky the plane didnt hit those cable reels.
Why are those two beams on the bottom left bent different ways?

Are you serious?

[leftysergeant]

Lucky the plane didnt hit those cable reels.
Why are those two beams on the bottom left bent different ways?

Somebody with a better memory than mine can link you back to a Google Earth pic that showed them sitting on the disks farther back from the wall. They were rolled under the aircraft, maybe helping it to stay off the ground. Notice that the flanges are bent up on two of them. That is not blast damage.

I'm not sure which two columns you are talking about, but the appear to be two columns just inside the building that look as though an engine or a large part of one hit both of them obliquely.

Or maybe you are impaired by mixed-eye-dominance and are refrring to those bits of cieling hanging intro the impact zone from right to left.

[kookbreaker]

Lucky the plane didnt hit those cable reels.


What makes you think it didn't hit them?


Why are those two beams on the bottom left bent different ways?

Do you expect symmetry in this kind of impact?

[Tweeter]

Are you serious?
Yeah.

[Tweeter]

What makes you think it didn't hit them?



Do you expect symmetry in this kind of impact?

because if it would of hit them they wouldnt be there like the concrete wall behind them.
no

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

because if it would of hit them they wouldnt be there like the concrete wall behind them.
no
Experts in their respective fields have found the damage at the Pentagon to be in agreement with what would be expected from a 757-200 crashing in to it. What expertise and evidence can you present that outweighs that of the experts that have already made their conclusions known?

[kookbreaker]

because if it would of hit them they wouldnt be there like the concrete wall behind them.

You're certain of that? You realize that they are made of two very different materials, and that one was fixed in position wheras the other one can move, right?


no

So what is the problem?

[leftysergeant]

The plane hit the spools from above and dragged the a slight distance toward the building until they stopped, either because they dug into the ground sufficiently to resist the traction, or hit an obstacle, or the rear of the aircraft rose into the air as the nose was forced down on impact with the wall, thus rising out of contact, or some combination thereof.

A blast opposite the spools would have pushed them up against the wall. Between the wall and the spools, a blast would have driven the spools away from the building. It really is that simple.

[uk_dave]

Experts in their respective fields have found the damage at the Pentagon to be in agreement with what would be expected from a 757-200 crashing in to it. What expertise and evidence can you present that outweighs that of the experts that have already made their conclusions known?

Oh that was cruel!!!

[gumboot]

I think there's some good photos somewhere showing just how badly those cable spools were mangled by the aircraft.

I would not expect the damage to the spools to be similar to the damage to the wall for several reasons:

A) The aircraft hit the spools at an oblique angle, whereas it hit the wall at a perpendicular angle.
B) The wall is rigidly held in place making it more brittle. The spools are able to move.
C) The wall is a thin object with a very large facing, thus making it more vulnerable to concentrated impact forces. In contrast the spool is small and compact.
D) The spools were on the ground and therefore can only have been "clipped" by the aircraft. In contrast the wall absorbed the full force of the aircraft.

-Gumboot

[Mangoose]

Excellent composite!

leftyseargent: I think this is the photo you are thinking of:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3651/s112ox0.jpg

Notice that one of the spools that was on the lawn pre-9/11 was destroyed in the attack. Do truthers ever mention this fact? Here is another comparison of the spools before and after the attack, using the positions of the spools in the satellite photo but with a slightly different attack angle:

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/1095/pent52a1oa0.jpg

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/753/pent52b1ajb5.jpg

And here is how the plane looked as it hit the building:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9030/pbpr2avgb8.jpg

[Mangoose]

gumboot: I don't think the plane hit the spools, other than the one struck by the engine. I believe there was enough clearance between the spools on the ground and the bottom of the fuselage (which did not have the landing gear in place). Notice that the second floor slab is missing in the center hole where the fuselage struck. This suggests that some of the fuselage was higher than the level of the floor slab -- just as it appears in the ASCE graphic above.

I think the ground-level wake turbulence of the plane (visible in the CCTV frames) blew the spools into disarray and beat them up a bit, along with the (almost simultaneous) fireball which had its own blast effects.

[T.A.M.]

Tweeter, as an airplane crash investigator, please tell us how it should have looked. I am assuming given your determination that it looks wrong, that YOU MUST BE an airplane crash investigator. Otherwise, your comments would just look stupid.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

the spools are in on the conspiracy
YVDdjLQkUV8

[Tweeter]

Could someone tell me the reason why this "plane' exploded on impact and the other two planes that hit the towers didnt explode till they were inside the buildings? Also could you maybe draw the airplane on the OP`s picture to give me more information.

[beachnut]

Could someone tell me the reason why this "plane' exploded on impact and the other two planes that hit the towers didnt explode till they were inside the buildings? Also could you maybe draw the airplane on the OP`s picture to give me more information.
All the planes exploded during impact like planes do at 470 mph, 590 mph, 473 KIAS, and 600 mph. Next question.

[WildCat]

Could someone tell me the reason why this "plane' exploded on impact and the other two planes that hit the towers didnt explode till they were inside the buildings? Also could you maybe draw the airplane on the OP`s picture to give me more information.
It exploded on impact exactly as the planes that hit the WTC exploded on impact. Why on earth do you think it was any different? Please present your evidence, of course.

[Mangoose]

Tweeter just gave me an interesting idea. We know the speed at which the plane hit the building. We know its location on the lawn when photographed by CCTV camera. If we know the frame rate of the camera, we should be able to predict where the plane should be in the next frame (the explosion frame), i.e. how far into the building, factoring in the probable rate of deceleration (I think the ASCE Building Performance Report gave a figure for this).

[A W Smith]

Could someone tell me the reason why this "plane' exploded on impact and the other two planes that hit the towers didnt explode till they were inside the buildings? Also could you maybe draw the airplane on the OP`s picture to give me more information.


what evidence do you have that it did explode on impact? I distinctly remember a witness report that the plane entered the building before a fireball.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

I was just about to make my turn up the sidewalk towards one of the entrances when I heard jet engines. It was not the normal jet track into National Airport, which is very, very different. I turned my head about maybe 90 degrees towards the sound of the engines, which were very loud. I fully expected to see A-10s or F-15s or something, and I saw the American Airlines airplane coming down. I watched the entire terminal descent into the building. It’s probably the loudest noise I ever heard in my life. I have heard artillery very close. I have heard rock concerts, but nothing came close to that noise. I watched the entire airplane go into the building.

[Corsair 115]

Could someone tell me the reason why this "plane' exploded on impact and the other two planes that hit the towers didnt explode till they were inside the buildings?I would suggest studying the difference in the composition and arrangement of the structural elements between the buildings.

[Mangoose]

A W Smith: You might be thinking of this one:

At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building."

Or this one:

The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low. For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it.

[Gravy]

There are several accounts of a small delay (split-second?) between the Pentagon impact and explosion, which would be expected. Fuel behaves differently than high explosives. Keep in mind that the Pentagon parking lot cameras were only 1 frame per second, so it's hard to judge by them.

[njslim]

Could someone tell me the reason why this "plane' exploded on impact and the other two planes that hit the towers didnt explode till they were inside the buildings? Also could you maybe draw the airplane on the OP`s picture to give me more information.


Because this plane struck the ground at 580mph. the other planes which struck the
buildings once they penetrated the thin exterior wall would encounter mosyly empty
space until reaching the central core. Hitting the solid ground would cause the plane
to abruptly decelerate shredding it into myraid of small pieces. The other planes would
have to travel about 60 ft until encountered solid resistance.

[A W Smith]

A W Smith: You might be thinking of this one:



Or this one:


yes those are the ones i read but I couldn't find them quickly enough. i was still looking after posting to add more accounts,

[BenBurch]

There are several accounts of a small delay (split-second?) between the Pentagon impact and explosion, which would be expected. Fuel behaves differently than high explosives. Keep in mind that the Pentagon parking lot cameras were only 1 frame per second, so it's hard to judge by them.

As my father (a pilot and certified aviation mechanic) told me when I was about 5; "Fuel burns, vapor explodes." Hence why a FAM has two detonators.

[leftysergeant]

And, before anyone asks why there was no coresponding fireball out the other side of the building, most of the fuel was probably expressed fromn the wings outside the building. Notice that the walls of the Pentagon better resisted the passage of the wings than did the towers.

In all three cases, there was a considerable cloud of aerosolized fuel in the air. In the Hezarkhani video you can see it coming out the sides of the tower as grey bulges, which quickly turn to balls of flame.

The air/fuel mixture was probably too rich to ignite immediately. Modern jet fuel has been re-formulated to make it a little harder to ignite, actually. It has to wait just a bit for something hot to make contact with a more oxygen-rich concentration of fuel, upon which it flashed back.

Ben's comparison to a fuel/air munition is a good simily.

[uk_dave]

Could someone tell me the reason why this "plane' exploded on impact and the other two planes that hit the towers didnt explode till they were inside the buildings? Also could you maybe draw the airplane on the OP`s picture to give me more information.

Well I was gonna say "No", but I see everyone else has jumped on this one.

Anyway, I'll still say it :D

No. Go find out for yourself.

And in the meantime, perhaps you can tell us:

What makes you think the explosion was any different to the wtc towers and what evidence do you base this on?

What makes you think anyone should draw anything for you?

C'mon 'truthers' don't be lazy. You're supposed to be trying to convince us, not the other way round.

[scissorhands]

tweeter,

I think you will find that flight 77 exploded outside and inside the building it penetrated.
Just look at the resultant damage caused inside the pentagon.
It travelled a considerable distance beyond initial impact.
Are you suggesting it came to a sudden stop and produced a large fireball?

[BenBurch]

Could someone tell me the reason why this "plane' exploded on impact and the other two planes that hit the towers didnt explode till they were inside the buildings? Also could you maybe draw the airplane on the OP`s picture to give me more information.

The Pentagon had much harder walls than the towers. Totally different sorts of structure. Pentagon was designed to be as solid as possible. The towers were designed to be a LIGHT as possible. And there WAS considerable explosion within at the Pentagon, likely from the center fuel tank, which is what killed many of the victims who worked there.

[gumboot]

gumboot: I don't think the plane hit the spools, other than the one struck by the engine. I believe there was enough clearance between the spools on the ground and the bottom of the fuselage (which did not have the landing gear in place). Notice that the second floor slab is missing in the center hole where the fuselage struck. This suggests that some of the fuselage was higher than the level of the floor slab -- just as it appears in the ASCE graphic above.

I think the ground-level wake turbulence of the plane (visible in the CCTV frames) blew the spools into disarray and beat them up a bit, along with the (almost simultaneous) fireball which had its own blast effects.


I think it was probably that one spool that was hit by the engine that I saw a photo of, showing how mangled it was. You're quite right in that it's very very unlikely that the actual aircraft hit most of the spools. Conspiracy Theorists seem to often forget that the aircraft was descending as it approached the building. They seem to think Hanjour just lined it up at first floor level from five miles out and drove it all the way in ten feet off the ground.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Tweeter just gave me an interesting idea. We know the speed at which the plane hit the building. We know its location on the lawn when photographed by CCTV camera. If we know the frame rate of the camera, we should be able to predict where the plane should be in the next frame (the explosion frame), i.e. how far into the building, factoring in the probable rate of deceleration (I think the ASCE Building Performance Report gave a figure for this).


Actually I did something similar to this at one point. By my calculations the aircraft would be well and truly inside the building.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Could someone tell me the reason why this "plane' exploded on impact and the other two planes that hit the towers didnt explode till they were inside the buildings?


Why do you think the aircraft exploded on impact?

-Gumboot

[Mangoose]

I think it was probably that one spool that was hit by the engine that I saw a photo of, showing how mangled it was.

Nope, only 5 spools survived the attack that have been photographed. There were six originally (see the graphic on the previous page for a comparison of the positions before and after the attack). So one was destroyed completely, and that had to have been the one hit by the engine at over 500 MPH. The one that was really beaten up was closest to the building and could have been damaged by the blast or the collapse of the facade (the rubble of which, I think, was in its proximity).

[Gazpacho]

Could someone tell me the reason why this "plane' exploded on impact and the other two planes that hit the towers didnt explode till they were inside the buildings?
How have you determined the "timing' of the Pentagon "explosion'?

[Boone 870]

The composite that Mangoose posted earlier shows the cable spools lying on their sides before the impact. Does anyone know for sure if they were actually on their sides?

Those types of spools normally stand on the vertical flanges of the drum so that a spindle can be placed through the hole in the hub which allows them to be dispensed or moved easily.

That would leave one missing, one knocked over on its side, and the other four rearranged.

[Mangoose]

Boone: I wrote a PM today with another member of this forum where I expressed the same view, that the spools should have been upright pre-attack rather than as illustrated in the graphic, so I agree. I think the other pre-attack photos show the same thing.

[CHF]

I can't believe how many twoofers are still Pentagon no-planers.

And these people have the nerve to dismiss the WTC no-planers as "disinfo."

[leftysergeant]

I do not recall seeing any kind of framework for a spindle to support the spools. It would have to be massive. I have only worked a couiple construction sites where there were spools of this size and they tended to leave them standing up like tables so they could just unwrap the cables. THe ground here is kind of soft and a frame work would pose a risk of sinking into the ground and becoming unstable. I don't think the ground is all that firm around the Pentagon, either. That may be one of the reasons they brought in the sand and gravel during recovery.

[Tweeter]

One last question.
Why does the most secure building in the world have less(1) cameras than your average grocery store?

[uk_dave]

One last question.
Why does the most secure building in the world have less(1) cameras than your average grocery store?

Why do grocery stores have fewer armed guards than the pentagon?

[Tweeter]

Answer a question with a question.
How utterly predictable.

[Gazpacho]

Answer a question with a question.
How utterly predictable.
If you don't like it, don't ask loaded questions.

[PhantomWolf]

Why do you think that there is anything on the outside of the building that needs a camera to protect it?

[uk_dave]

Answer a question with a question.
How utterly predictable.

A 'truther' fails to answer a question. How utterly predictable

[Gravy]

Pentagon security is primarily concerned with who enters the parking lots and the building and where they go once inside. That concern does not extend to airliners.

[uk_dave]

Pentagon security is primarily concerned with who enters the building and where they go once inside. That concern does not extend to airliners.

Or grocery stores

[PhantomWolf]

Pentagon security is primarily concerned with who enters the parking lots and the building and where they go once inside. That concern does not extend to airliners.

Now you're just being silly, I mean come on, where were the cameras that showed where the plane entered the building and where it went once inside, huhu, huh? I bet you can't answer that, so you must just be a disinformatist shill being paid by the NASA space repilioid illuminazis. :rolleyes:

[Tweeter]

Pentagon security is primarily concerned with who enters the parking lots and the building and where they go once inside. That concern does not extend to airliners.

Lets suppose that were true since you have no evidence nor do I have any of where the cameras are.
Could there be a camera somewhere on the perimeter near where the plane first came in?

[Gravy]

Lets suppose that were true since you have no evidence nor do I have any of where the cameras are.
Could there be a camera somewhere on the perimeter near where the plane first came in?Here's a quote from Rich at the BAUT forum, a Pentagon employee.

"Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be surprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment."Dylan Avery can confirm that: he's been detained twice by Pentagon security in cars. You know, like William LaGasse, the security guard who was an eyewitness to the flight 77 attack.

I believe Russell Pickering has posted a photo of what appears to be a security camera installation near the impact zone. It's one of those reflective domes, so there's no way to tell what, if anything, is inside it. Was it a camera? Was it pointed at the approach or crash area? Was it in use, or had its use been discontinued years ago or due to construction? Was it recording? Was its recording destroyed in the attack? All we know is that the FBI says they don't have any videos that show the attack other than what's already been released. The Pentagon isn't going to reveal the details of their security system to you.

Do you have any reason to believe that the FBI wouldn't release video of the attack, as they did with the two parking lot videos and the WTC videos that were in their posssession, and as they did with the Citgo and Doubletree video, which were released after FOIA requests but that don't show the attack? I don't.

[Tweeter]

I dont like to speculate so i wont answer your questions.There were stories about video taken from outside of the Pentagon that were confiscated. Any truth to that?

[PhantomWolf]

especially when one of the frames from the carpark camera actually shows what would be the best shot of Flight 77 that you are going to get from a security camera. Unforunately AA's paint job (or lack there of) makes it merge into the background well enough that it's pretty hard to see with the resolution the camera gives.

[Tweeter]

Do you seriously see a plane in that video?

[T.A.M.]

I dont like to speculate so i wont answer your questions.There were stories about video taken from outside of the Pentagon that were confiscated. Any truth to that?

Yes, the Gas Station Footage, and the Hotel Footage, both of which have since been released, and help neither side.

TAM:)

PS: Despite not agreeing with any of your positions thus far, I do like your avatar...

TAM:)

[DGM]

Do you seriously see a plane in that video?
Do you really need to? The remains of the plane and passengers were all over the place.

[Gravy]

Why does the most secure building in the world have less(1) cameras than your average grocery store?

I dont like to speculate so i wont answer your questions.
Truthers are so bad at what they do.

[twinstead]

Do you really need to? The remains of the plane and passengers were all over the place.

The more obvious question is, after learning about the nature of the camera, does he really expect the video to be conclusive one way or another? You are correct; the physical evidence speaks for itself.

[Gravy]

Tweeter, you're not claiming that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, are you? Even the conspiracy loons think that idea is loony.

[Mangoose]

Do you seriously see a plane in that video?

Yes. Easy to miss, but clearly there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs

[Tweeter]

If they`re loons why would i believe them?
I live by Buddha`s famous quote, sig worthy i might add.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
Buddha

[Gravy]

If they`re loons why would i believe them?
I live by Buddha`s famous quote, sig worthy i might add.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
BuddhaThat's nonsense. Evidence – and reality – often don't agree with personal "reason" and "common sense." Get a better teacher.

Tell me this: do you believe the witness accounts and other evidence on these pages? (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary) Take your time to read them.

[Tweeter]

yeah Buddha was dumb, wasnt he?
I`ll read them and get back to ya, but i`ll tell ya right now its hard for me to believe witnesses from either viewpoint.

[twinstead]

yeah Buddha was dumb, wasnt he?
I`ll read them and get back to ya, but i`ll tell ya right now its hard for me to believe witnesses from either viewpoint.

Buddha was never faced with an event hugely documented that went against common sense, obviously. Dumb? Of course not. Died centuries ago? Yup. Well then perhaps as an intellectual exorcise you can try to figure out why the vast majority of eye witnesses support the official story.

[Gravy]

I`ll read them and get back to ya, but i`ll tell ya right now its hard for me to believe witnesses from either viewpoint.From either viewpoint? I'm giving you dozens of witnesses who saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon. No one who saw the attack claims otherwise. No one who investigate the attack claims otherwise. None of the physical evidence says otherwise. Does your "common sense" trump the witness experiences, the investigators' findings, and all the physical evidence?

[PhantomWolf]

Do you seriously see a plane in that video?

yes, if you know what you're looking for it becomes very obvious.

[BenBurch]

Never mind. I misread the intent of the post.

[PhantomWolf]

aww, shucks and I was working on such a good reply too. ;)

[Tweeter]

Sorry Gravy.... to long didnt read.
But i will bump your site every now and then.

[Gravy]

Sorry Gravy.... to long didnt read.I expected nothing less. Why argue from an informed position when you can argue from ignorance? Ignorance is sooo much easier!

[kookbreaker]

Sorry Gravy.... to long didnt read.


Typical. :rolleyes:

[BenBurch]

Lord Siddhartha did not live in a time where man commanded forces that have no real analog in common experience. Moreover, he was not talking about interpretation of the physical world, but interpretation of the acts of MAN. Were he alive to speak to you today, he would tell you to learn the science that can be learned and to use ALL of that to interpret what was actually observed. He would caution you to not imagine that which is not, and to confine your mind only to that which is.

[leftysergeant]

Regarding security on the gropunds outside the Pentagon, boots on the ground are the ideal surveilance mechanism. A live guard walking a beat can hear things. An intruder would have to make very careful observations over an extended period of time to determine where a guard might be at any given time, and then has to hope that the most hide-bound fool who always makes the same circuit at the same time has just passed his point of entry when he intrudes.

Having worked secruity, both civilian and military, I would not, nor would most people I know, keep to a rigid schedule, other than to rendevous with another guard for a mandatory report. It pays to be unpredictable.

Mechanical devices are easier to defeat by simple mathematic applications.

Most important areas covered by cameras are parking lots and entrances. Some of those required visual identification of the individual entering.

There is no reason to expect better coverage of the grounds.

To address the positioning of the cable spools, hopefully for the last time, the photograph shows them stood on end. They are heavy and probably subject to being over turned only by massive forces. I should expect the turbulence beneath an aircraft to have scattered them more laterally. I think they were skimmed by the fuselage. This would, of course, put the aircraft well over the surface of the lawn as it came in for impact.

[BenBurch]

And if the Pentagon can get anything cheaply, its MPs.

[LashL]

I`ll read them and get back to ya

Sorry Gravy.... to long didnt read.


Sadly, that's the truth™ movement in a nutshell being demonstrated right there.

Too lazy to read, too inept to learn, and too frigging stupid to realize how lazy, inept and stupid they are. Very sad, really.

[Dave Rogers]

Tweeter, you're not claiming that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, are you? Even the conspiracy loons think that idea is loony.

Only if there's anybody watching.

Dave

[Locknar]

From either viewpoint? I'm giving you dozens of witnesses who saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon. No one who saw the attack claims otherwise. No one who investigate the attack claims otherwise. None of the physical evidence says otherwise. Does your "common sense" trump the witness experiences, the investigators' findings, and all the physical evidence?For that matter, I'm not sure there is anyone that was inside the Pentagon & knows what a JPL fire smells like claims otherwise either.

[leftysergeant]

I kind of wonder about the people who described the smell as resembling "cordite." There are three possibilities in this case.

1. They know less about guns and ammunition than they think they do, think that "cordite" sounds more scientific and sophisticated than "gunpowder" and is just as accurate

2. They smelled burning insulation and plastic mixed with burning jet fuel and have fired an Enfield at some time in their lives and noticed the similarity

3. They are totally whacked out to begin with and went into a panic over a strange smell they couldn't identify, and heard someone mention cordite, and from there built it into a legendary super-sekrit hushaboom propellant that could tear down any wall ever built.

[Locknar]

I kind of wonder about the people who described the smell as resembling "cordite." There are three possibilities in this case.

1. They know less about guns and ammunition than they think they do, think that "cordite" sounds more scientific and sophisticated than "gunpowder" and is just as accurate

2. They smelled burning insulation and plastic mixed with burning jet fuel and have fired an Enfield at some time in their lives and noticed the similarity

3. They are totally whacked out to begin with and went into a panic over a strange smell they couldn't identify, and heard someone mention cordite, and from there built it into a legendary super-sekrit hushaboom propellant that could tear down any wall ever built.I 100% with your assessment.

I can tell you it smelled NOTHING like "cordite" or "gunpowder"; JPL fires have a very unique smell to them...once you know what it smells like, you'd NEVER confuse it with anything else.

[BenBurch]

I think there are very, very few human beings alive today who have ever smelled cordite.

Only the UK were heavy users of it, and production ceased entirely in the 90s when the last legacy weapons systems (rockets as I recall) were replaced.

[Mangoose]

I remember an old post in another forum in which Don Perkal was contacted and he clarified that he was merely guessing about the smell, having no expertise in explosives. Maybe Perkal could be emailed again to confirm his statement, if his email address could be found.

[Locknar]

I remember an old post in another forum in which Don Perkal was contacted and he clarified that he was merely guessing about the smell, having no expertise in explosives. Maybe Perkal could be emailed again to confirm his statement, if his email address could be found.Who is Don Perkal?

[Totovader]

Who is Don Perkal?

He's an attorney who claims to have smelled cordite- although there's nothing in his history that would indicate he would know what that smell is.

He also said that a plane crashed into the Pentagon, and there was an explosion of jet fuel...

[iAmerican]

That any could even imagine for a second that a Boeing 757, with its 125' wingspan and two 6' diameter 3-ton engines did what is seen, with its "fuselage" penetrating through three rings of the Pentagon, leaving no trace of seat rails, titanium landing gear or human remains, would be laughably "The Emperor's New Clothes," were it not treason in conjunction with the deaths of 3,000 innocents and a false war for heroin, oil, and Bush-handholding Saudis...besides the fact that numerous Congressmen and Senators appeared on Larry King the evening of 9-11 and shared their public witness of the passenger jet which swept up over Capitol Hill just after the explosion at the Pentagon...with maps of the co-linear Columbia Pike/Pentagon/Capitol Hill flight path in the next day's newspapers.

This site is for discussion by Skeptics not for the manipulative dissimulation and indirection of conformist sops and treason's tools.

[beachnut]

That any could even imagine for a second that a Boeing 757, with its 125' wingspan and two 6' diameter 3-ton engines did what is seen, with its fuselage penetrating through three rings of the Pentagon, leaving no trace of seat rails, titanium landing gear or human remains, would be laughably "The Emperor's New Clothes," were it not treason in conjunction with the deaths of 3,000 innocents and a false war for heroin, oil, and Bush-handholding Saudis...besides the fact that numerous Congressmen and Senators appeared on Larry King the evening of 9-11 and shared their public witness of the passenger jet which swept up over Capitol Hill just after the explosion at the Pentagon...with maps of the co-linear Columbia Pike/Pentagon/Capitol Hill flight path in the next day's newspapers.

This site is for discussion by Skeptics not for the manipulative dissimulation and indirection of conformist sops and treason's tools.
77 did hit and killed fellow service people on 9/11; Unless you have something more than a rant of lies please present some facts.

You did not get one thing right but the aircraft type. Why are you so wrong?

[Locknar]

He's an attorney who claims to have smelled cordite- although there's nothing in his history that would indicate he would know what that smell is.

He also said that a plane crashed into the Pentagon, and there was an explosion of jet fuel...Does he claim to have been there, in the building during the attack...and if so where? An attorney for whom?

[Mangoose]

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2001/09/19perkal.html

[ElMondoHummus]

That any could even imagine for a second that a Boeing 757, with its 125' wingspan and two 6' diameter 3-ton engines did what is seen, with its fuselage penetrating through three rings of the Pentagon, leaving no trace of seat rails, titanium landing gear or human remains, would be laughably "The Emperor's New Clothes," were it not treason in conjunction with the deaths of 3,000 innocents and a false war for heroin, oil, and Bush-handholding Saudis...besides the fact that numerous Congressmen and Senators appeared on Larry King the evening of 9-11 and shared their public witness of the passenger jet which swept up over Capitol Hill just after the explosion at the Pentagon...with maps of the co-linear Columbia Pike/Pentagon/Capitol Hill flight path in the next day's newspapers.

This site is for discussion by Skeptics not for the manipulative dissimulation and indirection of conformist sops and treason's tools.


There was much debris and many human remains.

http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-2#flight-77-wreckage

http://911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

There were also many witnesses who assisted in gathering the human remains. People who try to argue that the event did not happen do so in contradiction to reality.

And usually they declaim "ad hom" or "non sequitur" to disguise the bankrupcy of their claims, but I digress...

It helps to know what really happened before trying to argue points about the event. People are allowed their own opinions, but not their own facts, and the facts contradict the quoted statement above. A Boeing 757 did indeed hit the Pentagon, and contrary to the quoted statement, did indeed leave much identifiable debris and human remains. That is indisputable.

[JimBenArm]

This site is for discussion by Skeptics not for the manipulative dissimulation and indirection of conformist sops and treason's tools.
Treason's tools? What, like a treason hammer, combination wrench, socket set? Treason screwdriver?
Do they come in matched sets from Craftsman? Can I get some from the Sears catalog? Do they have the warranty if I break one?

[Locknar]

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2001/09/19perkal.htmlThanks for the link; there are some aspects of his story that are accurate...there are many that I question such as:

- His office would have been, from his accounting, least 100ft and one wedge further away then mine was, and at least 2 floors lower (since he mentions the concourse being “up stairs”). From his account, he felt more then I did, which is not possible (ie. folks lower and further felt less then those closeer and higher). Further, I had folks where he claims to have been...they felt nothing at all.

I also find it odd in the beginning of the story he mentions “cordite”, then later mentions “explosion of jet fuel.”

[GT/CS]

Sadly, that's the truth™ movement in a nutshell being demonstrated right there.

Too lazy to read, too inept to learn, and too frigging stupid to realize how lazy, inept and stupid they are. Very sad, really.


Originally Posted by Tweeter
Sorry Gravy.... to long didnt read.


Plus their spelling and grammar sucks!

[A_C_C]

Do you seriously see a plane in that video?

Rocky? Is that you?

[Tweeter]

Yes,Bullwinkle, it is I.


http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2...109114a_hr.jpg

That second link just worked for me a second ago.
*cue woo music

[In My Spare Time]

might want to retry that second link. Looks like you need to put the rest of the URL in there instead of the ellipses. What should I take note of in these pictures once you get them both correctly posted?

[maccy]

Yes,Bullwinkle, it is I.


http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2...109114a_hr.jpg

That second link just worked for me a second ago.
*cue woo music

might want to retry that second link. Looks like you need to put the rest of the URL in there instead of the ellipses. What should I take note of in these pictures once you get them both correctly posted?

Fixed link:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a_hr.jpg

I'm not expecting anything coherent from Tweeter though...

ETA: Here is the news story that the defenselink photo is from:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44912

[Locknar]

Thanks for the link; there are some aspects of his story that are accurate...there are many that I question such as:

- His office would have been, from his accounting, least 100ft and one wedge further away then mine was, and at least 2 floors lower (since he mentions the concourse being “up stairs”). From his account, he felt more then I did, which is not possible (ie. folks lower and further felt less then those closeer and higher). Further, I had folks where he claims to have been...they felt nothing at all.

I also find it odd in the beginning of the story he mentions “cordite”, then later mentions “explosion of jet fuel.”
BTW...he mentions walking out of the Pentagon, seeing the smoke/flames to his right.

While it is possible he would have gone out the South Parking exit (the smoke would have been to his right, though no flames would have been visable).

It is more likely, as they were closer exists to his location, he would have left via the Concourse (the smoke would have been behind him to the right, no flames would have been visable) or North Parking (the smoke would have been behind him, no flames would have been visable).

I wrote to the address in the article, we'll see what he says. At best, he was there and has embellished his story just a tad (being kind); at worst he is a fraud.

[BenBurch]

Can I just say that, in my youth, I would have had a much, much more physical response to these "truth" idiots than I do now? I would have improved their looks anyway.

[BenBurch]

[COLOR=black]...Why are you so wrong?

Because he hates the USA, the US Military, Police, Firemen, and anybody else who works to keep our society going.

[iAmerican]

From either viewpoint? I'm giving you dozens of witnesses who saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon. No one who saw the attack claims otherwise. No one who investigate the attack claims otherwise. None of the physical evidence says otherwise. Does your "common sense" trump the witness experiences, the investigators' findings, and all the physical evidence?

Beg to differ: I, having encountered one of the "witnesses," have first person knowledge of the credibility of one upon whom you make your case. Let the psychologists specify the dysfunction, but the "witness," when asked to recount the experience, in a completely non-threatening, established, friendly environment, did the "common sense" evasive eye movement then said "It happened just like they said it did."

Hysteria, desire to please authority, or whatever the motivation...the person was clearly not a truthful witness able to "relive" the experience of the "crash," yet is accepted in the cadre you cite as a witness to that which you incorrectly claim took place.

On the other hand, Larry King Show tapes can, no doubt, be accessed which will show, to any genuine skeptic's satisfaction, the transparently truthful accounts of various personnel on Capitol Hill who, in fact, witnessed the large jumbo jet sweeping up directly over the Capitol just after the explosion was felt and heard from the Pentagon.

Almost incidently, given the graphic proof and expert crash analysis proving no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon, the snippet "released," purporting to show the plane, suffered by graphical analysis as well: the height of the Pentagon wall at which the "missile" flying into frame from the right is known, so too is the exact vertical dimension of the fuselage of a 757: the "missile" does not supply the proper ratio, vertically in height, when compared to the known height of the Pentagon, and is nowhere near high enough to be mistaken for the fuselage of a Boeing 757. Do the math yourself.

With all the known lies and exposed perversions of the present administration and its faction, the default position for any thinking person is distrust of any information therefrom. Reputation is a b***h...theirs is a bad one, they are adults, and are known quantities. Any suggesting the Bush administration should be trusted about anything at all brings his or her own integrity into question.

Death for Treason
Probity, Economy, Justice

[JimBenArm]

So, iAm, dear boy, what did kill all those noble servicepeople in the Pentagon that day? What happened to the airplane full of people that just coincidentally disappeared at the same time? Why "disappear" an airplane when crashing would do the same thing?
Any coherent thoughts on this? Or am I just another one to be hanged in your kangaroo court?

[twinstead]

Wow iAmerican. Why provide real evidence to support your beliefs when irrational, spittle-spewing diatribes will do, huh? Bravo.

[OneShotKi11]

What hit it then?

Please stop with the asking him what hit it as if it proves anything.

If i seen what looked to be a bullet hole in a wall (maybe 2 inches in diameter), yet everyone claimed it was 757 crashe site, and i then stated the obvious. Do you guys really think a 757 fit caused that hole and your reposne was...

"Well what did?"

I would call you a bunch of morons!

Asking him what caused this hole is not evidence of his case being faulty because he clearly doesnt know what made the hole. He is only stating what he believes to be the obvious, which is a 757 doesnt fit in a 2 inch hole.

Yet because he can not tell you what squeezed into this hole almost all members on these boards dismiss his observation as being totally inaccurate. This to me is stupid and should never be done!

I am not going along with or agreeing with his statements nor am i entering into the conversation what i believed happened. I am just tired of see'ing people comment stupidly during a debate with things such as "well then what did?''

To see the supposed critical thinking intellectuals snicker with joy at the site of truthers inability to answer this questions makes me want to vomit everyday!!!

He believes the hole is to small for a 757 to fit into it. He has no clue what did hit but believes his observation hold merit. Please dont ask him to provide what did crash but prove to him that a 757 does infact fit into the hole.

Likewise, truther if you have the time please show us the reason why you feel a 757 does not fit into the hole. Scales, charts, imposed photos of a 757! Then proceed to debate intelligently!

[Locknar]

Beg to differ: I, having encountered one of the "witnesses," have first person knowledge of the credibility of one upon whom you make your case. Let the psychologists specify the dysfunction, but the "witness," when asked to recount the experience, in a completely non-threatening, established, friendly environment, did the "common sense" evasive eye movement then said "It happened just like they said it did." Begging does not make your claim true; who is this witness with "first person knowledge", and how exactly can you attest to their credibility?


On the other hand, Larry King Show tapes can, no doubt, be accessed which will show, to any genuine skeptic's satisfaction, the transparently truthful accounts of various personnel on Capitol Hill who, in fact, witnessed the large jumbo jet sweeping up directly over the Capitol just after the explosion was felt and heard from the Pentagon.This has nothing to do with Flight 77 & the Pentagon.


Almost incidently, given the graphic proof and expert crash analysis proving no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon, the snippet "released," purporting to show the plane, suffered by graphical analysis as well: the height of the Pentagon wall at which the "missile" flying into frame from the right is known, so too is the exact vertical dimension of the fuselage of a 757: the "missile" does not supply the proper ratio, vertically in height, when compared to the known height of the Pentagon, and is nowhere near high enough to be mistaken for the fuselage of a Boeing 757. Do the math yourself.
I'd ask "what graphic proof and expert crash analysis", but what would be the point? If you want to believe the wrong/false analysis of wack-jobs, while leaving obvious flaws in this (what happened to the plane, what about the people, etc.) knock yourself out. That's the price of freedom, allowing such woo-woo to exist.

[JimBenArm]

Please stop with the asking him what hit it as if it proves anything.

If i seen what looked to be a bullet hole in a wall (maybe 2 inches in diameter), yet everyone claimed it was 757 crashe site, and i then stated the obvious. Do you guys really think a 757 fit caused that hole and your reposne was...

"Well what did?"

I would call you a bunch of morons!

Asking him what caused this hole is not evidence of his case being faulty because he clearly doesnt know what made the hole. He is only stating what he believes to be the obvious, which is a 757 doesnt fit in a 2 inch hole.

Yet because he can not tell you what squeezed into this hole almost all members on these boards dismiss his observation as being totally inaccurate. This to me is stupid and should never be done!

I am not going along with or agreeing with his statements nor am i entering into the conversation what i believed happened. I am just tired of see'ing people comment stupidly during a debate with things such as "well then what did?''

To see the supposed critical thinking intellectuals snicker with joy at the site of truthers inability to answer this questions makes me want to vomit everyday!!!

He believes the hole is to small for a 757 to fit into it. He has no clue what did hit but believes his observation hold merit. Please dont ask him to provide what did crash but prove to him that a 757 does infact fit into the hole.

Likewise, truther if you have the time please show us the reason why you feel a 757 does not fit into the hole. Scales, charts, imposed photos of a 757! Then proceed to debate intelligently!
This is exactly 100% wrong. He has to prove the hole was made by something other than the plane that hundreds of witnesses saw plow into the building. Not up to us to prove anything. He's the one making the extraordinary claim, he's got to back it up. End of discussion.

[kookbreaker]

Please stop with the asking him what hit it as if it proves anything.

If i seen what looked to be a bullet hole in a wall (maybe 2 inches in diameter), yet everyone claimed it was 757 crashe site, and i then stated the obvious. Do you guys really think a 757 fit caused that hole and your reposne was...

"Well what did?"

I would call you a bunch of morons!


All well and good, but we are not talking about a bullet hole here. We are talking about a hole more than adequete to fit the plane in question.


Asking him what caused this hole is not evidence of his case being faulty because he clearly doesnt know what made the hole. He is only stating what he believes to be the obvious, which is a 757 doesnt fit in a 2 inch hole.

Yet because he can not tell you what squeezed into this hole almost all members on these boards dismiss his observation as being totally inaccurate. This to me is stupid and should never be done!


Wrong! If you want to counter a well accepted hypothesis you should at least be willing to provide a reasonable cause of your own.


I am not going along with or agreeing with his statements nor am i entering into the conversation what i believed happened. I am just tired of see'ing people comment stupidly during a debate with things such as "well then what did?''

To see the supposed critical thinking intellectuals snicker with joy at the site of truthers inability to answer this questions makes me want to vomit everyday!!!

I would advise you to suck it up or get a stronger stomach. We are willing to put up with a lot of crap from CTs on this forum, but quite frankly when a surly, monsylabbic, no planer starts spouting nonsense the line is drawn and he better start getting his crap together if he wants an answer.



He believes the hole is to small for a 757 to fit into it. He has no clue what did hit but believes his observation hold merit. Please dont ask him to provide what did crash but prove to him that a 757 does infact fit into the hole.


ITS BEEN DONE! Its been done so freaking much that even the majority of troofers don't buy into the 'no plane at the Pentagon' crap. You are asking us to waste our time.



Likewise, truther if you have the time please show us the reason why you feel a 757 does not fit into the hole. Scales, charts, imposed photos of a 757! Then proceed to debate intelligently!

ITS BEEN DONE!

Please stop asking us to waste our time even further on someone who cannnot even put together a complete sentence and shows almost no signs of rational thought. Its a waste of time.

And as for you, get off the freaking high horse, yours is made of twigs and mud.

[A_C_C]

Yes,Bullwinkle, it is I.

Haha. What I wanted to say is that the style of your posting is similar to a truther called "Rocky" who used to post in ApolloHoax(until he was banned after flaming on everybody).

[Swing Dangler]

Can anyone superimpose a passenger jet over the composite picture for a reference of the size of the jet and the whole hole?

[kookbreaker]

Can anyone superimpose a passenger jet over the composite picture for a reference of the size of the jet and the whole hole?

Go right ahead.

[DGM]

Can anyone superimpose a passenger jet over the composite picture for a reference of the size of the jet and the whole hole?
It's already been done from the top view. From this view it would look distorted because the plane hit at an angle. But you already knew this, right?

[Reality Believer]

Can anyone superimpose a passenger jet over the composite picture for a reference of the size of the jet and the whole hole?
I thought I would give my Google SketchUp - Fu a go on this. In Google Sketchup, there are pre-constructed scale models out there on the Pentagon and a 757 (in this case, a UPS freighter). By overlaying the composite photograph on the facade of the building, you can correct for 3D perspective. I put the Jet at a 50 degree impact angle from plan view and a best guess at height and attitude. I can rotate and snap "photos" from any angle, as well as change the position of the jet.

In the attached pictures, I tried to show some useful perspectives.

[DannyJ]

I honestly don't know what happened to the Pentagon that day, but to me, it seems a little mysterious, what with the size of the impact hole and everything. But then you have wheels from a plane just on the field of the Pentagon. Video footage also released from the Pentagon didn't show anything at all really, just a huge fireball. I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of the Pentagon tragedy and Flight 77...

[Reality Believer]

I honestly don't know what happened to the Pentagon that day, but to me, it seems a little mysterious, what with the size of the impact hole and everything. But then you have wheels from a plane just on the field of the Pentagon. Video footage also released from the Pentagon didn't show anything at all really, just a huge fireball. I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of the Pentagon tragedy and Flight 77...
Ignore the wheels in my model. I believe the wheels were up at the real impact. These are just for general reference. I could be feet off alignment.

We have gotten to the bottom of it. You haven't. Start with Gravy's site if you truly want answers.

[Locknar]

I honestly don't know what happened to the Pentagon that day, but to me, it seems a little mysterious, what with the size of the impact hole and everything. But then you have wheels from a plane just on the field of the Pentagon. Video footage also released from the Pentagon didn't show anything at all really, just a huge fireball. I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of the Pentagon tragedy and Flight 77...You of course have heard of the term "kinetic energy", and how it might apply to a 757 traveling hundreds of miles an hour hitting a +3ft thick solid stone wall right?

The only thing that is "mysterious" is how the woo-woo "truthers" get folks to believe there is anything "mysterious" in the first place.

Bottom line, the Pentagon impact is exactly what you would expect to see, and consistent with other similar crashes. By similar...there are lots of "heavies" that have crashed head on into mountains (for example) over the years; those accidents, the impact zones, remains, etc. all similar in nature to what was seen at the Pentagon.

Are they exactly the same...no; but for that matter no two plane crashes are "exactly" the same.

[PhantomWolf]

I honestly don't know what happened to the Pentagon that day

Flight 77 hit it.

but to me, it seems a little mysterious

To me that means you havben't looked into it enough or you spend too long reading CT sites that deliberately prevent you from finding out the real evidence.

what with the size of the impact hole and everything

The hole is an appropriate size for a 757. The main part of the plane is an approximate 13' circle (about 5m), that's less than 2 stories and the top part of that circle is quite hollow. The other significant structures are the base of the wings and the engines. The hole was cetainly wide enough to allow them entry while the weak structures such as the tips of the wings and the tail shattered and ended up on the lawn.

But then you have wheels from a plane just on the field of the Pentagon.

This is incorrect, the rims of the wheels were found inside the Pentagon, the nose gear was loacted outside the exit hole. (eta on reading above posts: if you meant the wheels were on the lawn in RB's picture, that model has the gear down, 77 had it's gear up at impact.)

Video footage also released from the Pentagon didn't show anything at all really, just a huge fireball.

Again incorrect, it has a good shot of Flight 77, if you understand what you are looking for, a fast moving silver plane some distance from a wide angle lenes is not going to look like a picture of a plane from airliners.net

I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of the Pentagon tragedy and Flight 77...

The wreackage was found in the pentagon, the bodies of all by one of the passagers and crew were loctaed in to the pentagon, radar tracking leads back towards where contact was lost with Flight 77, the black boxes show a flight profile thatmatches Flight 77 and includes data from Flight 77 previous flight. Witnesses reported a AA 757 hitting the Pentagon. American Airlines in missing a plane, families are missing loved ones. What exactly do you think we aren't getting to the bottom of?

[DannyJ]

Flight 77 hit it.



To me that means you havben't looked into it enough or you spend too long reading CT sites that deliberately prevent you from finding out the real evidence.



The hole is an appropriate size for a 757. The main part of the plane is an approximate 13' circle (about 5m), that's less than 2 stories and the top part of that circle is quite hollow. The other significant structures are the base of the wings and the engines. The hole was cetainly wide enough to allow them entry while the weak structures such as the tips of the wings and the tail shattered and ended up on the lawn.



This is incorrect, the rims of the wheels were found inside the Pentagon, the nose gear was loacted outside the exit hole. (eta on reading above posts: if you meant the wheels were on the lawn in RB's picture, that model has the gear down, 77 had it's gear up at impact.)



Again incorrect, it has a good shot of Flight 77, if you understand what you are looking for, a fast moving silver plane some distance from a wide angle lenes is not going to look like a picture of a plane from airliners.net



The wreackage was found in the pentagon, the bodies of all by one of the passagers and crew were loctaed in to the pentagon, radar tracking leads back towards where contact was lost with Flight 77, the black boxes show a flight profile thatmatches Flight 77 and includes data from Flight 77 previous flight. Witnesses reported a AA 757 hitting the Pentagon. American Airlines in missing a plane, families are missing loved ones. What exactly do you think we aren't getting to the bottom of?

I'm sorry, you all obviously know an awful lot about this which I've not researched properly (which is why I shouldn't of posted really, sorry for wasting your time). I'll do some research tomorrow and get all the information I can. Again, sorry.

[PhantomWolf]

I'm sorry, you all obviously know an awful lot about this which I've not researched properly (which is why I shouldn't of posted really, sorry for wasting your time). I'll do some research tomorrow and get all the information I can. Again, sorry.

Ignorance isn't something that needs to be apologised for, everyone is ignorant about something (I wouldn't have the first idea about knitting a jersey for instance, or growing apples) what would need apologising for is if you were just interested in staying ignorant, which you seem to be saying here you don't. A good starting place about Flight 77 is Here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary) having a lot of links and information about the crash. If you read up on it and are willing to learn, then there is no reason to apologise about not knowing stuff.

[DannyJ]

Ignorance isn't something that needs to be apologised for, everyone is ignorant about something (I wouldn't have the first idea about knitting a jersey for instance, or growing apples) what would need apologising for is if you were just interested in staying ignorant, which you seem to be saying here you don't. A good starting place about Flight 77 is Here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary) having a lot of links and information about the crash. If you read up on it and are willing to learn, then there is no reason to apologise about not knowing stuff.
No not at all, I want to know the facts of 9/11 and I'm willing to read all the information I can get about Flight 77 and The Pentagon. I've bookmarked the link you gave me so I can look tomorrow. Thanks.

[BenBurch]

Can anyone superimpose a passenger jet over the composite picture for a reference of the size of the jet and the whole hole?

Feel free, but remember it was not coming in straight when you do that.

[BenBurch]

I thought I would give my Google SketchUp - Fu a go on this.

I'd say that is compatible with what what we all know happened.

Its really weird to keep arguing that the obvious thing happened and having to do it over and over. Its like having to argue against people who say that Babe Ruth never swing a bat.

[BenBurch]

Ignore the wheels in my model. I believe the wheels were up at the real impact. These are just for general reference. I could be feet off alignment.

We have gotten to the bottom of it. You haven't. Start with Gravy's site if you truly want answers.

None of these people want real answers.

They just argue against reality to keep their hope alive that they can lie the Global Conspiracy into submission...

As I have said here before, I loathe GWB and all he stands for and all who stand with him more than these "truthers" do, but when and if I see him and his cronies legally indicted, fairly tried, justly convicted, and sternly sentenced for their crimes it will not be because of lies. To lie would make us just like he is.

[ElMondoHummus]

Can I just say that, in my youth, I would have had a much, much more physical response to these "truth" idiots than I do now? I would have improved their looks anyway.


You would've thrown up on them?

[BenBurch]

You would've thrown up on them?

No, but after I was done I'd probably have [Rule10] on them. Which would at least have improved their odor.

[Mangoose]

Almost incidently, given the graphic proof and expert crash analysis proving no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon, the snippet "released," purporting to show the plane, suffered by graphical analysis as well: the height of the Pentagon wall at which the "missile" flying into frame from the right is known, so too is the exact vertical dimension of the fuselage of a 757: the "missile" does not supply the proper ratio, vertically in height, when compared to the known height of the Pentagon, and is nowhere near high enough to be mistaken for the fuselage of a Boeing 757.


The vertical and horizontal proportions of the object in the frame fit very well with the proportions of a 757 at the approach angle.


http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7214/flt77comp1qf0.jpg

If you have trouble seeing the plane (understandable since it blends in the background), I strongly recommend you view the original video and look at the area in front of the white streak.

As far as whether the length is correct, I haven't figured this out yet, but I am pretty sure. In an earlier thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96597&page=2), I was able to fix the location of the plane on the lawn on the basis of line of sight (that is, what buildings in the background the plane was blocking). The result is that the plane was photographed just after it had entered into the Pentagon lawn. I think the size is what it should be for a plane in that location (farther away from the camera than the location where the plane struck the building), but this needs to be verified.

Can anyone superimpose a passenger jet over the composite picture for a reference of the size of the jet and the whole hole?


I think this is still the best attempt to match the plane with the building damage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&feature=related

[Gravy]

Asking him what caused this hole is not evidence of his case being faulty because he clearly doesnt know what made the hole.He has no "case." If he isn't happy with the extent of the damage, he needs to adjust his expectations. Reality will not conform to his ignorance.

[gumboot]

That any could even imagine for a second that a Boeing 757, with its 125' wingspan and two 6' diameter 3-ton engines did what is seen, with its "fuselage" penetrating through three rings of the Pentagon, leaving no trace of seat rails, titanium landing gear or human remains, would be laughably "The Emperor's New Clothes," were it not treason in conjunction with the deaths of 3,000 innocents and a false war for heroin, oil, and Bush-handholding Saudis...besides the fact that numerous Congressmen and Senators appeared on Larry King the evening of 9-11 and shared their public witness of the passenger jet which swept up over Capitol Hill just after the explosion at the Pentagon...with maps of the co-linear Columbia Pike/Pentagon/Capitol Hill flight path in the next day's newspapers.

This site is for discussion by Skeptics not for the manipulative dissimulation and indirection of conformist sops and treason's tools.

There's a hole in your bucket, dear Liza.

-Gumboot

[iAmerican]

...If you have trouble seeing the plane (understandable since it blends in the background), I strongly recommend you view the original video and look at the area in front of the white streak....

Better yet, as Sovereign Citizens let's require our servants in government to cough up the Virginia DOT "Traffic cam" tape on Shirley Highway which had always included in its "view" the Pentagon and "missile" approach path; the security camera footage from the Citgo gas plaza vantage point directly at the crash site; and any of the other numerous digital, and video images captured by devices pointed at the crash site and approach, that for some "odd" reason have yet to "surface."

As if...

Death for Treason
Probity, Economy, Justice

[Par]

Double.

[peteweaver]

Where did you get that I think a missile caused that hole?

So what do you think did it if it wasn't a 757 with Rolls Royce RB211-535e engines ?

Superman ?

The Silver Surfer ?

A Klingon Bird of Prey with a holograph projector ?

[Sabrina]

Better yet, as Sovereign Citizens let's require our servants in government to cough up the Virginia DOT "Traffic cam" tape on Shirley Highway which had always included in its "view" the Pentagon and "missile" approach path; the security camera footage from the Citgo gas plaza vantage point directly at the crash site; and any of the other numerous digital, and video images captured by devices pointed at the crash site and approach, that for some "odd" reason have yet to "surface."

As if...

Death for Treason
Probity, Economy, Justice

1) The traffic cams don't record; they're viewed in real time by operators. No traffic camera in the entire United States records, to the best of my knowledge, or if they do, they have to be manually flipped to do so. Could you imagine the amount of storage it would take to maintain daily traffic camera tapes? We're talking probably millions of terabytes, if you're thinking digitally, or hundreds of warehouses if physically. However, if I am wrong and someone on here knows better, I would appreciate the info.

2) The security camera footage at the Citgo has been released; it showed nothing beyond a small glimpse of the fireball. Which, considering that security cameras on that site were aimed AT THAT SITE, not the Pentagon, is not all that surprising. The security cameras at the Citgo station were concerned with keeping an eye on the grounds of the Citgo station, not the Pentagon, which was across the bloody street for Pete's sake.

3) Of the videos confiscated by the FBI, I believe only a few actually show any footage of the approach and subsequent impact; the others were taken from places where it was THOUGHT they might show something useful, but upon review they showed nothing at all. All of the videos released (i.e. the Pentagon traffic camera which shot at a framerate too slow to see anything really useful, the Doubletree hotel footage which only showed the ensuing fireball, and the Citgo footage which again only showed part of the ensuing fireball) have all been released. The FBI is under no obligation to release the remaining tapes because they have been returned to their owners; namely the locations they were taken from, and as such they are private property that can only be released if the owners decide to do so. If you want that footage, I suggest you go after the businesses they were taken from, and quit blaming the FBI for obeying the law.

[Mangoose]

Better yet, as Sovereign Citizens let's require our servants in government to cough up the Virginia DOT "Traffic cam" tape on Shirley Highway which had always included in its "view" the Pentagon and "missile" approach path; the security camera footage from the Citgo gas plaza vantage point directly at the crash site


As far as I know, the VDOT camera images are not recorded onto tape.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/10/pentagono-le-telecamere-del-vdot-videro.html

The Citgo tape has already been released.

[Totovader]

1) The traffic cams don't record; they're viewed in real time by operators. No traffic camera in the entire United States records, to the best of my knowledge, or if they do, they have to be manually flipped to do so. Could you imagine the amount of storage it would take to maintain daily traffic camera tapes? We're talking probably millions of terabytes, if you're thinking digitally, or hundreds of warehouses if physically. However, if I am wrong and someone on here knows better, I would appreciate the info.

2) The security camera footage at the Citgo has been released; it showed nothing beyond a small glimpse of the fireball. Which, considering that security cameras on that site were aimed AT THAT SITE, not the Pentagon, is not all that surprising. The security cameras at the Citgo station were concerned with keeping an eye on the grounds of the Citgo station, not the Pentagon, which was across the bloody street for Pete's sake.

3) Of the videos confiscated by the FBI, I believe only a few actually show any footage of the approach and subsequent impact; the others were taken from places where it was THOUGHT they might show something useful, but upon review they showed nothing at all. All of the videos released (i.e. the Pentagon traffic camera which shot at a framerate too slow to see anything really useful, the Doubletree hotel footage which only showed the ensuing fireball, and the Citgo footage which again only showed part of the ensuing fireball) have all been released. The FBI is under no obligation to release the remaining tapes because they have been returned to their owners; namely the locations they were taken from, and as such they are private property that can only be released if the owners decide to do so. If you want that footage, I suggest you go after the businesses they were taken from, and quit blaming the FBI for obeying the law.

On #1- I did some research into this as well. Although my search was not vast- I wasn't able to find any DOT sites that said that they actually record traffic cameras. "What would be the point?" one guy told me.

[JimBenArm]

On #1- I did some research into this as well. Although my search was not vast- I wasn't able to find any DOT sites that said that they actually record traffic cameras. "What would be the point?" one guy told me.
But... but... on CSI and NCIS they always have cameras pointed right where the bad things happen, and there's always videotape of the bad guys doing the bad things so there has to be a tape of it somewhere! If TV has taught me anything, it's that!

[funk de fino]

Please stop with the asking him what hit it as if it proves anything.

Dont tell me what to do skip

If i seen what looked to be a bullet hole in a wall (maybe 2 inches in diameter), yet everyone claimed it was 757 crashe site, and i then stated the obvious. Do you guys really think a 757 fit caused that hole and your reposne was...

"Well what did?"

I would call you a bunch of morons!

That would be irony of a superior standard

Asking him what caused this hole is not evidence of his case being faulty because he clearly doesnt know what made the hole. He is only stating what he believes to be the obvious, which is a 757 doesnt fit in a 2 inch hole

I wanted to know his theory as to what did hit the pentagon. If he has no idea then all he has to say is "no idea"

Yet because he can not tell you what squeezed into this hole almost all members on these boards dismiss his observation as being totally inaccurate. This to me is stupid and should never be done!

Incorrect

I am not going along with or agreeing with his statements nor am i entering into the conversation what i believed happened. I am just tired of see'ing people comment stupidly during a debate with things such as "well then what did?''

It helps to know someones position if you want to attack it

To see the supposed critical thinking intellectuals snicker with joy at the site of truthers inability to answer this questions makes me want to vomit everyday!!!

I wouldnt add yourself to the critical thinkers camp skip

He believes the hole is to small for a 757 to fit into it. He has no clue what did hit but believes his observation hold merit. Please dont ask him to provide what did crash but prove to him that a 757 does infact fit into the hole.

He did not say he had no clue at this time. It was reasonable to expect him to at least answer.

Likewise, truther if you have the time please show us the reason why you feel a 757 does not fit into the hole. Scales, charts, imposed photos of a 757! Then proceed to debate intelligently!


This may have been my second question after he answered my first with a "i do not know" answer.

[fezzic]

On #1- I did some research into this as well. Although my search was not vast- I wasn't able to find any DOT sites that said that they actually record traffic cameras. "What would be the point?" one guy told me.


Yes, there'd be no point, in general, to routinely record what the traffic cams see. A road with cars passing through the field of vision. The point of the cameras is to allow for realtime response to situations.

There are projects where that might be recorded, for instance we had a project to see if traffic counts could be made solely from the video imagery (tubes on multi-lane roads tend to be inaccurate). And the VCRs might still be there with the hookups, but who is going to make the recordings, change the tapes, and catalog them? Nobody.

[Sabrina]

What about during the Minnesota bridge collapse?

Only reason I ask is because I recall seeing footage from a traffic camera an operator reoriented when he noticed a long line of cars forming and just staying put; he turned the camera around and lo and behold there was no bridge! I'm just wondering though if that footage was recorded by the local news affiliate and not the DOT themselves; seems to me that since the local news affiliates (going by the one here where I am) have access to the DOT cameras to give realtime traffic updates that they'd be recording at least segments of it; even if it gets erased and recorded over again five minutes later, they'd have the option of keeping it. But regardless, to the best of my knowledge there exists no footage of the plane on VDOT cameras because the VDOT cameras don't record their footage.

Plus, I think the camera's oriented wrong to catch the plane hitting the building anyways; to the best of my recollection the traffic camera in the area is aimed more at the 14th Street Bridge and isn't pointed in a direction that would show the area of the Pentagon that was hit. And as I live in the area, I'd hope you'd be able to take my word for that.

Who wants to bet, though, that iAmerican will completely ignore our posts?

[BenBurch]

I think the Minneapolis thing was the exception.

Back when I worked for Ikadega, I had proposed a digital time-synchronized security recording system that could give you up to 64 cameras all recording into 2-day circular disk buffers and with which you could simulaneously view all streams from any timecode. This was using Ikadega's amazing technology that died with the company and which still has no equal.

And the box that did this was about the size of a large microwave oven. (But which produced considerably more heat!)

[PhantomWolf]

The vertical and horizontal proportions of the object in the frame fit very well with the proportions of a 757 at the approach angle.


http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7214/flt77comp1qf0.jpg

If you have trouble seeing the plane (understandable since it blends in the background), I strongly recommend you view the original video and look at the area in front of the white streak.

As far as whether the length is correct, I haven't figured this out yet, but I am pretty sure. In an earlier thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96597&page=2), I was able to fix the location of the plane on the lawn on the basis of line of sight (that is, what buildings in the background the plane was blocking). The result is that the plane was photographed just after it had entered into the Pentagon lawn. I think the size is what it should be for a plane in that location (farther away from the camera than the location where the plane struck the building), but this needs to be verified.

I did this comparison of the frame before the object appears and the frame in which the object appears, basically subtracting anything that was in the initial frame from the second to reveal any changes that are in the second.

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/X/757_2x3-0%201a.jpg

[iAmerican]

...And as I live in the area, I'd hope you'd be able to take my word for that.

Who wants to bet, though, that iAmerican will completely ignore our posts?

And your employment or contract, or family's, would be affected how if you actually acknowledged how patently obvious it is that Bush and Cheney committed treason on 9-11 to send us to die in false war?

Anti-Christ is soon to be cast into the Pit by the Electorate. Better hedge your bets, all.

For the best hope I have that faction will be lining the highway from lamposts...and their pelf will pay off the National Debt.

[BenBurch]

And your employment or contract, or family's, would be affected how if you actually acknowledged how patently obvious it is that Bush and Cheney committed treason on 9-11 to send us to die in false war?

Anti-Christ is soon to be cast into the Pit by the Electorate. Better hedge your bets, all.

For the best hope I have that faction will be lining the highway from lamposts...and their pelf will pay off the National Debt.

Please tell me you don't believe this? :eek:

[Redtail]

And your employment or contract, or family's, would be affected how if you actually acknowledged how patently obvious it is that Bush and Cheney committed treason on 9-11 to send us to die in false war?

Anti-Christ is soon to be cast into the Pit by the Electorate. Better hedge your bets, all.

For the best hope I have that faction will be lining the highway from lamposts...and their pelf will pay off the National Debt.

So all soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen who aren't saying 9/11 was an inside job!!! or something of the sort, are cowards?

[PhantomWolf]

You know the more I read posters like the above one, the more I am glad I don't live in the US.

[iAmerican]

So all soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen who aren't saying 9/11 was an inside job!!! or something of the sort, are cowards?

Years ago, long after I got out, I was on a job with a squad from the 82nd. During Vietnam I had no idea about the Gulf of Tonkin Hoax; or the Roman Catholic CIA, Bush1 and Nixon killing Kennedy to get us there.

Part of the American "young man" mindset willing to go focussed on just what the Oath and military service actually require, in my case anyway, might not be terribly concerned with Political Economy, History, or Theology...which is why having a draft-dodging closet-queen as president is woefully ill-advised: having never experienced the "Rite of Passage" to manhood by actually accepting the challenge...to become a man and better citizen.

We were all sitting around chowing down and I, a Brat and Vet, shared with them my realization of the criminal, treasonous faction which killed the C-i-C to get us dead in Vietnam, but how I had some of the "Airplane Crash Survivor's Syndrome" after it all. They were so cool: young, and strong, and patriotic...totally aware once the truth was known.

Many Officers and Non-coms know what's going on. I've talked to them on the street and in their homes. The military is a dog on a leash held by the People's elect.

The Nazis are going down. The People, both in and out of the Military, will do the righteous thing once all realize the atrocity which has been committed by the perverts in power against us and the Constitution.

Death for Treason...and full expropriation and banishment of the Fifth Column.

Annuit Coeptis

[iAmerican]

You know the more I read posters like the above one, the more I am glad I don't live in the US.

Read Kwitny's "Crimes of Patriots"...here's a review on Amazon from a fellow Aussie:
5.0 out of 5 stars How the U.S. brought down Australia's government in 1975, October 29, 2001
By A Customer
As an Australian I was both surprised and gratified that an American journalist should want to trace the extraordinary history of the Nugan Hand Bank's Australian operations. This great document decribes the most cut-throat, heroin dealing, crime syndicate ever to have sullied our shores, and all under the covert auspices of the C.I.A. Kwitny's research is exhaustive and his even handed way of presenting his findings is exemplary of fine journalism. The implications hatched in this veritable can of worms will have net-sleuths busy for years tracing the myriad references to the numerous associates of Nugan Hand who vanished into the night only to surface again in the Irangate scandal. Essential reading for anyone trying to come to terms with the scourge of heroin, the world arms trade and those members of the U.S.'s covert agencies that spread misery in their own and other countries...Read it if you dare!
---
You aren't exempt. The Anti-Christ is powerful down-under as well. Is NZ exempt?

It's the same faction now pouring heroin into the U.S. through Dubai...thanks entirely to Bush and his 9-11 treason.

[DGM]

Why is it whenever I read iAmericans post all I can envision is seeing these again in an investigation of a mall shooting. You know "we should have seen the signs".

[Redtail]

Years ago, long after I got out, I was on a job with a squad from the 82nd. During Vietnam I had no idea about the Gulf of Tonkin Hoax; or the Roman Catholic CIA, Bush1 and Nixon killing Kennedy to get us there.

Part of the American "young man" mindset willing to go focussed on just what the Oath and military service actually require, in my case anyway, might not be terribly concerned with Political Economy, History, or Theology...which is why having a draft-dodging closet-queen as president is woefully ill-advised: having never experienced the "Rite of Passage" to manhood by actually accepting the challenge...to become a man and better citizen.

We were all sitting around chowing down and I, a Brat and Vet, shared with them my realization of the criminal, treasonous faction which killed the C-i-C to get us dead in Vietnam, but how I had some of the "Airplane Crash Survivor's Syndrome" after it all. They were so cool: young, and strong, and patriotic...totally aware once the truth was known.

Many Officers and Non-coms know what's going on. I've talked to them on the street and in their homes. The military is a dog on a leash held by the People's elect.

The Nazis are going down. The People, both in and out of the Military, will do the righteous thing once all realize the atrocity which has been committed by the perverts in power against us and the Constitution.

Death for Treason...and full expropriation and banishment of the Fifth Column.

Annuit Coeptis

So all have to realize the atrocity carried out by Bush & Co. before anyone will act? What about the officers and non-coms you mentioned? Why are they just letting it happen?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The Anti-Christ did 9/11!

[twinstead]

Why is it whenever I read iAmericans post all I can envision is seeing these again in an investigation of a mall shooting. You know "we should have seen the signs".

I hear you.

Rabidly paranoid irrational ideologues ROCK!

[JimBenArm]

>snip<

Many Officers and Non-coms know what's going on. I've talked to them on the street and in their homes. The military is a dog on a leash held by the People's elect.

The Nazis are going down. The People, both in and out of the Military, will do the righteous thing once all realize the atrocity which has been committed by the perverts in power against us and the Constitution.

Death for Treason...and full expropriation and banishment of the Fifth Column.

Annuit Coeptis
Hey, talk to me. I'm ex-Navy, Chief Petty Officer. I think you and yours are full of beans myself, and it really freaks me out to see veterans like you who are willing to crap on the Constitution because it gets in your way. You and those like you are the real threat to the US, and I would stand against you and yours with every breath I possess. I actually believe in the Constitution, not the cardboard cutout you've made for yourself.
Wanna hang me from lightposts because I disagree with you? That's Constitutional? Have a political disagreement, so you want to kill your opponents? How is that in accordance with my Constitution? You are nothing but a poser and a wanna-be. I have severe doubts you ever served in any branch of any armed service, let alone got an honorable discharge. No service member I have ever known would wipe their butt with the Constitution they had sworn to protect and defend like you do. If you really are a veteran, you need to take a long, long look in the mirror and see what kind of fascist jerk you've become.

[twinstead]

Wanna hang me from lightposts because I disagree with you? That's Constitutional? Have a political disagreement, so you want to kill your opponents? How is that in accordance with my Constitution? You are nothing but a poser and a wanna-be. I have severe doubts you ever served in any branch of any armed service, let alone got an honorable discharge. No service member I have ever known would wipe their butt with the Constitution they had sworn to protect and defend like you do. If you really are a veteran, you need to take a long, long look in the mirror and see what kind of fascist jerk you've become.

It's true that many extremists become the very thing they hate.

[Tweeter]

So all have to realize the atrocity carried out by Bush & Co. before anyone will act? What about the officers and non-coms you mentioned? Why are they just letting it happen?


They are speaking out. I suppose you want them to carry signs and rush the Whitehouse.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_080112_twenty_five_u_s__mil.htm

[Redtail]

They are speaking out. I suppose you want them to carry signs and rush the Whitehouse.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_080112_twenty_five_u_s__mil.htm

1. Not rush the White house no, but protesting and marching to the White House to demand justice if they believe the government was involved in the murder of 3,000 of it's own citizens? Um... Yeah. Or is it better to just post on the internet?

2. 25 out of how many former officers in the US?

3. I notice none of them have been killed.

[BenBurch]

You know the more I read posters like the above one, the more I am glad I don't live in the US.

I'm seriously considering an exit.

[JimBenArm]

I'm seriously considering an exit.
Oh no you're not! You're not going to leave me alone here with them!

[PhantomWolf]

Well a semi-secret, I'm actually going to be in the US for 6 months as of July, assuming they will let me back in. Since I'm doing it to be with my gf I sort of hope it goes by slowly, but the rest of me wants it to fly by so I can get back out of the place again. I hope I manage survive the experience and get back here sane.

[Hokulele]

Oh no you're not! You're not going to leave me alone here with them!


I am almost afraid to ask iA what he thinks of women serving in the armed forces.

[Gravy]

Well a semi-secret, I'm actually going to be in the US for 6 months as of July, assuming they will let me back in.I believe all Kiwis are eligible for the 6-month U.S. Sheeplevisa.

Since I'm doing it to be with my gf I sort of hope it goes by slowly, but the rest of me wants it to fly by so I can get back out of the place again. I hope I manage survive the experience and get back here sane.Do I recall that she's somewhere in the center of the U.S., or am I thinking of someone else? If so, people are generally nice there, and only occasionally will remind you that you're going to be left behind screaming for eternity in a pool of molten steel when the Rapture comes.

[gumboot]

Better yet, as Sovereign Citizens let's require our servants in government to cough up the Virginia DOT "Traffic cam" tape on Shirley Highway which had always included in its "view" the Pentagon and "missile" approach path;


Even assuming for a moment that the traffic camera is recorded (which Russel Pickering confirmed it was not), why would they point a traffic camera at the Pentagon or randomly into the sky, instead of say, pointing it at traffic?

(By the way, considering that the Pentagon and the "missile's" approach paths are on opposite sides of the highway, it's fairly much impossible for both to be in the camera's view, regardless of where it is point.)

There's still a hole in your bucket.

[PhantomWolf]

I believe all Kiwis are eligible for the 6-month U.S. Sheeplevisa.

Eligible yes, but have to undergo a 20 minute interview and since I'm male and between 16 and 45, give them an entire life history.

Do I recall that she's somewhere in the center of the U.S., or am I thinking of someone else? If so, people are generally nice there, and only occasionally will remind you that you're going to be left behind screaming for eternity in a pool of molten steel when the Rapture comes.

Omaha, and I doubt I need to worry too much about that sort of thing, I'll just point out exactly why their understanding of the Bible is wrong and why on the rapture comes I'll be waving to them as I leave them behind. ;)

[PhantomWolf]

There's still a hole in your bucket.

Again, not the thing I was thinking, but I like my unbanned status so there I'll leave it.

[BenBurch]

Oh no you're not! You're not going to leave me alone here with them!

Jim, the stupid! It HURTS.

[Gazpacho]

Yo iAmerican, you need to say "false flag op" more often or you'll lose your street cred.

[Swing Dangler]

Ignore the wheels in my model. I believe the wheels were up at the real impact. These are just for general reference. I could be feet off alignment.

We have gotten to the bottom of it. You haven't. Start with Gravy's site if you truly want answers.

Actually, you should ignore a tour guides site and start with the government's official reports. When you see the discrepancies and problems then start to look elsewhere.

[Sabrina]

And your employment or contract, or family's, would be affected how if you actually acknowledged how patently obvious it is that Bush and Cheney committed treason on 9-11 to send us to die in false war?

Anti-Christ is soon to be cast into the Pit by the Electorate. Better hedge your bets, all.

For the best hope I have that faction will be lining the highway from lamposts...and their pelf will pay off the National Debt.

1) This does abso-frickin'-lutely nothing to address my post as regards the footage that has or has not been released, but I've come to expect that from this particular poster. How about you address my points from that post, hmmm?

2) I have served as well. I still am. And if I thought for one second there was even a single SHRED of evidence that the government perpetrated 9/11 I'd be requesting a resignation of my commission on the spot. I'm still serving, because I have seen NONE. ZERO. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. How many more ways can I say this?

3) My employment doesn't hinge on my continuing to blindly accept any actions the government employs, considering I work for a PRIVATE company. I may hold a high security clearance and be in the reserves, but that doesn't prevent me from speaking out if I think there is wrongdoing. In fact, I have an obligation to do so, as I recall. Part of the oath I took is to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Correct me if I'm wrong here, but domestic generally means enemies within the United States, whether they're citizens or not, in the government or not. But back to your point, neither me nor my family have ever been threatened with a loss of anything should I speak out about something, either overtly or subtly so, therefore your point is utterly meaningless. In short, why don't you try actually addressing my points next time, instead of spouting utter drivel that would seem to demonstrate mental instability on your part. And no, that was not intended as an insult; it is simply how I interpret the majority of your posts, so please, restore my faith in humanity and prove me wrong by actually addressing the points in posts directed at you instead of going off on meaningless tangents. I'm begging you.

[iAmerican]

...

Your footer proves you have, within you, the answers. Breaking from orthodoxy and convention...from The Establishment, whether you grew up in it or learned to be part of it, is a terrible thing. Painful, disruptive, confusing, and in many ways isolating. Be at peace with yourself, many have walked the same path. It is a lonesome highway when one has the "blood" push you to be a complete person, reconciled with The Universe, alone: the pioneer spirit from which America was born. If you make the journey you can stand with The Founders and share their struggle. In the span of all time it was only the Whig Party, as a movement, able to make the break to create A Nation based on secular principles, yet with access to reasoned Divine Providence. How many Americans, including those sworn on their lives to protect The Constitution, know the meaning of "Whig?"

Why should not that have been a threat to the Old Sectarian Order's "thousands upon thousands of years of despotism"? Has human nature changed or the specific gravity which makes the fines in a gold pan separate the way it does?

Look at Barack Obama's grace and poise. Look at his manner with his wife and family. Now look at Bush's and Cheney's lives, family's, and associations. As an officer, have you never wondered that both Cheney and Bush dodged the draft during Vietnam though 9.2 million served honorably during the period? Do you think each of them is somehow "different" from "regular" people...in a "good" way?

Are you untroubled, or simply in denial, that a $200/hr homosexual prostitute came to Bush's private residence 202 times in a two year period? Is it "sophistication" that doesn't question, or depravity? Does the fact that his father obviously had a role in the assassination of John Kennedy, sending 58,000 of us to die after the Gulf of Tonkin Hoax, for the five percent ruling Roman Catholic false-elite not raise questions in your mind...or are you Roman Catholic and think it unremarkable? Does his grandfather's finance of his senate campaign from the proceeds of his holdings at Auschwitz fail to raise any questions? Does Bush's great-grandfather's proximity to Jack Rockefeller when Standard Oil was built on unredressed murder and arson in 1870's Cleveland...? Does W's insistence that six U.S. ports be given to Dubai, the transhipment point for all the heroin now flowing out of Afghanistan, not seem curious, particularly that before Bush invaded opium poppy cultivation had been nearly extinguished under the Taliban?

Whatever your catch-up speed, if you want to get the Big Answers right, the truth is out there and the vast majority of the People already know it.

Bush and Cheney did 9-11. Sociologists, and anthropologists, study "Elite Theory." Help yourself. Just because the truth is known by The People does not mean the "problem (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3344460&postcount=65)" is solved, but by Grace I know it soon will be.

You think the numerous honorable commissioned officers, highly decorated and of established reputation, who have already gone public concerning questions about this administration's conduct are immaterial?

Duty, Honor, Country

[Sabrina]

yapping about stuff that had nothing to do with my post

Welcome to ignore; you're clearly beyond help and I wash my hands of you.