2521 replies to this topic

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Scott G, on 12 September 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

Why do some people insist that truthers have to reinvent the wheel every time? It just gets tedious. If you don't care what seasoned pilots have to say on the matter, I doubt you'll be interested in hearing what I have to say on it. Someone in this very forum actually just put up a good explanation. If you can't even read what someone else put up in this very forum, I think you're just not interested in learning about views that don't support what you already believe. Here's the link:
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4052122

So what are your theories? Not other people's, not pilots, yours.
it's this insistence that "only we know the Truth" and that anyone who doesn't is just to lazy to find out for themselves what's so self-evident that so many people who call themselves "Truthers" seem to have that tends to put people's backs up.

[Scott G]

747400, on 12 September 2011 - 06:31 PM, said:

So what are your theories? Not other people's, not pilots, yours.

I've already stated my belief: that there's no way that a 757 could have crashed into the pentagon. As to why, my reasoning for this is the same as the reasoning that Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT have used. I've submitted links to their sites and even a link to someone in this very forum who's put up information that they have given out. If you've missed out on the links, I'll be happy to direct you to them.

747400, on 12 September 2011 - 06:31 PM, said:

it's this insistence that "only we know the Truth" and that anyone who doesn't is just too lazy to find out for themselves what's so self-evident that so many people who call themselves "Truthers" seem to have that tends to put people's backs up.

I agree with you to some extent; I myself was temporarily suspended from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, ostensibly because I lied. I hadn't lied, I'd just made the mistake that posts were deleted, when in fact a post was only partially deleted. And I was banned from CIT, without ever really being told why. This being said, there -is- something to be said for taking the time to look at information that someone you disagree with has provided you. Not doing so exemplifies the very same elitist attitude that you're attributing to truthers, with the difference that you won't even look at the arguments against your position.

[Tesla II]

If you ask me, a modified predator drone hit the pentagon, there was 1 security footage and there is no Big plane there, its something small like missile or drone. And someone before stated there is really no big damage to anything... Everything was a global show which ran for 9-10 years... Then people started to ask questions on which US gov. replied with lies. So yes US gov. is spreading lies,its covering up alot of information,invading foreign lands,... And ask any non-american who is responsible for that tragedy, you will get very non-islamic answer... So until i see my proof of dead Bin Laden ( Which hardly exists ), or i get answer to " How can a person who can bearly speak english, fly a US airplane? ". So belive your gov. or belive facts..which were never answered...

[frenat]

Scott G, on 12 September 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

Why do some people insist that truthers have to reinvent the wheel every time? It just gets tedious. If you don't care what seasoned pilots have to say on the matter, I doubt you'll be interested in hearing what I have to say on it. Someone in this very forum actually just put up a good explanation. If you can't even read what someone else put up in this very forum, I think you're just not interested in learning about views that don't support what you already believe. Here's the link:
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4052122

So in other words you can't expain it in your own words?  Linking to a post by Ove lowers your credibility quite a bit and it still didn't answer why it would be impossible for the plane to fly where it did.  He posted about witness recollections of the flight path, not any supposed impossibility of flight.

Those seasoned pilots have gotten a lot wrong in the past.  I've talked to others that say they're full of it.  Please explain it in your own words and try not to assume what I'm interested in or not.

Edited by frenat, 12 September 2011 - 07:14 PM.

[Scott G]

Nuke_em, on 12 September 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:

If you ask me, a modified predator drone hit the pentagon, there was 1 security footage and there is no Big plane there, its something small like missile or drone.

Recently, I've been thinking that this may well have been the case. I lean more towards drone because the speed of the aircraft wasn't that fast according to a witness with significant expertise on the subject of aircraft speeds.

Nuke_em, on 12 September 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:

And someone before stated there is really no big damage to anything... Everything was a global show which ran for 9-10 years... Then people started to ask questions on which US gov. replied with lies. So yes US gov. is spreading lies,its covering up alot of information,invading foreign lands,... And ask any non-american who is responsible for that tragedy, you will get very non-islamic answer.

I wouldn't go that far. While it may be that many if not all U.S. countries believe the official story less than americans do, there is still a sizeable portion who do.

Nuke_em, on 12 September 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:

So until i see my proof of dead Bin Laden ( Which hardly exists ),

I think he is dead; the question is when he was killed. There were reports that he died ages ago, and I'm more inclined to believe that, based in part on the fact that he was dying -before- 9/11; a CIA agent boasted of meeting him in a hospital in Egypt.

Nuke_em, on 12 September 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:

or i get answer to " How can a person who can bearly speak english, fly a US airplane? ".

If the only issue was the alleged pilots' mastery of the english language, that'd be one thing. However, the fact of the matter is that, one suspect pilot license notwithstanding, there is no evidence that any of them could fly a Cesna, let alone a 757.

Nuke_em, on 12 September 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:

So belive your gov. or believe facts..which were never answered...

It's certainly true that there are many things that remain unexplained even to veteran researchers concerning 9/11.

[Scott G]

Transferred from this thread...

MID, on 14 September 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

"Pilots for 9-11 Truth?"
Cut  me (a pilot with engineering background) a break.  What sort of clowns  are going to state that the maneuvers of AA77 in the vicinity of the  Pentagon were dangerous and too difficult, when they weren't either and  aren't the mark of anyone highly skilled?

You say you're a pilot with engineering background. I don't have any evidence of this, but I don't have any evidence against it either, so I'll let you off on that one. But your disparagement of known pilots discredits you. Why don't you take a look at some of their -work- before insulting them? Here's a show that the Jesse Ventura Conspiracy theory aired:

[Silverbane81]

Yea it seems to me that people are so quick to accept the 9/11 commission report, accept what the government tells them, but when things start to turn up, people come forward, documents are found, they laugh at you, say your a nutcase and are unpatriotic! Well in terms of the pentagon, there was no, I repeat, NO PLANE that hit the pentagon on 9/11. A witness who worked in the pentagon can back that up. This person remembered hearing an explosion and when she came to, was escorted out of the building. she past right by the giant HOLE and stated, there was no evidence of a plane, she thought a bomb went off!! she was then questioned and then TOLD a plane hit the pentagon. this person was also on jesse ventura's show. Call Jesse a loon all u want, but he gets some good hard evidence on his shows. People refuse to come forward due to being scared or "silenced". just like this whole deal with the towers falling due to fire alone. There were witnesses whom seconds before the plane(s) struck, heard explosions on the bottom floors! they were detained outside and questioned behind closed doors. people really need to wake up and grow a brain!!!! The government has successfully completed false flag operations before, and will continue to do so!

Edited by Silverbane81, 14 September 2011 - 11:07 PM.

[Scott G]

Silverbane81, on 14 September 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

Yea it seems to me that people are so quick to accept the 9/11 commission report, accept what the government tells them, but when things start to turn up, people come forward, documents are found, they laugh at you, say your a nutcase and are unpatriotic! Well in terms of the pentagon, there was no, I repeat, NO PLANE that hit the pentagon on 9/11. A witness who worked in the pentagon can back that up. This person remembered hearing an explosion and when she came to, was escorted out of the building. she past right by the giant HOLE and stated, there was no evidence of a plane, she thought a bomb went off!! she was then questioned and then TOLD a plane hit the pentagon. this person was also on jesse ventura's show. Call Jesse a loon all u want, but he gets some good hard evidence on his shows. People refuse to come forward due to being scared or "silenced". just like this whole deal with the towers falling due to fire alone. There were witnesses whom seconds before the plane(s) struck, heard explosions on the bottom floors! they were detained outside and questioned behind closed doors. people really need to wake up and grow a brain!!!! The government has successfully completed false flag operations before, and will continue to do so!

I agree with you for the most part Silver. The only thing I take exception with is the idea that some people haven't 'grown a brain', laugh :-p. I know several people who still believe the official story. I think that, for the most part, the reason for this is that they just aren't interested in looking at evidence that contradicts their beliefs. I think they simply feel that it's a waste of time since they believe they already know what happened. It's sad, but I feel there's simply not much you can do in these cases. I can get along with them in other aspects, but we simply can't talk about 9/11.

[mrbusdriver]

Scott G, what sort of warhead was fitted to this drone...one which created a huge fuel-fed fireball, while also punching through several rings of the Pentagon, and all the contents as well?
And what of the witness accounts of a jetliner?

[Scott G]

mrbusdriver, on 15 September 2011 - 01:31 AM, said:

Scott G, what sort of warhead was fitted to this drone...one which created a huge fuel-fed fireball, while also punching through several rings of the Pentagon, and all the contents as well?

First of all, I never said I knew that a warhead pierced the pentagon. While it's been brought up as a possibility in various places, I remain of the mind that the damage may have been entirely caused by explosives. What evidence do you have that the fireball was jet fuel fed? There may have been other fuel, from the trailer near the pentagon.

mrbusdriver, on 15 September 2011 - 01:31 AM, said:

And what of the witness accounts of a jetliner?

CIT has done an extensive accounting of the aircraft witness accounts. You may want to see some of their documentaries on the subject:
http://thepentacon.com/videoshorts.htm

Of particular note would be this one:
http://thepentacon.c...sideflyover.htm

Edited by Scott G, 15 September 2011 - 06:19 AM.

[Scott G]

Transferred from this thread...

psychoticmike, on 15 September 2011 - 03:39 AM, said:

no i  know that, but with all the cameras in the area i still don't see how  there can't be at least some decent footage, and i saw the tail in the  video q posted but other then that i did not see an outline of a plane.  I'm not saying there wasn't one its just fishy that there isn't a real  clear indication that thats whats in the footage. Does anyone know just  how much footage has been released, and from how many cameras?

Just the one, 5 frame video. I found this analysis on youtube regarding the 5 frame video; I found it to be thought provoking:


Also, if you take a look at the following tv show:


You'll  note that they mention there were 85 video cameras at the pentagon. So  why won't they release the other 84 video feeds? I assure you that many  had a much better view of what happened then the parking lot video  camera (I wouldn't be surprised if that feed was the worst of them).  I've also seen evidence that the 5 frame video was edited; if I find the  video that shows this, I'll let you know.

[Q24]

Scott G, on 15 September 2011 - 06:18 AM, said:

CIT has done an extensive accounting of the aircraft witness accounts. You may want to see some of their documentaries on the subject:
http://thepentacon.com/videoshorts.htm

Of particular note would be this one:
http://thepentacon.c...sideflyover.htm

Utter rubbish - sorry but this drives me up the wall.

The link is a pick and choose exercise of which eyewitnesses to present.

Eyewitnesses to the official flight path and/or impact outnumber those who say otherwise by approximately 3:1 by my last count.

This divide in opinion is unremarkable when dealing with eyewitness testimony.

Why anyone would choose to base a whole theory around the smaller eyewitness sample whilst writing-off the larger group and a huge volume of physical evidence is beyond me.

You really let yourself down with this Scott - you are spreading false information.

How is it you are sensible in other areas but when it comes to the Pentagon you lose the plot?

[Scott G]

Q24, on 15 September 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:

Utter rubbish - sorry but this drives me up the wall.

I can understand why to some extent. I think you can be a bit arrogant sometimes Q, but I still think that various members at Pilots for 9/11 Truth treated you too harshly. As you know, it was because I was upset with the deletion of some of your material that I was temporarily suspended for a while there. I was mistaken with the quantity of deleted material (I thought it encompassed more then one post, when in fact it was only part of one post) and that's apparently what got me my 3 month suspension.

Q24, on 15 September 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:

The link is a pick and choose exercise of which eyewitnesses to present.

We've gone over all of this in great detail in the past Q, and I will have to reiterate that I disagree with this position of yours. But again, if you feel that there was an eyewitness that CIT hasn't covered, by all means bring them up.

Q24, on 15 September 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:

Eyewitnesses to the official flight path and/or impact outnumber those who say otherwise by approximately 3:1 by my last count.

Please present a single eyewitness who could see the Citgo gas station declare that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station. Just 1, thanks.  For those who aren't aware, the official flight path requires that the plane fly south of the Citgo gas station. As to witnesses who believe that the plane impacted the building, as I believe I've mentioned before and was mentioned in Jesse Ventura's conspiracy theory video, the plane could have easily been lost to view due to the explosion that was timed to go off at the time it arrived at the pentagon. Not only that, but there's no way a 757 could have pulled out of its dive to crash within 2 feet of the ground on a level approach. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has done the calculations to prove it.

Q24, on 15 September 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:

How is it you are sensible in other areas but when it comes to the Pentagon you lose the plot?

I think it would be fairer if I asked you the same question, but I have a feeling I already know the answer. All I ask is that you don't let your emotional response to members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth cloud your reasoning and perhaps we'll come to agree on this in time.

Edited by Scott G, 15 September 2011 - 07:16 AM.

[Q24]

Scott G, on 15 September 2011 - 06:32 AM, said:

psychoticmike, on 15 September 2011 - 03:39 AM, said:

no i know that, but with all the cameras in the area i still don't see how there can't be at least some decent footage, and i saw the tail in the video q posted but other then that i did not see an outline of a plane. I'm not saying there wasn't one its just fishy that there isn't a real clear indication that thats whats in the footage. Does anyone know just how much footage has been released, and from how many cameras?

Just the one, 5 frame video. I found this analysis on youtube regarding the 5 frame video; I found it to be thought provoking:

Incorrect.

Footage from two separate Pentagon security cameras has been released (much more than five frames).

Footage from the Citgo gas station has been released.

Footage from the Doubletree Hotel has been released.

It has been available for five years!

Where have you been Scott?

Scott G, on 15 September 2011 - 07:08 AM, said:

Please present a single eyewitness who could see the Citgo gas station declare that the plane flew south of the Citgo gas station. Just 1, thanks.

I’m not going into a thing with you until you use your own brain and accept the flight path that Madelyn Zakhem describes from our past discussion: -

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3071491

[psychoticmike]

Scott G, on 15 September 2011 - 06:32 AM, said:

Transferred from this thread...



Just the one, 5 frame video. I found this analysis on youtube regarding the 5 frame video; I found it to be thought provoking:


Also, if you take a look at the following tv show:


You'll  note that they mention there were 85 video cameras at the pentagon. So  why won't they release the other 84 video feeds? I assure you that many  had a much better view of what happened then the parking lot video  camera (I wouldn't be surprised if that feed was the worst of them).  I've also seen evidence that the 5 frame video was edited; if I find the  video that shows this, I'll let you know.

yep, thats what i was thinking. It just does not add up and makes no sense as to why they would not release any of the others. I highly doubt that a few outside cameras would threaten the pentagons security and what about the nearby stores? why could they not release they're footage? if they have nothing to hide and there was a plane that went into the pentagon or it was the plane they say it was then they could release the footage to put the "conspiracies" to rest and if there was anything in the video that would jeopardize they're security i'm sure they could blur it out. Or was the other footage just too graphic for grown adults to see?   yeah, not believing these liars. I know for a fact the gov has lied about many things and continues to lie, so when the evidence points to them lying i'm gonna have to assume that until they can prove me wrong, or show evidence that does so. Thanks for the videos.