2521 replies to this topic

[Scott G]

Topic transferred from this thread

Q24, on 10 September 2011 - 10:52 PM, said:

The  white object you mention is smoke from one of the engines/wings, likely  due to impacting the light poles on approach and/or a generator in  front of the Pentagon.  If you look to the area left of the smoke in  that frame, the plane tail can be seen to appear above the tree line  along with the fuselage lower down.



It really is terrible quality footage but the outline of a plane is there.

I like to think if the footage were faked they would have made the plane clearer.

After  reading descriptions of the 85 videotapes in FBI possession, it seems  they would not show the flight path or impact.  Unfortunately the  Pentagon rooftop cameras and VDOT highway cameras (which may have  captured something) are not included in the list.

I think the  question is not whether a plane did or did not impact the Pentagon, but  rather the identity of that aircraft which has never been proven.

Well,  you may be surprised to learn that recently I've had some thoughts as  to whether a small craft may have hit, or atleast exploded in front of,  the pentagon. What I feel very strongly about is that there's no way  that a 757 could have left so little debris there if it had crashed  there, but as you say, there is no hard evidence that a 757, let alone  Flight 77, actually made it to the pentagon at all. For others here, you  may be interested to know that me and Q24 have discussed this for quite  some time in the past, in another thread in this forum, which can be  found here:
http://www.unexplain...pic=157724&st=0

Edited by aquatus1, 05 October 2011 - 12:26 PM.

[Mario Lemieux]

You're wrong. The end.

[mrbusdriver]

Scott G, on 11 September 2011 - 02:17 AM, said:

Topic transferred from this thread



Well,  you may be surprised to learn that recently I've had some thoughts as  to whether a small craft may have hit, or atleast exploded in front of,  the pentagon. What I feel very strongly about is that there's no way  that a 757 could have left so little debris there if it had crashed  there, but as you say, there is no hard evidence that a 757, let alone  Flight 77, actually made it to the pentagon at all. For others here, you  may be interested to know that me and Q24 have discussed this for quite  some time in the past, in another thread in this forum, which can be  found here:
http://www.unexplain...pic=157724&st=0

What about the debris? Rolls Royce engine parts, 757 wheels, sheets of aircraft skin with the AAL colors? There is plenty of photographic evidence of 757 debris at the site.

[Stundie]

What amazes me the most about this, is that they manage to hit the pentagon directly at 500mph flying a couple of feet off the ground without them hitting lawn before hand.

[frenat]

Stundie, on 11 September 2011 - 11:11 PM, said:

What amazes me the most about this, is that they manage to hit the pentagon directly at 500mph flying a couple of feet off the ground without them hitting lawn before hand.

That is assuming of course that is exactly what the intention was.

[Scott G]

mrbusdriver, on 11 September 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

What about the debris? Rolls Royce engine parts, 757 wheels, sheets of aircraft skin with the AAL colors? There is plenty of photographic evidence of 757 debris at the site.

I've seen an engine that was allegedly found at the scene. It wasn't a Rolls Royce engine, according to certified pilots over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth. But if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.

Transferred from the Architects and Engineers thread...

Rafterman, on 12 September 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

You do realize those are controlled tests in laboratory conditions using highly specialized equipment.

Not  really the type of video gear you'd have up to cover a parking  lot.  Also remember that this was before widespread use of high  definition cameras - most video surveillance cameras aren't even high  definition now.

There were a lot of video feeds that  were confiscated. Take a look at this video to hear of a few video camera feeds that were taken away from the public eye:
http://www.dailymoti...rike_shortfilms

The pentagon itself certainly had more then the video  feed of the parking lot. I've seen pictures of the video cameras that  the pentagon had on its outside walls at the time, but they've never  been mentioned. Within minutes, the FBI confiscated many others. To this  day, they refuse to part with some of them; the ones they have finally  given back don't show a plane; One thing I wonder is if some of the ones  that show nothing -should- show something if the plane actually took  the official path. In any case, I've seen enough evidence that there's no doubt in my mind that a 757 couldn't have hit the pentagon.

Edited by Scott G, 12 September 2011 - 12:17 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Scott G, on 12 September 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

I've seen an engine that was allegedly found at the scene. It wasn't a Rolls Royce engine, according to certified pilots over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth. But if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.

I think that was [according to the official explanation] the APU.

[Scott G]

frenat, on 11 September 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:

That is assuming of course that is exactly what the intention was.

Whether it was the intention or not, the fact remains that it was impossible for a 757 to have accomplished it. Pilots for 9/11 Truth go into a lot of detail as to why. But even assuming that it somehow -did- happen; there's a short video included below explains 2 things that certainly weren't reported. They state that top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground, according to ASCE. Also, according to the official story, the Boeing as flying at 530 MPH, 2 feet above the ground, immediately after clearing the I-395. Just one problem; there were no reports of jet blast or wake turbulence.

The video in question:
http://www.dailymoti...ed/video/x19ta5

Edited by Scott G, 12 September 2011 - 12:33 PM.

[Scott G]

747400, on 12 September 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

I think that was [according to the official explanation] the APU.

That's not what I've heard, but if you have evidence that this was the claim, it would be appreciated if you could present this as well. My understanding is that no Rolls Royce engines were found, and even the one that was allegedly found may not have actually been found there; the thing about pictures is they don't actually have to be taken at the scene; and the picture I saw of it doesn't really show much background.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Scott G, on 12 September 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

That's not what I've heard, but if you have evidence that this was the claim, it would be appreciated if you could present this as well. My understanding is that no Rolls Royce engines were found, and even the one that was allegedly found may not have actually been found there; the thing about pictures is they don't actually have to be taken at the scene; and the picture I saw of it doesn't really show much background.

That's always the thing, isn't it. So no evidence will ever satisfy, on that basis, will it, if the thing about pictures is they don't actually have to be taken at the scene.

[Scott G]

747400, on 12 September 2011 - 12:35 PM, said:

That's always the thing, isn't it. So no evidence will ever satisfy, on that basis, will it, if the thing about pictures is they don't actually have to be taken at the scene.

The issue of where the picture was taken is only one of the many issues. There is also, as I've stated, the issue of what part it was claimed to have been; I saw it was claimed to have been an engine, not an APU. And it certainly wasn't any Rolls Royce engine an expert was aware of; certainly not one from a 757.

And this, as the saying goes, is just the tip of the iceberg. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has dedicated a considerable amount of time to exposing the evidence against the official story regarding the pentagon attack. Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT for short, have dedicated themselves solely to this endeavour. But if seeing the many excellent documentaries they've done on the subject is too much for you, atleast familiarize yourself with the arguments contained within this 5 1/2 minute video:
http://www.dailymoti...ed/video/x19ta5

Edited by Scott G, 12 September 2011 - 01:31 PM.

[frenat]

Scott G, on 12 September 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

Whether it was the intention or not, the fact remains that it was impossible for a 757 to have accomplished it. Pilots for 9/11 Truth go into a lot of detail as to why.

No it is not.  I don't care what they have to say.  Can YOU explain why in your own words?

[Lilly]

Let's not resort to using ad hom remarks in this discussion. Please stick to the factual information and how it does or does not support various claims.

[Scott G]

Lilly, on 12 September 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:

Let's not resort to using ad hom remarks in this discussion. Please stick to the factual information and how it does or does not support various claims.

Thanks :-)

[Scott G]

frenat, on 12 September 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:

Scott G, on 12 September 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

Whether  it was the intention or not, the fact remains that it was impossible for  a 757 to have accomplished it. Pilots for 9/11 Truth go into a lot of  detail as to why. But even assuming that it somehow -did- happen;  there's a short video included below explains 2 things that certainly  weren't reported. They state that top of the fuselage of the aircraft  was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground, according to  ASCE. Also, according to the official story, the Boeing as flying at 530  MPH, 2 feet above the ground, immediately after clearing the I-395.  Just one problem; there were no reports of jet blast or wake turbulence.

The video in question:
http://www.dailymoti...ed/video/x19ta5

No it is not.  I don't care what they have to say.  Can YOU explain why in your own words?

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

Edited by Scott G, 12 September 2011 - 06:23 PM.