1810 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

Stundie, on 18 December 2011 - 11:15 PM, said:

Not to be to pedantic, but the videos do not show a plane. It shows something hitting the pentagon, but what it is isn't that clear.

The questions which would end the conspiracy is the other 80 odd videos the FBI hold which have never been released. There is no reason for them to be held, if they don't show anything as in the plane hitting the building, then release them, they don't contain evidence but if they do show a plane hitting the building, then it would pretty much be a done deal for the offical story.

Unless releasing the FBI believe that by releasing the footage, it would embolden the terrorists. lol

I certainly hope not that is not a reason.

Cheers

Stundie

There aren't "80 odd videos" being held by the FBI.  I realize that this is a commonly held misconception, but the fact of the matter is that it is indeed a misconception.  Take a look.

While you're there, also take a look at this, which I should have linked for Nuke_em a couple of days ago.

There doesn't appear to be anything sinister regarding the lack of clear video at the Pentagon.  We'd need blind luck to have really good video of the event.  How many good videos do we have of Flight 11 hitting the WTC?  There is only one that I'm aware of off the top of my head; and it was captured by blind luck.  How many of Flight 93?  Sure, we have plenty of Flight 175, but the only reason we have several videos of Flight 175 is because so many people were recording the damage from Flight 11.

Regardless, an aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon.  The evidence for this is overwhelming.  Was it Flight 77?  In my opinion, yes.  I haven't seen any plausible reason to doubt that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Cheers.

[Obviousman]

Well said Boony.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 19 December 2011 - 03:16 AM, said:

There doesn't appear to be anything sinister regarding the lack of clear video at the Pentagon.  We'd need blind luck to have really good video of the event.  How many good videos do we have of Flight 11 hitting the WTC?  There is only one that I'm aware of off the top of my head; and it was captured by blind luck.  How many of Flight 93?  Sure, we have plenty of Flight 175, but the only reason we have several videos of Flight 175 is because so many people were recording the damage from Flight 11.

Although I’d like it to be, the above is really not a great argument…

Is it fair to compare crashes nearly a quarter of a mile above ground level (Flight 11) or in a sparsely populated area (Flight 93) with a crash in the densely populated and heavily surveyed area of the Pentagon (Flight 77)?

Take for example the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) cameras which monitor highways around the Pentagon...

http://www.trafficla...WAS/camera/740/

These should have captured the plane approach, perhaps even those light pole hits and final impact.

Edit:  It was still dark in Washington at the time I posted the above link so I couldn’t make out exactly where the camera was pointed.  Now it’s light we can see the camera is pointed precisely where the aircraft flew and the impact site.

Larry Nelson, president of TrafficLand, has said: -

“We had originally planned to launch on Monday 10 September, but had elected to delay a few days for final set-up and adjustments.  When one of the hijacked planes hit the Pentagon on the morning of 11 September, we could immediately see the smoke rising on one of our cameras.

We subsequently found that we had the only Internet-visible camera which could see the Pentagon from the right side, and the State authorities asked us if we could press the Trafficland site into use straight away, in order to help deal with the traffic build-up.  Within minutes we put the system on-line, and gave the site URL to the local radio station.

They then used our site map, which showed 64 cameras covering all of the main roads on the western side of Washington, to help guide drivers away from the crisis zone.”

http://www.itsintern...m?recordID=1064

FOIA requests for the VDOT footage have been unresponsive (and not included in the FBI ‘85 videos’ list).

The counter-arguments would be: -

• The full article above explains how TrafficLand were preparing to go-live.  Were the cameras actually switched on at time of the attack?  I would suggest they were switched on during the testing period [“final set-up and adjustments”] before go-live of the website.
  
  
• Even if the cameras were switched on, were they actually recording?  After all, the website is intended to provide live updates of the traffic.  Again though I would suggest the cameras were recording as I’ve previously seen this type of highway footage played back.

Then there are the Pentagon rooftop cameras…



Again, where is the footage?

Why is it not included in the ‘85 videos’ list?

I think it legitimate that people question why no better footage is available.

booNyzarC, on 19 December 2011 - 03:16 AM, said:

Regardless, an aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon.  The evidence for this is overwhelming.

I completely agree the evidence of an aircraft impact is overwhelming…

booNyzarC, on 19 December 2011 - 03:16 AM, said:

Was it Flight 77?  In my opinion, yes.  I haven't seen any plausible reason to doubt that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

… but here you make a leap of faith leaving us open to a deception.  There are many who are not content to take this risk, rightly so judging by history.  The FBI or NTSB should have identified the aircraft by serial number - even just one part.  If done in the right way that would have been enough for me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyhow, where’s Scott G disappeared to?  He claimed to be unaware of a large group of eyewitnesses who support the official flight path and impact… I set out to present them… and he’s done a runner after the first one.  I don’t think flyover theorists like these kind of eyewitnesses  

Edited by Q24, 19 December 2011 - 12:55 PM.

[Tesla II]

booNyzarC, on 17 December 2011 - 05:48 AM, said:

What is more hilarious, the fact that you seem to think that I've shown photos of the aircraft that flew into the Pentagon or the fact that I've actually shown stills from a video which shows the aircraft that flew into the Pentagon and that has been available for a number of years?

What is more hilarious, the fact that you continue to voice your jaded opinions about anything and everything that you perceive to be from the U.S. government or the fact that with every post you prove on an ever deepening level that you haven't got the slightest clue about virtually anything?

So tell me Duke, do you think that the stills I posted were faked?  If so, what makes you think that they were?

Let's not stop there.  What about the videos which show planes impacting the World Trade Center?  Are those fake as well?  Please do elucidate.

Ha for once it wasn't the goverment but military, goverments change, military stays so do their secrets. And get it into you head everyone else can obviously that Pentagon is diffrent there were no AIRLINERS HITTING IT. Can you even imagine the crash site of a passenger plane hitting a building ( not like wtc ). It would level couple of wings of pentagon, do loads of damage and it would leave many many parts... Those pictures you shown don't mean zero, nada, emptiness of all... 9/11 is real because there were so many eyes upon it.. Pentagon on otherhand had couple of witness and even they don't give a REAL description or they don't even know what they saw... Until you get it, i'll keep expressing my opinion because i know and saw more proofs of what happened at pentagon than your lousy 2 pictures, and for god sake man, isn't it obvious that those are only pictures from numerous cameras around, don't you see that military is hiding those vital videos and pictures of security camers which were confiscated right after the crash. With you it's like talking to a brick wall, you are who is like a broken recored, on and on and on, me Boon am right always even when i know am wrong i am right... jesss

If they aren't hiding something why not release all the info., videos, pictures ? Answer this please...

[Scott G]

bee, on 14 December 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

If the Airliner was so low over Probst...wouldn't he have got whooshed up in the air with the turbulence?

Good point. The issue of air turbulence that low flying passenger planes make is addressed in the following video regarding the pentagon attack:
http://www.dailymoti...rike_shortfilms

The video makes a lot of other good points as well; the one point that most don't go for now is the missile theory though.

bee, on 14 December 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

Also...I just can't believe that...when America was under attack from a, then, unknown 'enemy'....that everything would just be carrying on as normal at the Defence Headquarters, a potential prime target.

I think Q might agree with you there.

bee, on 14 December 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

Probst claims he left the trailer where he was watching the two towers in New York burning away...to go off to a meeting!

Now....all over the world...myself included..people were glued to the TV watching in disbelief as the events of day unfolded...but Probst...at the US Defence Headquarters was off to a meeting. It doesn't make sense.

New York's a long way away from Washington D.C.  But I would certainly like to know what the alleged meeting was about.

bee, on 14 December 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

Something else I hadn't realised before was that traffic was at a standstill due to an 'accident'....mmmmmmmmmm

I think the alleged accident may have been to prepare for Lloyd England's taxi cab's being speared by a light pole. There was atleast one woman who was waved down by someone when she tried to go where Lloyd England's cab was soon to be 'found' by the media; instead of stopping, she got on the off ramp, which is quite possibly what the official wanted her to do anyway; clearly, if the plane didn't fly the official south flight path, no light pole would have been knocked down by a plan and there had to be no witnesses to the deception.

I've never heard of any crash during the time, but Lloyd England's story was in the news. Lloyde England's story is integral to the official 9/11 story; one of the lamp posts allegedly knocked down by Flight 77 allegedly speared his windshield. Not sure if you've seen CIT's video regarding Lloyd England; if not, I definitely recommend it:

Edited by Scott G, 20 December 2011 - 02:02 AM.

[Scott G]

Q24, on 14 December 2011 - 08:47 PM, said:

Sorry for the delay…

Np.. I think mine was longer, laugh :-p.

Q24, on 14 December 2011 - 08:47 PM, said:

Scott G, on 12 December 2011 - 04:56 AM, said:

Haven't been here all day.. just saw this. My quick answer would be, because of what CIT says here regarding Probst and Mason:
http://z3.invisionfr...p?showtopic=841

To be fair, I only skimmed what CIT said. If you find anything there that you think is flawed, let me know.

As you ask… the whole thing is flawed.

Pfft! =-)

Q24, on 14 December 2011 - 08:47 PM, said:

From the idea that someone diving to the ground cannot see anything,

I didn't see oneslice make any such claim. This is what he said:
***********
On this occasion nearly a full testimony is attributed to Frank Probst  in describing word for word the alleged PRECISE damage caused by the  supposed ´impact´ of the plane. All seen within a chaotic, violent  event which Probst said had him diving for his life, and the alleged  second and a half that it took the plane to traverse the Pentagon lawn. I  assume Probst was facing away from the blast when it occurred?
He didn´t cover his head? The vortex or at least tremendous turbulence and noise didn´t disorientate or even budge him?
No he immediately turned while diving, not blinking while taking in all this detail.
***********
Source: http://z3.invisionfr...p?showtopic=841

Q24, on 14 December 2011 - 08:47 PM, said:

to the testimony of Probst supposedly contradicting Mason,

I've seen there's some debate here as to where Probst was located and that this would affect whether Mason's testimony would contradict his own. Fair enough. But the fact of the matter is that Probst's own testimony contradicts the official story's flight path:
"As he approached the heliport he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him."

Yes, you heard that right; over the Navy Annex. The official story's version posits that at no time did the pentaplane fly over the Navy Annex; on the other hand, this testimony lines up nicely with all of the NoC witnesses.

Q24, on 14 December 2011 - 08:47 PM, said:

But as I said, I'm not really out to argue the case.  I would just like to catalogue the reasons for discounting such witnesses.

So the core reasons to discount Probst would be: -

• As he was diving to the floor, he did not witness the plane skim the ground, hit the generator and impact the Pentagon as he claimed.
• The ASCE persuaded Probst this is what he saw.

I don't believe oneslice ever claimed that ASCE persuaded Probst of anything. However, you may note that they don't actually quote Probst. Why do you suppose that is? As to core pieces of evidence, I think his testimony that the plane was flying over the Navy Annex is devastating to the official story.

Q24, on 14 December 2011 - 08:47 PM, said:

This naturally leads to…

Eyewitness two: Don Mason

Again from the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Study team: -

At the time of the crash he was stopped in traffic west of the building.  The plane approached low, flying directly over him and possibly clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him, and struck three light poles between him and the building.  He saw his colleague Frank Probst directly in the plane's path, and he witnessed a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by the right wing.  The aircraft struck the building between the heliport fire station and the generator, its left wing slightly lower than its right wing.  As the plane entered the building, he recalled seeing the tail of the plane.  The fireball that erupted upon the plane's impact rose above the structure.  Mason then noticed flames coming from the windows to the left of the point of impact and observed small pieces of the facade falling to the ground.

http://fire.nist.gov.../PDF/b03017.pdf

Here we have the ASCE claim that Mason also saw the generator hit and tail of the plane disappear into the building.

He does not report seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.

The reasons for discounting Mason have already been provided in your previous link: -

• He did not witness the plane hit the generator and impact the Pentagon as he claimed.
• The ASCE persuaded Mason this is what he saw.

This is slightly different to Probst because there was no diving to the floor which may have caused Mason to miss the event.

So I must confirm – are we calling Mason a fantasist, liar, collaborator or… what?

An unknown more then anything. You notice that they didn't quote Mason either? Let's see what the ASCE report -did- say about what he saw:
"The plane approached low, flying directly over him and possibly
clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him, and
struck three light poles between him and the building. He saw his
colleague Frank Probst directly in the plane's path..."

Based on the ton of research I've done regarding all of this, I'm certain that the idea that he could have seen the pentaplane strike any light pole at all is bunk. Not only that, but if Frank Probst was where they say he was, there's no way that the pentaplane could have been flying over the Navy Annex and then gotten to his position, as PFT has demonstrated in the past. Which makes the word, "possibly" in the above quote quite interesting. I can easily imagine that someone might have told him that these things occurred and then asked him if he saw them occur. If he were to then say "possibly", the above statement could have been made. There are certainly cases where witnesses said one thing and news reports said something quite different. This is why it's so important to interview the witnesses and record what they actually say instead of getting hearsay information from questionable sources.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 19 December 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

Although I’d like it to be, the above is really not a great argument…

Is it fair to compare crashes nearly a quarter of a mile above ground level (Flight 11) or in a sparsely populated area (Flight 93) with a crash in the densely populated and heavily surveyed area of the Pentagon (Flight 77)?

That is a valid point, but I still think it would have required blind luck to get any decent footage of the crash.

Q24, on 19 December 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

Take for example the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) cameras which monitor highways around the Pentagon...

http://www.trafficla...WAS/camera/740/

These should have captured the plane approach, perhaps even those light pole hits and final impact.

Edit:  It was still dark in Washington at the time I posted the above link so I couldn’t make out exactly where the camera was pointed.  Now it’s light we can see the camera is pointed precisely where the aircraft flew and the impact site.

Larry Nelson, president of TrafficLand, has said: -

“We had originally planned to launch on Monday 10 September, but had elected to delay a few days for final set-up and adjustments.  When one of the hijacked planes hit the Pentagon on the morning of 11 September, we could immediately see the smoke rising on one of our cameras.

We subsequently found that we had the only Internet-visible camera which could see the Pentagon from the right side, and the State authorities asked us if we could press the Trafficland site into use straight away, in order to help deal with the traffic build-up.  Within minutes we put the system on-line, and gave the site URL to the local radio station.

They then used our site map, which showed 64 cameras covering all of the main roads on the western side of Washington, to help guide drivers away from the crisis zone.”

http://www.itsintern...m?recordID=1064

FOIA requests for the VDOT footage have been unresponsive (and not included in the FBI ‘85 videos’ list).

The counter-arguments would be: -

• The full article above explains how TrafficLand were preparing to go-live.  Were the cameras actually switched on at time of the attack?  I would suggest they were switched on during the testing period [“final set-up and adjustments”] before go-live of the website.
  
  
• Even if the cameras were switched on, were they actually recording?  After all, the website is intended to provide live updates of the traffic.  Again though I would suggest the cameras were recording as I’ve previously seen this type of highway footage played back.

It's pretty clear that the implementation wasn't done yet.  What makes you think they'd be recording anything from the cameras before they had completed the job?

Pretty far fetched if you ask me.

Q24, on 19 December 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

Then there are the Pentagon rooftop cameras…



Again, where is the footage?

Why is it not included in the ‘85 videos’ list?

I think it legitimate that people question why no better footage is available.

Do we know where the recording media was located?  Not to be flippant, but an aircraft did apparently crash into that building on that particular side.  Have you considered the possibility that the recording media was destroyed by the event?

Q24, on 19 December 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

I completely agree the evidence of an aircraft impact is overwhelming…

I was under that impression already, but it's always good to clarify.

Q24, on 19 December 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

… but here you make a leap of faith leaving us open to a deception.  There are many who are not content to take this risk, rightly so judging by history.  The FBI or NTSB should have identified the aircraft by serial number - even just one part.  If done in the right way that would have been enough for me.

I don't consider it a leap of faith at all; it is the established historical record.  That isn't a leap, that is merely recognizing that what we can confirm about the event points to the established historical record as being true.  To falsify such a record requires extraordinary evidence.  So far, I haven't seen any.  Therefore I have no reason to doubt the established historical record.  Show me some actual evidence which can make a dent in that record and we can talk.

As to the identification by serial number, do you honestly think that would make a difference?  Remains have been identified by DNA analysis and some people still don't accept this historical record.  How much more definitive can you get than DNA evidence?  Do you really think that a serial number on an aircraft part would make a dent in such mentality?

I don't think it would.  The often touted chestnut of "it's fake evidence!" would be used to justify the continued infatuation with a conspiracy concept.  Perhaps not for you Q24, but you know full well that this would be the exact reaction from many.  Speaking of which...  do you not accept the DNA evidence which identified passengers on the flight to confirm that it was indeed Flight 77?

[DieChecker]

ThisiswhatIthink, on 13 December 2011 - 02:36 AM, said:

Is this thread only for eyewitness accounts? Because passengers aboard flight 77 called loved ones to tell them their plane had been hijacked prior to the crash and the passengers bodies were recovered at the Pentagon crash site and later identified through DNA testing. That would pretty much make anyone else's POV or testimony irrelevant. Why is this even an arguement or am I missing something?

That is the first thing I thought of too.

People are aguing about fine details, and whether some guy's memory can be trusted as to if the tail entered the building before or after the fireball. When the whole point should be that the plane did hit the building and explode. The fine details can be pushed aside.

Scott G, on 13 December 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

Because the plane never crashed into the Pentagon or any light poles; it flew over it all.

And then the plane landed somewhere, all the people taken off and killed, the plane disassembled and scorched and damaged. Then miraculously transported to the scene at the pentagon where the serial numbered parts were put in exactly the right positions and the bodys dispersed in a computer generated pattern. All so that we could blame some completely innocent muslim extremests and start a war.

1) Muslim extremists + Plane = Crash attack on Pentagon = Possible + witnessed + evidenced

2) Government conspiricy + massive planning + miraculous planting of physical evidence + no leaks = Fake Crash on Pentagon = Impossible organizational/transportation task + Everyone involved is Evil + goverment murder of citizens.

Which is more likely?

[kaptn k]

Here is video of a reporter that was at the Pentagon just after the incident in question (I say incident because I do not believe a plane hit the pentagon) and this man says clearly that "....there is not evidence that a plane crashed into the pentagon and there is no plane wreckage or debris..." (not a direct quote but I can not transcribe verbatim right now). Watch for yourself. My link


Now why would this reporter say there is no plane debris? Why would he lie? Plus, the evidence also suggests that is is not possible for a 757 to fit into such a small area. The crash area was something like 16 feet in diameter. Even after the collapse area (which occurred long after the incident) is TOO SMALL for a 757 to have made. *pre collapse photo of site*

Even if the hole was, as others suggest, 65 ft. wide the wings would have been left outside the building, they would not fold in and vanish from view. Does anyone take into consideration the wing span from tip to tip? Physics alone dispute a 757 hitting the pentagon. If someone wishes to dispute because they want to believe the 'official' report from Washington I only ask that you provide true evidence of the plane wreckage in either a photograph or video. I can not accept a written report or interview from some government 'expert'.

I have provided my evidence and reason(s) why I do not accept the Bush administrations fabricated story.

[booNyzarC]

kaptn k, on 20 December 2011 - 10:46 PM, said:

Here is video of a reporter that was at the Pentagon just after the incident in question (I say incident because I do not believe a plane hit the pentagon) and this man says clearly that "....there is not evidence that a plane crashed into the pentagon and there is no plane wreckage or debris..." (not a direct quote but I can not transcribe verbatim right now). Watch for yourself. My link

Maybe if you listened to the full context of that report instead of relying on a version that someone obviously clipped (and clipped very poorly I might add) it would be a little more clear for you...  Here, it was provided earlier in the thread.

bee, on 12 December 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:

Watch the two next to each other.  Tell me...  which one seems genuine?  And what does the genuine one actually indicate?

kaptn k, on 20 December 2011 - 10:46 PM, said:

Now why would this reporter say there is no plane debris? Why would he lie? Plus, the evidence also suggests that is is not possible for a 757 to fit into such a small area. The crash area was something like 16 feet in diameter. Even after the collapse area (which occurred long after the incident) is TOO SMALL for a 757 to have made. *pre collapse photo of site*

Even if the hole was, as others suggest, 65 ft. wide the wings would have been left outside the building, they would not fold in and vanish from view. Does anyone take into consideration the wing span from tip to tip? Physics alone dispute a 757 hitting the pentagon.

I'm going to go out on a limb and make a wild guess that you don't know much of anything about physics...

kaptn k, on 20 December 2011 - 10:46 PM, said:

If someone wishes to dispute because they want to believe the 'official' report from Washington I only ask that you provide true evidence of the plane wreckage in either a photograph or video. I can not accept a written report or interview from some government 'expert'.

Plenty of evidence has been presented.

kaptn k, on 20 December 2011 - 10:46 PM, said:

I have provided my evidence and reason(s) why I do not accept the Bush administrations fabricated story.

Your doctored evidence?  Your exhibition of ignorance?  And your biased conspiratorial stance?

You can count me among the unimpressed.

Cheers.

[DieChecker]

kaptn k, on 20 December 2011 - 10:46 PM, said:

Now why would this reporter say there is no plane debris? Why would he lie? Plus, the evidence also suggests that is is not possible for a 757 to fit into such a small area. The crash area was something like 16 feet in diameter. Even after the collapse area (which occurred long after the incident) is TOO SMALL for a 757 to have made.

Even if the hole was, as others suggest, 65 ft. wide the wings would have been left outside the building, they would not fold in and vanish from view. Does anyone take into consideration the wing span from tip to tip? Physics alone dispute a 757 hitting the pentagon. If someone wishes to dispute because they want to believe the 'official' report from Washington I only ask that you provide true evidence of the plane wreckage in either a photograph or video. I can not accept a written report or interview from some government 'expert'.

Weren't this...


And this...


Determined to be jet liner debris?

This pic here...

Would seem to show an area just to the left of the main entry hole. It appears as if there is a low area of the wall that is damaged, consistant with a wing, which appears about 20 feet plus across. Also an airplane wing would have buckled and bent, and might have been drawn into the building behind the plane, as it is full of structural members and cables that might have bent and held it on.

This does not even appear to be the main hole, just where something low and wide went through the wall. With the car in the way, we cannot see if there might even be large pieces of the wing right there on the ground under debris.

Doubtless the reporter was kept back by security personnel. Who would just let some civilian charge into the burning wreckage and possible wall collapse?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 20 December 2011 - 06:31 AM, said:

It's pretty clear that the implementation wasn't done yet.  What makes you think they'd be recording anything from the cameras before they had completed the job?

Pretty far fetched if you ask me.

The website had been delayed to make final adjustments but the cameras themselves were operational.  I’m sure you know they don’t flick the ‘on’ switch for everything all at once on launch day; there is usually a test period where the system is up and running but not live.  Perhaps it was not the case those cameras were recording, though the possibility is hardly farfetched.  You know, no one is going to say, “Oh my gosh… CCTV cameras recording… well, I don’t believe that.”

booNyzarC, on 20 December 2011 - 06:31 AM, said:

Do we know where the recording media was located?  Not to be flippant, but an aircraft did apparently crash into that building on that particular side.  Have you considered the possibility that the recording media was destroyed by the event?

The security footage may have been destroyed by the crash.

Then again, have you watched the film Rules of Engagement?

It is not difficult to withhold or disappear a videotape.

booNyzarC, on 20 December 2011 - 06:31 AM, said:

I don't consider it a leap of faith at all; it is the established historical record.  That isn't a leap, that is merely recognizing that what we can confirm about the event points to the established historical record as being true.  To falsify such a record requires extraordinary evidence.  So far, I haven't seen any.  Therefore I have no reason to doubt the established historical record.  Show me some actual evidence which can make a dent in that record and we can talk.

The historical record - a particular, or favoured, interpretation of events - this is nothing to the truth.  I have seen enough examples of history distorted, twisted and revised (attempted and actual) to know it is meaningless without the evidence to back it up.  Personally I feel a version of events should be properly evaluated and proven before it is accepted – to do otherwise is to hold a type of faith.

The dent (read: information black hole) in the established record is self-apparent - there is no conclusive evidence of Flight 77 at the Pentagon.  Yet there could and should be.  The lack of aircraft identification is unprecedented.  I’m not even asking for extraordinary evidence – just the basics to reasonably proving the case.

There are connected peculiarities and coincidences that suggest the Pentagon attack was a staged event, though you would likely turn a blind eye and declare them irrelevant, and that’s not really what I intended this thread for anyhow.

booNyzarC, on 20 December 2011 - 06:31 AM, said:

As to the identification by serial number, do you honestly think that would make a difference?  Remains have been identified by DNA analysis and some people still don't accept this historical record.  How much more definitive can you get than DNA evidence?  Do you really think that a serial number on an aircraft part would make a dent in such mentality?

You are probably right there – identification by serial number would not make a fundamental difference, not even to me – I don’t have anything pinned on a plane switch.  It would though stop me pointing out the foundation of non-evidence that particular part of the historical record is based upon.

The problem with the DNA evidence is that it is all too simple to deceive.  There were one hundred and twenty-five Pentagon staff who died in the attack – of course then, many samples were taken and sent for analysis.  There is however no available record or audit trail of this process (once again FOIA request proved unresponsive).  It would not be difficult to insert samples further along the chain of custody, i.e. there is no evidence they came from the Pentagon.

Also to point out the big difference between a DNA investigation and an aircraft investigation:  the first could never reveal anything that should not be present at the scene, the second potentially could.  Thus possible reason for one type of investigation and not the other.

[Q24]

Scott G, on 20 December 2011 - 02:29 AM, said:

I don't believe oneslice ever claimed that ASCE persuaded Probst of anything.

Then can you explain for me what this line means: -
“Probst, Mason and the ASCE worked together to add the extra details into the testimony.”

And what you meant by: -
“instead of getting hearsay information from questionable sources.”

The suggestion appears to be that the ASCE may have influenced the eyewitnesses and possibly falsified certain aspects of the accounts purposefully to support the impact theory.

Is my understanding correct?

[Czero 101]

kaptn k, on 20 December 2011 - 10:46 PM, said:

Now why would this reporter say there is no plane debris? Why would he lie? Plus, the evidence also suggests that is is not possible for a 757 to fit into such a small area. The crash area was something like 16 feet in diameter. Even after the collapse area (which occurred long after the incident) is TOO SMALL for a 757 to have made.

Why is it not possible for a 757 to have "fit" into such a small area? What exactly do you expect to see when and aircraft made mostly of aluminum and other light-weight materials (but still weighing in excess of 200,000 pounds) collides at over 500mph into a structurally reinforced concrete building? Are you expecting to see an aircraft-shaped cut-out in the wall like one would see in a cartoon...?

Quote

Even if the hole was, as others suggest, 65 ft. wide the wings would have been left outside the building, they would not fold in and vanish from view.

Why would the wings have "been left outside the building"?

Quote

Does anyone take into consideration the wing span from tip to tip?

I guess you've never seen the pictures like the one below that show damage to the wall where the wingtips struck it:

Quote

Physics alone dispute a 757 hitting the pentagon.

Does it really? Perhaps you can explain why, because your posts give the strong impression that you have little to no clue about the physics involved, and apparently no idea how aircraft are constructed.

Please, tell us, what kind of energies are involved when an object made mostly of lightweight materials, weighing over 200,000 pounds impacts a structurally reinforced concrete object at over 500 mile per hour, and then please explain to us why we should expect to see wings laying on the ground in front of the Pentagon, rather than the shredded remains of the aircraft we have seen.

ETA...
This video of crash test involving an F-4 traveling at 500mph crashing into a section of reinforced concrete wall shows us what physics says should happen.



Granted that circumstances leading up to the crash aren't identical, but the end result is pretty much the same.

Quote

If someone wishes to dispute because they want to believe the 'official' report from Washington I only ask that you provide true evidence of the plane wreckage in either a photograph or video. I can not accept a written report or interview from some government 'expert'.

See the images provided above

Quote

I have provided my evidence and reason(s) why I do not accept the Bush administrations fabricated story.

No, you have not posted evidence, you have posted your blatantly uneducated and biased opinion, and from the sounds of the things you've posted, your opinions come from watching that travesty "Loose Change" (or one of its many revisions) far too many times.





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 21 December 2011 - 03:57 AM.

[Scott G]

Q24, on 21 December 2011 - 03:21 AM, said:

Scott G, on 20 December 2011 - 02:29 AM, said:

I don't believe oneslice ever claimed that ASCE persuaded Probst of anything.

Then can you explain for me what this line means: -
"Probst, Mason and the ASCE worked together to add the extra details into the testimony."

I hadn't seen that line. Perhaps ASCE did persuade them to add to his testimony. What I do know is that I haven't seen a single actual quote from Probst on the issue. Only what ASCE interpreted him to mean.

Q24, on 21 December 2011 - 03:21 AM, said:

And what you meant by: -
"instead of getting hearsay information from questionable sources."

I mean that ASCE is a questionable source of information. Why are there no quotes of what Probst actually said? That being said, even without quotes, it appears that he favoured an NoC approach. I notice that you ignored my comment regarding ASCE's description of what Probst saw. Specifically:
"As he approached the heliport he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him."

Not south of the Navy Annex; -over- the Navy Annex. Why is it that you ignored that point? Is it because it goes against your view that the pentaplane didn't fly over the Navy Annex?

Q24, on 21 December 2011 - 03:21 AM, said:

The suggestion appears to be that the ASCE may have influenced the eyewitnesses and possibly falsified certain aspects of the accounts purposefully to support the impact theory.

Is my understanding correct?

Yes, it is. That being said, it seems they retained enough information to make it clear that Probst's flight path couldn't have been the official SoC flight path.