1810 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

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

--

and then there's this live report...





quote..."no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon"



I am of the opinion that there probably wasn't a plane connected to the explosion at all

either flying into...or over...the Pentagon.


Maybe some kind of plane flew over within a certain time frame...but not actually when the explosion happened..?

Um...  bee?  Did you listen to the whole commentary in that video?  Or did you just quote that tiny little sentence there and ignore the rest of it?  Do you realize that when he said that particular part he was explaining that he didn't see any evidence that the plane had impacted short of the building?  Give it another watch, and pay attention to the whole thing.  This video doesn't support your conclusion at all.

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 13 December 2011 - 03:06 PM, said:

Um...  bee?  Did you listen to the whole commentary in that video?  Or did you just quote that tiny little sentence there and ignore the rest of it?  Do you realize that when he said that particular part he was explaining that he didn't see any evidence that the plane had impacted short of the building?  Give it another watch, and pay attention to the whole thing.  This video doesn't support your conclusion at all.

ok....I did listen to it all before posting...and I only shortened the quote for convenience.

I promise you I wasn't being crafty. I have listened to it a couple of more times...and I do take your point

about the way he used the word 'near'.....the sentence ' you know it might have appeared that way but from my close up

inspection - there's no evidence of a plane having crashed any where near the Pentagon"...could be taken two ways?

Although in context with the question he was asked , you are right.

I stand corrected on that. Thanks.





Do you want to tackle the other video I posted sometime?

I was only going to post that one originally...as I have used it before, then saw the one we are

talking about, but didn't give it enough close attention before posting.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 13 December 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

ok....I did listen to it all before posting...and I only shortened the quote for convenience.

I promise you I wasn't being crafty. I have listened to it a couple of more times...and I do take your point

about the way he used the word 'near'.....the sentence ' you know it might have appeared that way but from my close up

inspection - there's no evidence of a plane having crashed any where near the Pentagon"...could be taken two ways?

Although in context with the question he was asked , you are right.

I stand corrected on that. Thanks.

No problem.

bee, on 13 December 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

Do you want to tackle the other video I posted sometime?

I was only going to post that one originally...as I have used it before, then saw the one we are

talking about, but didn't give it enough close attention before posting.

Yeah, I wanted to comment on that one too but I had to get out the door.

Notice that the reporter who is talking about interviewing evacuees isn't on the side of the building which was impacted, and is trying to make his way around the building to get a better view of the damage.  It is reasonable to assume that the person he talked to who had been outside, was likewise not on the side of the building that was impacted.  Considering how low the plane was, it isn't hard to surmise that his view of the plane would be obstructed by the building itself.

I don't have a comment about his mention of the helicopter at this point, but I'll look into that aspect later.  One thing that does stand out markedly from this interview is that there is absolutely no mention of a plane flying over the Pentagon...  I realize that you don't necessarily subscribe to the fly-over theory, but others in the thread do.

I wonder if those who do subscribe to this theory can explain why nobody on the other side of the Pentagon, including the chap referred to by this reporter, seem to mention an airplane flying over the building.

[Scott G]

booNyzarC, on 13 December 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:

I wonder if those who do subscribe to [the flyover theory] can explain why nobody on the other side of the Pentagon, including the chap referred to by this reporter, seem to mention an airplane flying over the building.

Quoting what a board friend of mine in another forum said a long time ago on the subject. Not sure that "lots of people" would have seen it fly away, but I think that atleast some might have...
************************
Of course lots of people would have seen the plane fly away. But there  were stories circulated in the press with none other than Keith  Wheelhouse as the source claiming (in contradiction with eye witness  testimony, the pilot's testimony, photographic AND video evidence and  even refuted by the also-false official RADES data) that the C-130 flew  directly over the attack jet but flew away before the plane hit.

Anybody who saw the plane flying away who did not see its approach  (which would be the "hundreds" of witneses Brian referred to) would not  naturally assume they had seen a conspiracy on their governments part  but would write it off as that second plane. Most of those who did see  the plane approach would be running away, ducking and covering, diving  to the floor or under automobiles at the point it flew over and so would  miss. Anyone who did see the whole thing (from Erik Dihle's testimony  we can assume there were some) might convince themselves they had been  watching the second plane (after all the attack jet was so low it even  hit light poles - the plane they saw was much higher) and those not  buying it would hardly speak out without any proof to back them up, not  knowing what they now knew about their governmnet's willingness to  murder.

The cover story of the second plane neutralised the flyover...

************************
Source: http://www.911oz.com...383&postcount=6

[booNyzarC]

Considering how many people reported witnessing the plane impact the building, the excuse you're quoting sounds pretty lame to me.

[Tesla II]

Great post Scott G! If this are actual "crash" site photos than there is your smoking gun... No plane parts not even an engine ( which is made from stronger materials which can stay intact in high temperatures )... And above all this looks like an explosion site not a plane crash... amazing...

[Q24]

Sorry for the delay…

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.  From the idea that someone diving to the ground cannot see anything, to the testimony of Probst supposedly contradicting Mason, to borderline allegations against the ASCE, and more.  It’s all twaddle.  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.

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?

[Tesla II]

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?

Ok where did you learned that? I think its false, and on the photos of scott G there is absolutely no plane parts. Those bodies were a fiction and that is a fact. You have a paradox here... IF bodies were found, how is that even remotly possible if there are no plane parts???

[Q24]

Nuke_em, on 14 December 2011 - 08:51 PM, said:

Ok where did you learned that? I think its false, and on the photos of scott G there is absolutely no plane parts. Those bodies were a fiction and that is a fact. You have a paradox here... IF bodies were found, how is that even remotly possible if there are no plane parts???

Please see for pictures of aircraft parts at Pentagon: -
http://www.unexplain...1

Please see for details of passenger DNA identification: -
http://radiology.rsn...&fp=7&view=full

Identity of the aircraft and custody chain of DNA samples are perhaps another issue.

[bee]

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


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.


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.


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


More likely was that the traffic in the whole immediate area was stopped....because they just didn't know what was
coming next. Car bombs? Lorries with bombs in?

So this would say that the Defence headquarters was on red alert....and if it wasn't then that beggars belief.


But no.....Probst had a meeting to go to and off he went.....then....whoops....

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 14 December 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

Please see for pictures of aircraft parts at Pentagon: -
http://www.unexplain...1

Please see for details of passenger DNA identification: -
http://radiology.rsn...&fp=7&view=full

Identity of the aircraft and custody chain of DNA samples are perhaps another issue.

Not to mention the videos...  one video in particular clearly shows an aircraft.  (I'm confident that you're aware of this Q24, but others may not be.)

Google search this text to find the video from 911datasets.org:
11094135.AVI

The link is currently unavailable, but I downloaded this a while back and here is a direct link:
http://911datasets.o...YOMJWMXLPMBPS2P

Hopefully it becomes available soon.  The file isn't very big, though the whole bit torrent was pretty large.

I'll upload two screen shots from that video, one from right before the airplane enters the frame and one from when it does enter the frame.  I haven't seen any good YouTube videos of this because the compression ruins what meager quality is there in the first place.  But if you get the original and view it on your own computer it is quite clear.
 z-frame1_crop.jpg   79.79K   163 downloads
 z-frame2_crop.jpg   76.5K   170 downloads

Save these images to the same folder and use any picture viewer to switch between the two and see how obvious the aircraft is.  Then compare it to actual images of AA77 available from airliners.net from before 911.  In particular, I found these two to be good comparisons:
compare 1
compare 2

I'm honestly surprised that there is anyone left on the planet who still thinks that there is any chance at all that an aircraft didn't hit the Pentagon on 911.

[Tesla II]

Q24, on 14 December 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

Please see for pictures of aircraft parts at Pentagon: -
http://www.unexplain...1

Please see for details of passenger DNA identification: -
http://radiology.rsn...&fp=7&view=full

Identity of the aircraft and custody chain of DNA samples are perhaps another issue.

Sorry i don't believe it, looks pretty weird and why is every second photo different in perspective? Looks like old photos to me not from 10 years, And still the crash had imense temperatures how did they found "bodies"??? I mean i understand if they found teeths but still i am very sceptical about this..

[Tesla II]

booNyzarC, on 15 December 2011 - 05:45 AM, said:

[/url]

I'm honestly surprised that there is anyone left on the planet who still thinks that there is any chance at all that an aircraft didn't hit the Pentagon on 911.

This is hilarious you are showing the people the only 2 ONLY 2 photos every released from FBI. So tell me there are loads of security cameras around the pentagon iteself and building around it, and not a single footage was EVER released... I once talked to a guy who was trying to get a footage from a gas station nearby...he had no luck what so ever. So what is military hiding? Ow and those photos and videos can be faked easily especially because this are only 2 "evidence" released to public.. i dont believe a single photo or video released by military or any other branch of same kind. And i watched TV and direct transmission on CNN, you know what, the news about pentagon crash was like " Wait a minute there is more, an explosion happened at pentagon" and camera shows a side of pentagon in flames, no AIRCRAFT PARTS, even reporter doubt it was a plane. Ow and i found this that will make you think before believing every offical word, more like a LIE. What about helicopter?

[booNyzarC]

Nuke_em, on 15 December 2011 - 08:40 PM, said:

This is hilarious you are showing the people the only 2 ONLY 2 photos every released from FBI. So tell me there are loads of security cameras around the pentagon iteself and building around it, and not a single footage was EVER released... I once talked to a guy who was trying to get a footage from a gas station nearby...he had no luck what so ever. So what is military hiding? Ow and those photos and videos can be faked easily especially because this are only 2 "evidence" released to public.. i dont believe a single photo or video released by military or any other branch of same kind. And i watched TV and direct transmission on CNN, you know what, the news about pentagon crash was like " Wait a minute there is more, an explosion happened at pentagon" and camera shows a side of pentagon in flames, no AIRCRAFT PARTS, even reporter doubt it was a plane. Ow and i found this that will make you think before believing every offical word, more like a LIE. What about helicopter?

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.

[Stundie]

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?

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

Edited by Stundie, 18 December 2011 - 11:18 PM.