Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Scott G

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

2,524 posts in this topic

Mike, you know I have been honest with you and also that I do not accept the official 9/11 story. It is up to you whether to take or leave what I’m about to say. There is something not right at Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT - please take their commentaries with caution and assess the evidence of your own volition.

The Pentagon eyewitnesses can be split into two broad groups: -

  1. Those who support a flightpath from the South, aligning with all known damage.
  2. Those who describe a flightpath further Northward, irreconcilable with any damage.

Please understand that Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT will vigorously pursue any discrepancy or perceived problem against accounts of the larger first group in order to avoid acceptance of that evidence. In contrast, they will excuse any discrepancy or perceived problem against accounts of the smaller second group in order to promote that version of events.

They do not assess eyewitnesses to the same standard.

They divide eyewitnesses by preference into ‘truthful’ and ‘liar’ whilst failing to recognise that eyewitness evidence is notoriously diverse and often inaccurate due to natural human perception, more so when recalling a sudden and traumatic event many years later.

Note that the taxi driver, Lloyd England, is a member of the first group of eyewitnesses - he provides evidence the aircraft clipped the light poles located on the South approach. This is why they will use any error of memory or open comment in his account to discredit and paint Lloyd as a ‘liar’.

They have an agenda, whether intentional or of foolishness, to promote their flyover theory - it’s your decision whether to be brainwashed by their biased presentations or research the many eyewitness accounts for yourself.

By the way, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT simply will not allow me to present the list of eyewitnesses belonging to the first group on their forum - my attempts have resulted in bans and post deletion. The fact they do not allow honest discussion and control information flow to their followers should tell you everything you need to know.

ok thanks for the heads up. Thats why i said seems to be good information. You say they wouldn't let you post all the witnesses? thats messed up, if thats true then that is some major bias. I've never looked at all the witnesses but Lloyd was lying about some things thats for sure, either that or hes very forgetful. But i don't see how he could forget whether or not the fbi took his car in after the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok thanks for the heads up. Thats why i said seems to be good information. You say they wouldn't let you post all the witnesses? thats messed up, if thats true then that is some major bias. I've never looked at all the witnesses but Lloyd was lying about some things thats for sure, either that or hes very forgetful. But i don't see how he could forget whether or not the fbi took his car in after the event.

It is true.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth co-founder (and forum moderator), Rob Balsamo, said in relation to the list I was producing: -

“I refuse to let you confuse readers sans addressing your past claims by posting more [eyewitness accounts] to muddy the waters. Therefore, i will delete any text you write which do not address your past claims first.”

I should clarify that by “address your past claims first”, this to all intent means defer to Balsamo’s opinion on the previous eyewitness accounts I had presented and stop providing personal analysis - he has this strange idea that all eyewitness accounts must be perfect or discounted you see (except those few which lend themselves to a flyover; they can be all over the place apparently).

It quickly became clear that we were never going to agree; that P4T would attack any perceived ‘problem’ in any eyewitness account corroborating the damage/impact flightpath. Thus my intention as stated on that thread was to present an eyewitness account, summarise ‘complaints’ against it, then move on to the next (thus having some hope of getting through the complete list). At the end I was going to compile the full record of ‘complaints’ against these eyewitnesses… it would have been impressively (not to mention humorously) long.

Of course that did not happen, it was agree with Balsamo or don’t post, and indeed he deleted presentation of the next eyewitness (see my post in the link above stating, “To date, I’ve hardly begun.” That post was originally a lot longer, summarised previous ‘complaints’ and presented the next eyewitness… until the text was deleted).

And I’d only got through six of approximately forty eyewitnesses to the damage/impact flight path. :lol:

That’s all it took for him to realise they could not openly discuss the eyewitness accounts and come out with any credibility. So he took the only option - blocked presentation of the evidence. This is not a path leading to the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Word spread fast that an aircraft had impacted the Pentagon - I don’t see it as remarkable if Porter Goss became aware of what had happened. Also remember this is his account after the event with hindsight to assist his recollection, it is not necessarily a commentary of what he knew in real-time.

This is the problem with taking witness accounts overly literally, it is possible to find problem with anything.

I agree in principle. Still it doesn't prove Porter Goss was actually inside the building. Yes, it may be just an inaccurate honest recollection. He may be lying. He may be overlapping different scenarios in good or bad faith. There are many possibilities and it makes no sense to stay here trying to guess which one is true or false. Fact is the none of them rules out it was outside the building at the time when the the Pentagon was hit.

Ok, when exactly can we trust anyone’s account?

It seems to me that if you are saying, “his own account does not prove he's telling the truth”, we may as well not waste our time with eyewitnesses, assume they are all liars and instead stick to the physical evidence.

I am not assuming Porter Goss is a liar. I simply reject the argument that his own word dismisses the "phisical evidence" (I am using your own words), in this case a video. You must prove I am wrong without using someone's account who has or could have plenty of reasons to be lying.

And we don’t even know if that is the Capitol building behind Goss, it could be the nearby Department of Agriculture building, Supreme Court or other building which all appear to have similar architecture.

This is possible. However, I don't understand how this would change the fact the Porter Goss was outside and not inside the building. The exact location of the interview can only help us pinpoint the direction where the blast came from. It does not prove Porter Goss was inside the building, as you assume. It just proves the contrary, that he was outside as I say.

I came across this video: -

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=s1A-AnAl2Hs

At the 1:00 mark there is a “boom” followed by the distant sound of a jet overhead.

Thank you for providing additional evidence to my argument. As your video (that I know very well) confirms and as we knew already from transcripts, smoke was clearly visible from the Pentagon and many sirens were audible. Again: read the transcripts and reports about the evacuation! It was a chaotic and frantic situation, as one would expect to be after a critical building such as the Pentagon was hit and after the word spread that another plane could possibly hit capitol Hill in few minutes. No smoke is visible, no sirens are audible in the Porter Goss' interview. The interview video's scenario is absolutely incompatible with 10:10 or whatever later time than 9:37. So it doesn't matter what time the explosion at 1:00 in your video occurred. There is no way it was the blast we hear at 0:20 in Porter Goss' interview. Definitely incompatible scenarios.

If you want to prove that the blast we hear at 0:20 in Porter Goss' interview was not the moment when the Pentagon was hit (no matter if by a plane's impact, a bomb or whatever), you should try to demonstrate that that blast occurred before 9:37 and not later. Sorry, the Capitol Hill scenario after the Pentagon attack and especially after the evacuation (9:48) definitely rules out your theory.

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not rule out completely bee's theory as I can't rule out any other theory at the Pentagon. No theory has collected enough evidence so far to be considered proven. There are many theories out here that are potentially true, but still lack conclusive evidence. If there is a small piece of the 9/11 official story that I can't completely dismiss, that's the Pentagon chapter. Not because I believe it, but because I can't even rule it out entirely.

As far as bee's theory is concerned, I insist that a mock-up is not something you can set up in half an hour. It needs an accurate planning and test. Either a commercial jet really hit the Pentagon or, if any mock up occurred, this implies a long-time preparation and foreknowledge.

thanks for the underlined

but

In defence of my theory..... :)

c'mon.....how hard would it be order a helicopter to shoot a missile at the Pentagon,

there are a few military bases around Washington DC. (it would take a few minutes?)

seal off the area?

send for parts of an airliner to place at the scene?

knock down a few poles?

Once a decision had been made.....an hour or two?

Another reason I think there was a mock up is because once the Twin Towers were hit and it was

obvious that significant places were under threat from hi-jacked airliners...there is NO WAY

that the Pentagon would leave itself wide-open.

There is also NO WAY that if flight 77 approached and hit the Pentagon there wouldn't

be lots of clear footage. But there isn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu8hRib71hc

this is my thread about it all...>>> http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=191892

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the underlined

but

In defence of my theory..... :)

c'mon.....how hard would it be order a helicopter to shoot a missile at the Pentagon,

there are a few military bases around Washington DC. (it would take a few minutes?)

seal off the area?

send for parts of an airliner to place at the scene?

knock down a few poles?

Once a decision had been made.....an hour or two?

It was obvious it was an attack once the second tower was hit...and how long was it between then and the Pentagon hit - something like 34 or 38 mins if my memory is correct. In that time they would have known it was a terrorist attack, decided they needed to stage a mock attack too to bring down an airliner despite not knowing how many were still due to be used as weapons, located the plane in question, discussed a plan, get permission to execute that plan, knocked a few poles down, shipped in parts that replicate the plane they are going to shoot down, order a helicopter to fire a missile at the pentagon, (hoping some tourist didn't happen to capture it on camera unwittingly), all the while not knowing if the hijacked plane was going to fall out the sky somewhere else whilst they were planning this.....and all that in 30 odd minutes (meanwhile not having the faintest idea if a more lethal target was being aimed at, like a power station etc - but they are wasting time coming up with some elaborate plan to disguise shooting down a passenger plane in half an hour)......does that seem likely to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

c'mon.....how hard would it be order a helicopter to shoot a missile at the Pentagon,

there are a few military bases around Washington DC. (it would take a few minutes?)

seal off the area?

send for parts of an airliner to place at the scene?

knock down a few poles?

Once a decision had been made.....an hour or two?

bee…

Do you think…

It could have been a helicopter fitted with miniaturised DEW tech?

:w00t:

No, seriously bee, there were hundreds of eyewitnesses at the scene, look them up - your scenario did not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree in principle. Still it doesn't prove Porter Goss was actually inside the building. Yes, it may be just an inaccurate honest recollection. He may be lying. He may be overlapping different scenarios in good or bad faith. There are many possibilities and it makes no sense to stay here trying to guess which one is true or false. Fact is the none of them rules out it was outside the building at the time when the the Pentagon was hit.

I am not assuming Porter Goss is a liar. I simply reject the argument that his own word dismisses the "phisical evidence" (I am using your own words), in this case a video. You must prove I am wrong without using someone's account who has or could have plenty of reasons to be lying.

The physical evidence (interview footage) does not contradict the account of Porter Goss. He says he was inside the building at time of the Pentagon impact, then it appears he evacuated with everyone else and gave his interview. And the justice system works on the basis of innocent until proven guilty.

This is possible. However, I don't understand how this would change the fact the Porter Goss was outside and not inside the building. The exact location of the interview can only help us pinpoint the direction where the blast came from. It does not prove Porter Goss was inside the building, as you assume. It just proves the contrary, that he was outside as I say.

You claimed the footage cannot be from the Capitol at 10:10 a.m. because the buildings had been evacuated. I am pointing out it may not be the Capitol building in the background, but a different location. And that the buildings were evacuated does not mean the entire Capitol Hill district was evacuated. The conclusion being: there is no problem with the interview taking place at 10:10 a.m.

Thank you for providing additional evidence to my argument. As your video (that I know very well) confirms and as we knew already from transcripts, smoke was clearly visible from the Pentagon and many sirens were audible.

Do you think it possible sirens could be heard in one location and not another?

Or that smoke could be seen from one vantage point/direction and not another?

I do - there is approximately 2-3 miles between the Capitol and location of the footage I provided after all. Just because one video captured sirens and smoke, this does not mean they both must. What they do both capture is the explosion and sound of a plane overhead which took place after the initial Pentagon impact.

Again: read the transcripts and reports about the evacuation! It was a chaotic and frantic situation, as one would expect to be after a critical building such as the Pentagon was hit and after the word spread that another plane could possibly hit capitol Hill in few minutes.

I’m sure at particular moments the evacuation was “chaotic and frantic”.

However, this was not necessarily the case throughout the entire half hour evacuation period. Unless you have footage of the entire evacuation period from every location that says otherwise? Perhaps, at some time, it was more as the evacuation this video shows two days after 9/11: -

Or perhaps, as I said before, they had just stopped running 22 minutes after the initial evacuation.

If you want to prove that the blast we hear at 0:20 in Porter Goss' interview was not the moment when the Pentagon was hit (no matter if by a plane's impact, a bomb or whatever), you should try to demonstrate that that blast occurred before 9:37 and not later. Sorry, the Capitol Hill scenario after the Pentagon attack and especially after the evacuation (9:48) definitely rules out your theory.

You are assuming too much about the interview and full period of the Capitol evacuation.

I don’t need to prove the footage was prior to 9:37 a.m. when it clearly aligns with known facts after the impact and the account of Porter Goss.

I don’t feel there is anything else for me to prove…

We don’t know location of the interview.

We don’t know timing of the interview.

We don’t know that Porter Goss was lying or mistaken in his later account.

We don’t know cause of the “boom”.

We don’t know location of the “boom”.

We don’t know identity of the aircraft heard.

We don’t know location of the aircraft heard.

We do know there were numerous explosions and aircraft in the area a time after impact… which is all the footage shows.

You link this footage as potential evidence of a flyover… and think I have a case to prove?

Hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was obvious it was an attack once the second tower was hit...and how long was it between then and the Pentagon hit - something like 34 or 38 mins if my memory is correct. In that time they would have known it was a terrorist attack, decided they needed to stage a mock attack too to bring down an airliner despite not knowing how many were still due to be used as weapons, located the plane in question, discussed a plan, get permission to execute that plan, knocked a few poles down, shipped in parts that replicate the plane they are going to shoot down, order a helicopter to fire a missile at the pentagon, (hoping some tourist didn't happen to capture it on camera unwittingly), all the while not knowing if the hijacked plane was going to fall out the sky somewhere else whilst they were planning this.....and all that in 30 odd minutes (meanwhile not having the faintest idea if a more lethal target was being aimed at, like a power station etc - but they are wasting time coming up with some elaborate plan to disguise shooting down a passenger plane in half an hour)......does that seem likely to you?

yes I think the theory has 'legs'.......I actually think that very shortly after Flight 11 hit,

an Emergency War Planning Team (or whatever they would have been called) would have swung into

action. As soon as Flight 77 deviated from it's 'assigned course' they would be talking about what to

do about it...options. I don't think this would have taken long. Minutes I expect. They would (according to my theory)

have got it under remote control, taken it over the Atlantic and shot it down. At that point they wouldn't have

been willing to mess about and wait to see what unfolded. They would ahve taken control of the situation as best

they could.

A decision would have been made, again quickly....that this would not be made public. But what to do?

How to explain the absense of crash debris? I think a decsion was then made to make it look like it had

gone into the Pentagon......because this kept the whole thing well under control. The area could be sealed

off and things that had to be done could be done, in secrecy.

Like I said before I think this could have been done within an hour or so.

There may even have been the airliner parts that they wanted in Washington DC?

If not parts could be jetted in to a base nearby and transported there fairly quickly, IMO.

They had approx 44 minutes to get the plan moving after the flight deviation....and maybe an

hour or so after the Pentagon hit....maybe more...we don't know how long the Pentagon area was

sealed off and defended by armed military....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks

8:46:30[5] Flight 11 crashes at roughly 466 mph (790 km/h or 219m/s or 425 knots) into the north face of the North Tower (1 WTC) of the World Trade Center,

8:54: Flight 77 deviates from its assigned course, turning south over Ohio.

9:03:02: Flight 175 crashes at about 590 mph (950 km/h) into the south face of the South Tower (2 WTC) of the World Trade Center,

9:35: Based on a report that Flight 77 had turned again and was circling back toward the District of Columbia, the Secret Service orders the immediate evacuation of the Vice President from the White House.

9:37:46: Flight 77 crashes into the western side of the Pentagon and starts a violent fire. The section of the Pentagon hit consists mainly of newly renovated, unoccupied offices

then they had the Flight 93 problem to deal with.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason I think there was a mock up is because once the Twin Towers were hit and it was

obvious that significant places were under threat from hi-jacked airliners...there is NO WAY

that the Pentagon would leave itself wide-open.

The Pentagon is still directly under the landing path for a major airport, at a time when they are trying to get all aircraft to land (or soon). How are they going to protect it?

There is also NO WAY that if flight 77 approached and hit the Pentagon there wouldn't

be lots of clear footage. But there isn't.

Why? Why should cameras designed to capture foot traffic or vehicles in parking lots with slow frame rates, looking down at the areas intended and not up at the sky capture anything clearly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bee…

Do you think…

It could have been a helicopter fitted with miniaturised DEW tech?

:w00t:

very funny.... :rolleyes: .......no just a bog standard missile

No, seriously bee, there were hundreds of eyewitnesses at the scene, look them up - your scenario did not happen.

so YOU say........ :ph34r:

Just as I started doing my own research....someone gave me a tip on another forum.

To go to live reports when events were unfolding....(before a multi-facetted cover-up

got underway).....my words in brackets not theirs... but that was the gist of what they said.

no-one seems to be taking any notice of the live CNN reports that I've posted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pentagon is still directly under the landing path for a major airport, at a time when they are trying to get all aircraft to land (or soon). How are they going to protect it?

Why? Why should cameras designed to capture foot traffic or vehicles in parking lots with slow frame rates, looking down at the areas intended and not up at the sky capture anything clearly?

We've been here before haven't we....on my thread.... :)

I'll say to you again one thing that I more or less said then.....that it looks like I have more faith and confidence

in the US military than you do....

I'm not American....but if I was I would consider my 'ideas' more patriotic that both the Inside Job theory

OR the Official Account.

think about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very funny.... :rolleyes: .......no just a bog standard missile

:lol:

But bee… that hole in the C ring… it was so round… like a ray-beam did it I shouldn’t wonder.

:w00t:

To go to live reports when events were unfolding....(before a multi-facetted cover-up

got underway).....my words in brackets not theirs... but that was the gist of what they said.

Ok, here is a breaking news report from the morning of 9/11: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXna7tIb4ZQ&NR=1

Is the lady a part of the cover-up story?

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been here before haven't we....on my thread.... :)

I'll say to you again one thing that I more or less said then.....that it looks like I have more faith and confidence

in the US military than you do....

I'm not American....but if I was I would consider my 'ideas' more patriotic that both the Inside Job theory

OR the Official Account.

think about it

So what you're really saying is, you can't answer those questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

But bee… that hole in the C ring… it was so round… like a ray-beam did it I shouldn’t wonder.

:w00t:

Ok, here is a breaking news report from the morning of 9/11: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXna7tIb4ZQ&NR=1

Is the lady a part of the cover-up story?

yes she is

IMO

part of the cover-up would have been to get people to be 'witnesses'

they might have been under-cover agents of some kind living around the Pentagon area.

or shipped in from other areas of Washinton DC.

already on the pay roll? And governed by oaths of secrecy?

I think your news report comes later than my ones......... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pentagon is still directly under the landing path for a major airport, at a time when they are trying to get all aircraft to land (or soon). How are they going to protect it?

How are they going to protect the HEADQUARTERS of the United States Department of Defence?

When America is under terrorist attack and on a war footing....

Give me a break.... :rolleyes:

Why? Why should cameras designed to capture foot traffic or vehicles in parking lots with slow frame rates, looking down at the areas intended and not up at the sky capture anything clearly?

No proper surveilance at the HEADQUARTERS of the US Department of Defence....?

Again....give me a break

jeeeezus...see what I mean about me being more patriotic than you even though I'm not even American... ^_^

So what you're really saying is, you can't answer those questions?

see above....but you won't like them....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes she is

IMO

part of the cover-up would have been to get people to be 'witnesses'

they might have been under-cover agents of some kind living around the Pentagon area.

or shipped in from other areas of Washinton DC.

already on the pay roll? And governed by oaths of secrecy?

And they organised all that too in 38 minutes? Found someone and briefed them so as to sound plausible? But despite being so incredibly efficient they could arrange all the aspects of an elaborate coverup, they were still completely taken by surprise by the actual Terrorists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they organised all that too in 38 minutes? Found someone and briefed them so as to sound plausible? But despite being so incredibly efficient they could arrange all the aspects of an elaborate coverup, they were still completely taken by surprise by the actual Terrorists?

The news report of the *ahem* witness was 10:17.....

Flight 77 deviated from it's course at 8:54, which is when I think plans were formulated.

Plenty of time, IMO. (but a bit of a rush as well....naturally)

Re what you said about being taken by surprise by terrorists.....i think there's a difference between

that and rounding up local under-cover agents...don't you?

The latter would be very straightforward and simple....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are they going to protect the HEADQUARTERS of the United States Department of Defence?

When America is under terrorist attack and on a war footing....

Give me a break.... :rolleyes:

Still under the landing path for a major airport. Are they going to shoot down every airplane with a faulty transponder with the missiles that aren't there?

No proper surveilance at the HEADQUARTERS of the US Department of Defence....?

Again....give me a break

Cameras are not the only type of access control. They require somebody to monitor them and are best used for theft control and deterrent in retail situations. Even then a slow frame rate is adequate. I've been to 5 different military bases, some deployed and some not and the only time I've seen any cameras they were used at the doors to top secret controlled areas where someone only looks at the screen when somebody else wants in. They weren't even recorded. For most purposes fences, locked doors, access cards, combinations, key codes, and ID badges work fine to limit access. The Pentagon will have its most secure areas deep inside the building, not with access on the outside so the majority of cameras will logically be deeper inside the building. I see no reason to have more than locked doors, fences, slow frame rate traffic cams and a few guards outside the building. But then I actually have some experience in this where you don't.

Again, the question was "Why? Why should cameras designed to capture foot traffic or vehicles in parking lots with slow frame rates, looking down at the areas intended and not up at the sky capture anything clearly?" which you have still failed to answer. Speculating that they should have better surveillance without giving a reason when other methods work just as well if not better and are cheaper is not an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

part of the cover-up would have been to get people to be 'witnesses'

Is air traffic controller, Tom Howell, a part of the cover-up?

Is former Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, part of the cover-up?

Is the C-130 pilot, Lt Col Steve O’Brien, a part of the cover-up?

They all reported an aircraft incoming to the Pentagon.

they might have been under-cover agents of some kind living around the Pentagon area.

or shipped in from other areas of Washinton DC.

Many of the eyewitnesses to the airliner were Pentagon workers, those who worked locally or used the surrounding roads to commute to work every day - there is no indication they were ‘shipped in’ from anywhere. Then not only do you disregard these one hundred plus, apparently regular eyewitnesses, as “under-cover agents”, you also have not a single eyewitness in favour of your helicopter/missile event.

A theory in violation of all evidence is better described as ‘imagination’.

I just had a thought, bee - perhaps these were not “under-cover agents” but citizens coerced into supporting an airliner at the Pentagon. You know, like… “Now y’all listen up, we gotta DEW pointed right at ya, so you be good and say what we wanna hear now.”

:w00t:

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The physical evidence (interview footage) does not contradict the account of Porter Goss. He says he was inside the building at time of the Pentagon impact, then it appears he evacuated with everyone else and gave his interview. And the justice system works on the basis of innocent until proven guilty.

Definitely no. The physical evidence (interview footage) contradicts the account of Porter Goss. Unless you prove that the blast we hear during his interview (0:20) is any event happened before 9:37 or after 9:37 (what you failed to do so far), I will keep on concluding that phisical evidence (i.e. the content of that footage) supports my theory and not yours because:

1) everything in that footage contradicts the 10:10 scenario you are supporting.

2) everything in that footage contradicts Goss' statement he was inside the building.

I don't need to speculate whether Porter Goss is lying or not, whether his recollections are accurate, inaccurate, overlapping or whatever. There is not enough evidence he was inside the building when the alleged AA77 hit the Pentagon. Period. If I wanted to speculate, I could even point out that Porter Goss would have plenty of reasons to be lying, one of these being the footage itself, among many others that lead me suspect he was part of the plan. But I don't need to speculate, because this is basically unrelevant.

Do you think it possible sirens could be heard in one location and not another?

I don't think anything. I don't need to speculate to prove I am right. I have plenty of reports and transcripts, which are a stronger piece of evidence than any personal opinion. Here is one:

DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT:

[...] I was coming into the building, trying to get to work, but the Capitol police were screaming very loudly, evacuate. We need to get everybody out of the building right away! I ran around to the Senate side of the Capitol here, by the Senate plaza, and saw senators, staffers streaming out of the building, down the Capitol steps.

But they put us right here, probably about 100 yards from the Capitol. And we were here for several minutes, not knowing really what to do or where to go. But it was -- it was really chaos. But the chaos, Tony, turned to panic quickly because the Capitol police were hearing, in their radio, that there was a plane -- another plane in the air, likely headed for the Capitol. And they screamed like I've never heard screaming before, run as fast as you can, run for your life, because there's a plane headed for the Capitol.

CNN transcripts, 9/11 2001

Are you seriously claiming the above scenario is compatible with the scenario we see in the footage? Please note that I am not claiming this footage proves the flyover theory. I already made this clear in at least 3 posts in response to Scott (see above). But I have evidence that the 10:10 scenario you are supporting is absolutely incompatible with the time Porter Goss' interview shown in the footage was recorded. Prove me I am wrong and I will immediately concede you are right.

Or that smoke could be seen from one vantage point/direction and not another?

Yes, smoke on Pentagon was clearly visible from Capitol Hill. Here is another transcript from CNN:

DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Tony. And that's right, it was especially the attack on the Pentagon that immediately affected the people in the building, inside the Capitol, because the Pentagon is probably about two miles that way, behind the Capitol, and senators and staffers who were in meetings inside the Capitol could actually see the smoke billowing up from across the river at the Pentagon.

(CNN transcripts, 9/11 2001)

I think this report is self-explaining.

You claimed the footage cannot be from the Capitol at 10:10 a.m. because the buildings had been evacuated. I am pointing out it may not be the Capitol building in the background, but a different location. And that the buildings were evacuated does not mean the entire Capitol Hill district was evacuated. The conclusion being: there is no problem with the interview taking place at 10:10 a.m.

I am not claiming anything I can't prove. You are ignoring all reports about the evacuation. You are ignoring facts. 10:10 is not a compatible scenario for that footage. No smoke visible from the Pentagon, no audible sirens, no guards frantically ordering to all people to leave immediately the House, tourists still visiting the House and walking at their leisure. Are you seriously claiming that all those people would be apparently as calm as they appear in the video if the Capitol Police would be ordering to evacuate the House? Do you seriously think Porter Goss and other people would record an interview in an evacuation situation which all documents report as frantic and chaotic? Do you really believe tourists would be allowed to be still visiting the building when another plane headed for Capitol Hill was expected?

I have plenty of evidence to rule out 10:10 as the time of the footage. But I won't repeat this again since it appears to me that you refuse a priori any evidence that could lead to confirm a flyover theory. If you refuse this possibility from the beginning, it makes no sense for me to repeat the same thing over and over again. If you even refuse evidence, then there is not much I can do to convince you you're wrong.

CONCLUSION

It appears to me that it makes no difference to you whether Porter Goss was inside the building or outside any other building than the House. First you say he was inside, then you say he might be even outside. Both options appear as valid alternatives to you, no matter if one rules out the other, provided that:

1) you can negate that the blast heard at 0:20 is the 9:37 explosion at the Pentagon

2) you can negate that the low pass of a plane heard at the end of the footage could be the same plane that flew over the Pentagon

I won't speculate why you're doing this. All I can say is that you provided no evidence or no credible elements so far to prove that the time of the footage is 10:10. Sorry, but until then I will keep on with my theory. I have facts, reports, transcripts that support a 9:37 scenario.

You know I consider you one of the best researchers on the conspiracy side. I won't change my mind because we disagree about this single point. However, please accept the fact that none of your arguments convinced me so far that 10:10 is a credible scenario for that footage.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The physical evidence (interview footage) contradicts the account of Porter Goss.

How?

Why can’t Goss have been inside the building prior to the interview?

1) everything in that footage contradicts the 10:10 scenario you are supporting.

How?

Do you have alternative footage of the Capitol at 10:10?

Can you even confirm the footage was taken in the evacuation area?

2) everything in that footage contradicts Goss' statement he was inside the building.

How?

Again, why can’t Goss have been inside the building prior to the interview?

I don't think anything. I don't need to speculate to prove I am right. I have plenty of reports and transcripts, which are a stronger piece of evidence than any personal opinion. Here is one:

CNN transcripts, 9/11 2001

Are you seriously claiming the above scenario is compatible with the scenario we see in the footage?

What time did the “screaming” occur and precisely where?

What time was the footage taken and where, again?

Can you place the “screaming” at the time and location of the Goss interview?

Yes, smoke on Pentagon was clearly visible from Capitol Hill.

In regard to video footage, do you think that might depend which direction the camera is pointed?

Please note that I am not claiming this footage proves the flyover theory.

Ok, what are you claiming?

Anything?

Both options appear as valid alternatives to you, no matter if one rules out the other, provided that:

1) you can negate that the blast heard at 0:20 is the 9:37 explosion at the Pentagon

2) you can negate that the low pass of a plane heard at the end of the footage could be the same plane that flew over the Pentagon

If you think I’m biased, you are right - the rest of the evidence made me that way.

I already know the plane hit the Pentagon because of all this evidence you have yet to respond to.

Therefore when I watch the Goss interview footage and see it can fit with a time after impact, that’s how I’m going to call it (because then it slots into place with all of the other evidence).

Even if I forgot all that other evidence and watched the Goss interview footage in isolation, I’d ask how you knew it was Flight 77 and not the following C-130 that was heard.

If I forgot all that other evidence and did not know there was a C-130 at the scene and felt like calling Goss a liar and wanted to risk making a huge assumption about time and location of the interview footage… then I would agree we have something which could be fit with a Pentagon flyover theory.

Hey Scott, if you have time - what do you think of this footage? You didn’t say earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why you're so sure that a 757 approached the pentagon at all.

Radar Data

The FAA, PEOC and Secret Service accounts all note an unidentified aircraft approach the Pentagon, but not leave the area.

As CIT states:

Flight 77 was lost on radar as early as 8:56 while the alleged impact was not until just after 9:30. This gave the perpetrators approximately 30 minutes to "ditch" the original plane for the flyover drone.

Source: http://thepentacon.com/

You don't even disagree that the aircraft may have been switched; so why on earth would it have to be replaced with another 757? Continuing...

Eyewitnesses

There are well over a hundred eyewitnesses to the aircraft approach and/or impact.

And/or? Why are you combining the people who saw the aircraft approach with those who were in a position to possibly see the impact? It seems like you're trying to bolster your numbers. CIT has done an extensive study of the witnesses. For anyone who's seriously interested in seeing what the witnesses were aware of, this is a good place to start:

Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

Of those [witnesses]:

Four perceived it was a 'small' plane.

Not saying it's wrong, but curious where you got that number.

Zero saw a 'flyover'.

What proof do you have of that? As a matter of fact, CIT has evidence that some -did- believe that the plane kept on going. And the account of others suggests it may have happened that way. Here's CIT list on these people:

Flyover/away witnesses and connections:

1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts

2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)

3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"

4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"

5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".

Source: http://z3.invisionfr...hp?showtopic=82

Over forty specified it was a 'large' plane.

Over one hundred believed the aircraft impact.

The media said that the plane hit the building. So it stands to reason that most would believe that that's what happened.

Light Pole Damage

Five (well-spaced out) light poles were damaged or knocked down when clipped by the aircraft in front of the Pentagon.

All the credible witnesses have stated that the plane flew towards the pentagon on a North of Citgo approach; on this approach, it would have hit absolutely none of the light poles that were allegedly knocked down by the plane. Even Lloyd England, who states that one of the light poles hit his car has never stated that he saw the plane knock it down. Given his proximity to where the plane was, this strikes me as suspicious. The fact that he tried to persuade CIT that he was on the North side of the Citgo gas station when the light pole allegedly hit his car is even more suspicious, considering that there's photographic evidence placing him and his car south of the Citgo gas station. So what do you have? One highly suspect witness to a light pole hitting his car, and the rest of the witnesses in a position to know all stating that the plane flew on an NoC route. What's more, as CIT has pointed out, the poles don't look like they were knocked down, but rather cut. Craig Ranke of CIT explains the evidence that the knocked down light poles were staged in great detail here:

The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance

To be continued...

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Scott… I only asked what you thought of the Porter Goss interview! :D

All the credible witnesses have stated that the plane flew towards the pentagon on a North of Citgo approach…

Ah yes, the same “credible witnesses” who all say the plane impact the building.

Because that’s another point - not only do you pick and choose eyewitnesses, you decide which part of their testimony you will accept too.

What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generator Damage

A generator was damaged by the aircraft in front of the Pentagon.

A generator that was near the pentagon was certainly damaged. What evidence do you have that a plane caused that damage, let alone a 757?

Pentagon Damage

This is a composition of various photographs which show the full damage: -compmix2.jpg

Remember that the Pentagon building (blast-proof steel-reinforced concrete) is completely unlike the WTC structures (relatively lightweight steel columns at the exterior with aluminium cladding) and we should not expect to see similar results in each case. Clearly at the Pentagon the aircraft would break-up more rapidly and the building damage be less severe.

The distance of the long red arrow is approximately 90ft, meaning that the width of the damage is acceptably consistent with the dimensions of a Boeing 757. The large hole in the centre is where the fuselage impacted and damage at ground level on either side is where the engines/wings hit. I have previously scaled and superimposed an image of a Boeing 757 over the picture and found it fits the damage well – try it for yourself

Even if it were true that the pentagon were so resilient, the debris would have to go somewhere; if it didn't get buried inside the pentagon (and there's no evidence that it did), the pentalawn should be strewn with 757 debris. Only it isn't. This video has a good laugh at the official story's expense regarding the amazing pentalawn and brings up many other anomalies of the official story regarding the pentagon attack:

http://www.dailymoti...rike_shortfilms

Alignment of Damage

The light pole damage, the generator damage and internal damage to the Pentagon as documented by the ASCE are all in perfect alignment indicating the aircraft came through that way.

Yes, on that, atleast, those who staged this evidence did fairly well, the amazing pentalawn ™ aside. But aside from this and the problems I've already mentioned, there's a pink elephant in the room. Namely, that there's no way that the pentaplane could have crashed into the pentagon the way the official story would have us believe it did. Craig Ranke of CIT explains in great detail why this is so here:

G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

Wing Impact Marks

starboard-wing.jpg

Drawing a yellow line over the pentagon facade and marking it "starboard wing impact" doesn't mean that that's the way it actually went down :-p. You say the wing hit that section; so where is the wing? Vaporized or something eh? Speaking of vaporized planes, this is another good video on the pentagon attack anomalies:

Pentagon 757 vaporized human flesh did not

PentagonBuildingPerformanceRepor-5.jpg

The superimposed lines are a guide as where to look. If you follow the line you can see gouges, deeper than the surrounding damage, in the masonry. These run adjacent to the central impact location with consistent width and depth. It therefore appears a linear object was attached to whatever impacted the Pentagon - otherwise known as 'a wing'.

Again, lines drawn on the pentagon facade, even if they have suggestive descriptions such as "wing marks" or arrows helpfully pointing towards the spot in question are a poor substitute for some hard evidence; such as an actual wing. To be continued...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Q24,

thank you for your reply. Believe me, I fully respect your view. I just think it would make no sense for me to repeat things that would hardly change your mind. I guess we can go on fairly and respectfully as before even with disagreeing conclusions about the time of that footage.

Just a couple of remarks about this part of your last post:

Even if I forgot all that other evidence

You have no conclusive evidence that a plane hit the building. You have debris that were never positively identified as belonging to the real AA-77 or as coming from any other aircraft. You have damages to the facade that even many debunkers consider questionable. You have many photographs that nobody knows when and where were taken. You have footages that are far from clearly showing a plane. If you consider all this evidence, no problem. I don't. If I believed that evidence shown by the government is evidence just because it comes from the government, then I could also believe that Bin Laden was actually killed on May 2nd and his body thrown into the sea. Faith is faith.

I’d ask how you knew it was Flight 77

I never claimed it was Flight 77. I only claimed it might be. Period.

and not the following C-130 that was heard.

If you first prove that what NoC witnesses saw was the C130, I will agree with you that what flew over Porter Goss' head seconds after the blast on the Pentagon could actually be the C130.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.