General of all American Intelligence:

[ExpandMyMind]

ok, for anyone reading this go and look at the photo. there are at least 6 people facing towards/looking in the direction of the fire...

people facing the building from left to right:

1 - guy with the bag

2 - woman in the middle of the road standing with her face turned away from the camera (towards the fire). she has a white top, black bag and trousers on.

3 - the next is the woman at the white car

4 - possibly a woman (the hair) but definitely someone facing the building, you can only see the top half of her body as she is behind the white car.

5 - man to the right of her with his hands on his hips.

6 - man to the right of him who's left hand looks to be in his pocket

7 - then the very last guy on the right (there look like two heads, which could be a shadow or someone else who's body is obscured) facing away from a camera (towards the attack) with a jack bauer bag over his shoulder.

the fact you are even trying to debate this completely emphasises my earlier point. this is why i didn't want to get involved in this. because it's quite obviously pointless.

unless of course i am looking at the wrong photo (post 385).

just one question. how long after the attack was the photo taken? because unless you know exactly how many minutes it was taken after the attack, then everything you assume about road blocks, police, reactions... it's all completely meaningless. and apologies if the time has already been posted but i haven't seen it.

Edited July 28, 2010 by expandmymind

[enzian]

1 - guy with the bag

Yup, although his body language is weird. Is he supposed to be walking.

2 - woman in the middle of the road standing with her face turned away from the camera (towards the fire). she has a white top, black bag and trousers on.

Nope. First of all she isn't standing - she is casually strolling. Second, she isn't facing the impact area. But yes, she does appear to be looking at the building.

3 - the next is the woman at the white car

Who made the bizarre decision to sit out her window.

4 - possibly a woman (the hair) but definitely someone facing the building, you can only see the top half of her body as she is behind the white car.

We don't know what she is doing

5 - man to the right of her with his hands on his hips.

Yes.

6 - man to the right of him who's left hand looks to be in his pocket

No, I'd have to say he is looking at the SUV directly in front of him.

7 - then the very last guy on the right (there look like two heads, which could be a shadow or someone else who's body is obscured) facing away from a camera (towards the attack) with a jack bauer bag over his shoulder.

No, there are two people there. the guy you reference again appears to be looking at a car.

Where is the terror at the terror attack???

the fact you are even trying to debate this completely emphasises my earlier point. this is why i didn't want to get involved in this. because it's quite obviously pointless.

Hey, you decided to butt into a conversation I was having and loudly state your OPINION that you are right and I am wrong. Don't get all upset when I defend my position. By the way, this picture is still only a small part of a larger discussion of which the picture is just supporting evidence (and weak supporting evidence due to the subjective nature of interpreting it.) Secondly, my tenative conclusion is based upon other evidence presented at the SteveWarRan blog. Have you bothered to look into any of it or are you content to just loudly proclaim your opinion. If you didn't want to get involved in this then why did you???

just one question. how long after the attack was the photo taken? because unless you know exactly how many minutes it was taken after the attack, then everything you assume about road blocks, police, reactions... it's all completely meaningless.

Absolutely false. We know that at a bare minimum the police would want the road cleared for emergency vehicles. It therefore follows that they would now want people aimlessly meandering about RT.27 as we see in this picture. As far as the time goes Riskus claims it was "within minutes" of the attack. I notice you chose to ignore the evidence of Mike Dobbs and Mike Walter - one who stated people were running to get away...and the other who stated people were trying to get out of the road in their cars. Neither stated that people just abandoned their cars and then proceeded to just meander about. Bottom line: I have two witnesses whose statements contradict this picture. How many do you have that support that people got out of their cars and started aimlessly meandering around? Zero.

and apologies if the time has already been posted but i haven't seen it.

If you want to do something besides just spouting your opinion and then complaining about how you got sucked into a conversation you didn't want to be involved in then go read the Steve Riskus sections of the SteveWarRan blog. Warran claims that on 9/10/01 Riskus got his domain name but it was registered to one James Schauer. There is a James Schauer that got trained in the Navy for visual production (for lack of a better word). If you really want to debunk something you can start there. Otherwise, as I've said before, you have stated your opinion, and it has been duly noted. There is no need for you to repeat yourself.

Edited July 28, 2010 by enzian

[enzian]

Another weird thing about the Riskus picture is that something he himself said contradicts it.

"youthenraged: people started running across the road"(Youthenraged is his screen name.)

http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2007/02/steve-riskus-exposed-as-fraud.html

Where are the people running in his picture?

[ExpandMyMind]

i really don't have anything more to contribute to this... i tried, but as i predicted before, it's went downhill fast...

i do suggest to anyone to read what i have posted, what this dude posted and make up your own mind. it's ridiculous that someone even has to defend the legitimacy of that photo from truly, truly weak claim of forgery...

like i've said, people can easily make up their own minds.

[ExpandMyMind]

Another weird thing about the Riskus picture is that something he himself said contradicts it.

"youthenraged: people started running across the road"(Youthenraged is his screen name.)

http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2007/02/steve-riskus-exposed-as-fraud.html

Where are the people running in his picture?

it's a still picture! how can you not get that...

if it was a 3 min video and we saw no one running, no weird actions, no police, whatever, then you might have a case. but this is one single caption... to try and... bah.. doesn't matter i explained this before, you obviously don't get it... i'm out.

god loves a trier.

[enzian]

it's a still picture! how can you not get that...

I do get it. I've said severl times that it is to a certain extent subjective and weak evidence.

if it was a 3 min video and we saw no one running, no weird actions, no police, whatever, then you might have a case. but this is one single caption... to try and... bah.. doesn't matter i explained this before, you obviously don't get it... i'm out.

That's a cop out. The picture is still evidence I provided three eye-witness reports that contradict the picture. One of those eyewitnesses was the photographer himself when he said people were running away! Yet in this picture we see no one running at all. It makes sense that people would be running from a terror attack. It doesn't make sense that they would get out of their cars on a road that would need to be cleared for emergency vehicles and then just aimlessly meander around or stand casually with their hands in their pockets.

god loves a trier.

All I saw you do is proclaim your opinion that your interpretation is correct and mine is incorrect, and then proceed to ignore the other evidence I posted in support of my interpretation.

Edited July 28, 2010 by enzian

[Q24]

From the evidence I've seen the Pentagon does not show evidence of a 757 having hit it.

I was also unconvinced by the physical evidence of an impact for some time. There is no single photograph which clearly shows the full building damage, there are no large and obviously identifiable sections of the aircraft, overall there appears at first somewhat limited physical evidence of the impact. With this in mind I understand where you’re coming from.

My way of working, where there is no single “smoking gun” providing a definite conclusion, is to collect the smaller individual pieces of evidence that are available and fit them together to give the big picture. Using this method there are four main areas which when combined provide sufficient physical evidence to me of an airliner imapct: -

1. The impact hole
   Below is a composition of photographs from various angles which shows the full damage: -
   
   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.
   Just 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 faster and the building damage be less severe.
   
2. Debris
   Bearing the above in mind that we are dealing with a building designed to withstand bomb blasts, it is perhaps not so surprising that no large debris was recovered. Still there does appear to be a sufficient amount of smaller debris identifiable as from the aircraft. Please see the post here for a number of images and descriptions
   
3. Wing marks
   
   
   The superimposed lines are a guide as where to look. If you follow the line you can see the clear gouges, deeper than the surrounding damage, in the masonry. The damage runs adjacent to the central impact location with fairly consistent width and depth. To summarise - a linear object was attached to whatever impacted the Pentagon. It does sound plausibly like a wing!
   
4. Building study
   The Pentagon Building Performance Report authored by members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) was carried out through an on-site inspection that detailed damage to the building. Findings match with photographic evidence, known approach trajectory (through witness statements, approach damage and radar data) and are consistent with an aircraft impact.
   

Taking these points into account there is a satisfactory level of evidence to conclude that an aircraft may well have impacted the Pentagon, indeed it seems highly likely based on the physical damage evidence alone. It is once you add in everything else such as the radar tracking and security footage, etc that the case becomes overwhelming.

One side question - if a plane did hit it where is the footage?

Please see the post here.

The security footage we have is poor quality but the fuselage and tail of the aircraft are visible if you know where to look.

That is why there treatment of Lloyd is so fascinating. He is a North Side witness and they tried to get the Truth Movement to go after him.

Lloyd is a witness to the official flight path due to confirming that the airliner clipped the light poles on approach. The light pole damage cannot be corroborated with the North approach as there is no serious dispute from anyone that the clipped light poles were on the South side.

Photographic evidence shows this, CIT admit this, you can even go on Google Earth and check the location of the downed light poles for yourself – you can still see them laying there. That is unless you believe Google are also in on the photo manipulation with Steve Riskus?

If the light pole went through Lloyd’s windshield (which you seem to accept) then by all evidence he was on the South side and simply misremembered his location when giving his testimony years later. This is why CIT smear him – because they know he is another of the many witnesses to the official impact event.

Q, I had a problem with quoting on this one so I put a "---" before my repsonses.

Just throw a [ quote] [ /quote] tag around the sections you are quoting.

I cannot understand your treatment of the twenty witness statements I provided to the impact and official approach – perhaps I’m wrong but you appear rather dismissive of them with little reason (your interpretation of them is not quite right in some cases also). Still, you seem fully content to throw a dispute at each and every witness to the official impact event and yet should it be suggested that Lloyd England misremembered his precise location when driving on a road at a specific moment in time and questioned on it years later… oh no, that could never be the case.

I think the witness accounts should be treated with equal value rather than a pick and choose exercise to support a version of events we prefer. The bottom line again is that witnesses to the official approach and impact outnumber those who contradict it by around 3:1.

[enzian]

I was also unconvinced by the physical evidence of an impact for some time. There is no single photograph which clearly shows the full building damage, there are no large and obviously identifiable sections of the aircraft, overall there appears at first somewhat limited physical evidence of the impact. With this in mind I understand where you’re coming from.

My way of working, where there is no single “smoking gun” providing a definite conclusion, is to collect the smaller individual pieces of evidence that are available and fit them together to give the big picture. Using this method there are four main areas which when combined provide sufficient physical evidence to me of an airliner imapct: -

We are more or less going to have to agree to disagree. I think the Pentagon damage is ambiguous. To me there is no way I can reconcile the damage with a 757 but I've talked with enough smart, trustworthy people that think it is that I just have to accept that it's possible and I could be mistaken. That being said I can't resist giving my rebuttal.

[*]Debris

Bearing the above in mind that we are dealing with a building designed to withstand bomb blasts, it is perhaps not so surprising that no large debris was recovered. Still there does appear to be a sufficient amount of smaller debris identifiable as from the aircraft. Please see the post here for a number of images and descriptions

Yeah, I've seen them before. I just don't find it convincing. While I'm thinking of it...why was there such a concerted effort after the crash to gather up evidence? The scene wasn't sealed off for FBI investigators...instead Pentagon employees were more or less immediately on the scene removing all evidence. Why the breach of protocol?

[*]Wing marks

The superimposed lines are a guide as where to look. If you follow the line you can see the clear gouges, deeper than the surrounding damage, in the masonry. The damage runs adjacent to the central impact location with fairly consistent width and depth. To summarise - a linear object was attached to whatever impacted the Pentagon. It does sound plausibly like a wing!

Plausible. It also looks like some just drew parallel line over damage.

[*]Building study

The Pentagon Building Performance Report authored by members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) was carried out through an on-site inspection that detailed damage to the building. Findings match with photographic evidence, known approach trajectory (through witness statements, approach damage and radar data) and are consistent with an aircraft impact.

My personal take is that the flight path is anything but certain, as are the photographs. I also would need an explanation about what punched that neat little hole in the C-ring.

Taking these points into account there is a satisfactory level of evidence to conclude that an aircraft may well have impacted the Pentagon, indeed it seems highly likely based on the physical damage evidence alone. It is once you add in everything else such as the radar tracking and security footage, etc that the case becomes overwhelming.

I am sorry but I just really strongly disagree. The security footage to me definitely does not look like a 757. Why wouldn't they release clear pictures of a 757? Why was the FBI gathering up security tapes from surrounding businesses? Why hide something if you have nothing to hide?

Lloyd is a witness to the official flight path due to confirming that the airliner clipped the light poles on approach. The light pole damage cannot be corroborated with the North approach as there is no serious dispute from anyone that the clipped light poles were on the South side.

Sgt. Lagasse said the Light poles would have had to have been clipped NoC as did the cab driver himself (Lloyd).

Photographic evidence shows this, CIT admit this, you can even go on Google Earth and check the location of the downed light poles for yourself – you can still see them laying there.

What CIT did was create a hypothesis of NoC approach and state that the SoC poles must be staged (which they claim they have "proven"). Then they look into Lloyd who is essentially an NoC witness that claims the SoC damage must be staged - instead of them even considering that the photos were manipulted to make it appear he was SoC instead they chose single Lloyd out as the person the Truth Movement should go after. There is something really weird about that to me. Lloyd is more or less a truther. So what we have is this highly suspicious group that calls themselves CIT trying to get truthers to go after truthers...whether or not they are actual disinfo that is EXACTLY the aim of disinfo.

That is unless you believe Google are also in on the photo manipulation with Steve Riskus?

Of course I don't. I accept there were lightpoles at SoC (I think the evidence was staged). I just believe Lloyd was NoC when he got hit by a lightpole.

If the light pole went through Lloyd’s windshield (which you seem to accept) then by all evidence he was on the South side

Absolutely not. We must at least consider the possibility that the NoC witnesses are correct and that Lloyd was correct about where he was hit.

and simply misremembered his location when giving his testimony years later. This is why CIT smear him – because they know he is another of the many witnesses to the official impact event.

That's why it is so interesting. What Lloyd actually is is a witness to NoC. If you accept CIT's conclusions in NSA then one must seriously consider the possibility that the SoC photos are fake. It might be interesting for you to read the argument I've been having with the CIT crowd. As you pointed out earlier CITs First Accomplice video is very misleading. They go out of their way to make it appear that Lloyd was SoC...think about that if nothing else...why are they trying so hard to get Lloyd to admit he was SoC?

I cannot understand your treatment of the twenty witness statements I provided to the impact and official approach – perhaps I’m wrong but you appear rather dismissive of them with little reason (your interpretation of them is not quite right in some cases also).

If you think it is worthwhile we should go through the witnesses one by one. I have discovered some really interesting things about some of the SoC witnesses. I suggest we start with Tim Timmerman..let me know if your interested in dissecting his testimony.

Still, you seem fully content to throw a dispute at each and every witness to the official impact event

Only because I thought they were legitimate disputations.

and yet should it be suggested that Lloyd England misremembered his precise location when driving on a road at a specific moment in time and questioned on it years later… oh no, that could never be the case.

I never said that. I think it would help if you kept in mind that I am arguing against CIT (not you). Their claim that Lloyd is lying is internally inconsistent because they claim that his claims prove he is lying to create SoC evidence. When, in fact, the one thing Lloyd most adamantly is is a NoC witness. It makes no sense that Lloyd is lying as they claim! The only conclusion I can draw is that the photos are manipulated.

I think the witness accounts should be treated with equal value rather than a pick and choose exercise to support a version of events we prefer.

I agree completely.

The bottom line again is that witnesses to the official approach and impact outnumber those who contradict it by around 3:1.

No, the bottom line is that we have to determine which witness accounts make sense. Let me put it to you this way. If I could prove to you that all SoC witness accounts are questionable and all NoC accounts are relatively reliable we would have to conclude the SoC damage was staged. We would also have to conclude that if Lloyd was hit by a pole (as we both agree he was) then he would have had to have been hit NoC where the airplane was. We would then also have to conclude that the photos of him SoC are fake.

By the way...I am not asking you to believe these things...I am merely looking for some verification that if one accepts the NoC approach it makes more sense to believe the photos are faked than that Lloyd is lying (my argument is with CIT not you).

[Q24]

Yeah, I've seen them before. I just don't find it convincing. While I'm thinking of it...why was there such a concerted effort after the crash to gather up evidence? The scene wasn't sealed off for FBI investigators...instead Pentagon employees were more or less immediately on the scene removing all evidence. Why the breach of protocol?

I have seen photographs of one or two fuselage pieces being moved on the Pentagon lawn apparently soon after the incident.

Unless I’m missing something, that could hardly constitute “removing all evidence”.

My personal take is that the flight path is anything but certain, as are the photographs. I also would need an explanation about what punched that neat little hole in the C-ring.

The landing gear? It is one of the toughest parts of the aircraft after all.

One would maybe wonder why the landing gear punctured the C-ring when the engines did not. Take a look at the debris which exited WTC1 (where I assume you accept there was a plane impact) – yep, it’s the landing gear.

I am sorry but I just really strongly disagree. The security footage to me definitely does not look like a 757. Why wouldn't they release clear pictures of a 757? Why was the FBI gathering up security tapes from surrounding businesses? Why hide something if you have nothing to hide?

What does the security footage look like to you?

It shows the top part of a fuselage.

It shows the tail of an aircraft.

It shows a smoke trail behind the aircraft consistent with the generator impact on approach.

It shows an explosion as created by jet fuel the same as the WTC impacts.

You may need to watch the video a few times to make it all out but everything that we should expect to see of an aircraft in such poor quality footage is there.

One thing though… I do not say there is nothing to hide. You see, there is not a bit of evidence that was Flight 77 which impacted the Pentagon. A standard air crash investigation or release of all video footage may have revealed something detrimental to the false flag attack, thus reason for confiscation of security tapes.

By the way...I am not asking you to believe these things...I am merely looking for some verification that if one accepts the NoC approach it makes more sense to believe the photos are faked than that Lloyd is lying (my argument is with CIT not you).

I don’t much like to discuss CIT, they don’t deserve the mention. Between us…

If one accepts the North of Citgo approach then it also must be accepted that a ) there is mass photo/video manipulation going on, and/or b ) there was a team who faked a vast and elaborate scene of approach and impact damage in broad daylight. On top of that, one would need to believe that the large majority of eyewitnesses are hopelessly inaccurate about what they saw, the plane activated some invisibility cloak and evaded radar after the flyover and a significant number of Pentagon staff, not to mention the ASCE, were in on the plot. And that’s just the basics.

I don’t agree with any of it or believe that one idea above makes any more sense than another.

Think about it – if you were planning a false flag attack is that the route you would take? It’s an enormous and unnecessary risk to the entire operation. Far easier to just slam an airliner into the building as was already shown possible at the WTC – this can fully account for all of the available evidence exactly as it stands with no photo manipulation, elaborate faked scenes, success dependence on witnesses or personal gut feeling required.

No, the bottom line is that we have to determine which witness accounts make sense. Let me put it to you this way. If I could prove to you that all SoC witness accounts are questionable and all NoC accounts are relatively reliable we would have to conclude the SoC damage was staged.

This is a good example of what I’m talking about above – by accepting an impact I can account for every witness statement without problem. If they saw a plane North of Citgo, it could well have been the C-130. If they saw a plane South of Citgo, it was the impacting aircraft. I am also open to the possibility there is a good chance witness testimony provided years after the event could very simply be wrong. I do not need to determine which accounts make sense and which do not or split them out or call them liars – they can all make sense just as they are.

These are witness statements we are dealing with, not science. People have different perspectives and interpretations - if you want to take everything that every witness says literally you will end up with a hundred different stories and get nowhere, or worse… pick and choose the accounts to fit a preferred story.

[enzian]

, the plane activated some invisibility cloak and evaded radar after the flyover

Not necessarily, they could've just flown to R. Reagan which is about 1 minute from Pentagon. Theycould have had some cover story about the plane and ordered ATC not to talk about. There is some evidence that ATC testimony was supressed.

and a significant number of Pentagon staff, not to mention the ASCE, were in on the plot.

How is this any different than NIST being in on it?

Think about it – if you were planning a false flag attack is that the route you would take?

Not necessarily, but we don't know why they considered it necessary to hit the pentagon at all. Also, with the WTC they had to hit it with planes as part of their cover story of collapse. Maybe with the Pentagon it didn't have to get hit by a plane so they didn't. Think about it...if they had that part of the Pentagon rigged with explosives then why crash the plane into it? You just need a plausible story that a plane hit it.

It’s an enormous and unnecessary risk to the entire operation.

So was blowing up WTC7 in broad daylight.

Far easier to just slam an airliner into the building as was already shown possible at the WTC –

I think you have to consider the risk that NORAD would have functioned properly and that a plane flying an hour after WTC1 and 2 could get shot down. They couldn't have the mission depend on an actual plane at the pentagon. Just like with Northwoods they would have a pre-written script. What happens if the plane gets shot down? You would have to have a back up story like truck bomb. Bottom line in what I am proposing is that their plan didn't involve a plane hitting the building because one didn't have to, unlike WTC1 and 2 where planes definitely did have to hit.

this can fully account for all of the available evidence exactly as it stands

Most truthers I talk to don't think a plane hit the pentagon. I only started hearing people saying a plane hit once the "No-Plane disinfo campaign got underway and people started to get leary about saying no plane at the pentagon. To me when I hear a truther say a plane hit the Pentagon I just have to sigh because from my perspective the disinfo was effective.

with no photo manipulation,

which would be easy.

elaborate faked scenes,

911 itself was an elaborate fake scene.

success dependence on witnesses

The simple fact is that there is conflicting witness testimony.

or personal gut feeling required.

I haven't relied solely on gut feelings. Beyond that "gut feeling" is not synonomous with "wrong."

by accepting an impact I can account for every witness statement without problem.

If they saw a plane North of Citgo, it could well have been the C-130.

The NoC witnesses said they saw a low flying commercial aircraft. NoC witness Lloyd England says a lightpole actually hit his car.

If they saw a plane South of Citgo, it was the impacting aircraft.

I could just as easily turn it around and say the SoC aircraft was the C-130.

I am also open to the possibility there is a good chance witness testimony provided years after the event could very simply be wrong. I do not need to determine which accounts make sense and which do not or split them out or call them liars – they can all make sense just as they are.

You are. oversimplifying. I will find a clip from a witness that is clearly being coached on what to say. It seems to me you are just dismissing any evvidence that the SoC witnesses aren't being honest.

These are witness statements we are dealing with, not science. People have different perspectives and interpretations - if you want to take everything that every witness says literally you will end up with a hundred different stories and get nowhere, or worse… pick and choose the accounts to fit a preferred story.

Which cuts both ways. The reason witness testimony is still used in courts is because it is not always unreliable. Clearly some witness testimony is 100% true. What criminal investigators try and do is find out which witnesses are lying and which are being truthful. Its no different when investigating 911 (which is a criminal investigation).

[enzian]

Q,

Why is this Pentagon witness clearly being coached on what to say? Apparently by Tim Timmerman (we'll get to him next).

[Q24]

Not necessarily, they could've just flown to R. Reagan which is about 1 minute from Pentagon. Theycould have had some cover story about the plane and ordered ATC not to talk about. There is some evidence that ATC testimony was supressed.

Something like this…

I see… so whilst a great number of witnesses saw the aircraft fly the approximate blue route, every single one of them (without exception!) missed it lift over the Pentagon and perform a hard right bank as it flew the orange route to Reagan National… in your opinion.

Even Roosevelt Roberts who is supposedly the single flyover witness in existence describes the plane he saw after impact heading back toward the direction it came. Again, not one witness or single scrap of evidence supports a flyover.

How is this any different than NIST being in on it?

NIST are not in on it, they provided the only acceptable answer.

Think about it...if they had that part of the Pentagon rigged with explosives then why crash the plane into it?

As above, there is not a single scrap of evidence that supports explosives in the Pentagon.

So was blowing up WTC7 in broad daylight.

As above, there is not a single scrap of evidence for agents planting light poles.

I think you have to consider the risk that NORAD would have functioned properly and that a plane flying an hour after WTC1 and 2 could get shot down. They couldn't have the mission depend on an actual plane at the pentagon.

There was absolute minimal risk of the Pentagon plane being shot down as Cheney and Bush had the authority on this. I assume you are aware of events in the Presidential Emergency Operations Centre (PEOC) during the time the aircraft was incoming? Maybe not as I haven’t seen such serious evidence discussed on the CIT forum. Cheney had an order in place regarding the aircraft as they watched it incoming on radar and it certainly was not for a shoot down.

Most truthers I talk to don't think a plane hit the pentagon. I only started hearing people saying a plane hit once the "No-Plane disinfo campaign got underway and people started to get leary about saying no plane at the pentagon. To me when I hear a truther say a plane hit the Pentagon I just have to sigh because from my perspective the disinfo was effective.

I’m not surprised of your experience as it seems you have been talking on the CIT forum lately and watching their biased presentations. The fact is that “no plane” theories have done more damage to the truth movement than any other issue. Scholars for 9/11 Truth was ripped apart at one point because researchers such as Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman did not want their work associated with “no plane” theories.

There are a number of other genuine truth movement outlets that explicitly refute “no plane” theories such as WTC7.net, 911Research and 911Review. The WhatReallyHappened site concludes the issue, “The Pentagon was hit by a plane, end of story”.

It is only the CIT and P4T forums where “no plane” theories are most prevalent, i.e. a minority of the truth movement.

which would be easy.

Any photo manipulation would not be easy because there are numerous images from different angles of the same scene which all match exactly as they should. It would also not be easy to control genuine photographs which would blow the lid on the entire operation if they existed. As above, there is not a single scrap of evidence for photo manipulation.

911 itself was an elaborate fake scene.

No, this is where people get upset and begin to despise ‘conspiracy theorists’ when they hear comments like that. 9/11 was very real with three planes slamming into buildings, another being downed and 3,000 deaths. There is evidence for it; it happened. What there is no evidence for is the agents dragging light poles into the road to stage a fake approach path.

The simple fact is that there is conflicting witness testimony.

Sorry I keep forgetting that all witness statements to an event should perfectly match... no wait, they shouldn’t? As I explained in my last post, the witness testimony can be taken as it is without necessarily having to be conflicting, you are just limiting yourself to reading it that way – your choice.

I could just as easily turn it around and say the SoC aircraft was the C-130.

Except that the Pentagon impact plane came from the South of Citgo and it is well documented that the C-130 was still flying after the impact – it was not the plane that impacted the Pentagon so no, you could not seriously turn around and say it was the C-130 that the official flight path witnesses saw. On the other hand, we know that a plane coming from North of Citgo did not impact the Pentagon, we know that the C-130 did not impact the Pentagon, it fits that the C-130 was the plane seen by the North of Citgo witnesses. Nevermind, you just need to think it through some more.

What criminal investigators try and do is find out which witnesses are lying and which are being truthful. Its no different when investigating 911 (which is a criminal investigation).

There is not a scrap of evidence that any of the witnesses are lying. The same as there is not a scrap of evidence for a flyover. The same as there is not a scrap of evidence for explosives in the Pentagon. The same as there is not a scrap of evidence for agents planting light poles. The same as there is not a scrap of evidence for photo manipulation.

Seriously, you have come up with all of this wild speculation to fit a story straight from your imagination for no other reason than ‘you have a feeling’… probably not helped by the biased presentations of CIT. Worse than that, it ignores and excuses all of the available evidence that we do have. When you come up with some solid evidence for anything you are saying, please do let us know.

[Q24]

Q,

Why is this Pentagon witness clearly being coached on what to say? Apparently by Tim Timmerman (we'll get to him next).

Because Timmerman is the devil and a major player in the flyover plot.

No doubt about it.

Evidence, please. You’re acting worse than the official story followers who make too many assumptions.

[Indiogene]

Either he's a nut or a hoax (LoL, time for another round of medication injections in the...ends) or the real deal behind what goes on behind the closed doors of our government. To release top secret information is a crime, but the New York Times announced to the world on the military war reports on Afghanistan kept tight shut for 6 years and questions arise on the authenticity of those military war reports. Is there a conspiracy to cover-up a total war? I doubt it, but after 9/11 the Bush administration made it a policy for the media have partial or low access to the battle fronts and not display or discuss the war's most violent graphic parts.

[enzian]

Because Timmerman is the devil and a major player in the flyover plot.

No doubt about it.

Evidence, please. Youre acting worse than the official story followers who make too many assumptions.

What do you mean? I just supplied you with news footage of a witness who is being told what to say and I aked you what your explanation is? The news clip is the evidence. All I get from you is silly sarcasm, a couple stupid emoticons, and an ad hominem. Why is she (dawn vignola) being coached?

Edited July 30, 2010 by enzian

[enzian]

NIST are not in on it, they provided the only acceptable answer.

What??? Of course they are in on it. They are lying through their teeth...especially building 7.

There was absolute minimal risk of the Pentagon plane being shot down as Cheney and Bush had the authority on this. I assume you are aware of events in the Presidential Emergency Operations Centre (PEOC) during the time the aircraft was incoming? Maybe not as I haven’t seen such serious evidence discussed on the CIT forum. Cheney had an order in place regarding the aircraft as they watched it incoming on radar and it certainly was not for a shoot down.

That's a preposterous assertion that there was "absolute minimal risk." It seems to me it would be pretty difficult to get every military commander in NORAD on board with attacking the US. Also, I don't spen anytime at the CIT forum whatsover. I have been studying 911 for years. So yes, I know all about Norman Mineta's testimony.

I’m not surprised of your experience as it seems you have been talking on the CIT forum lately and watching their biased presentations. The fact is that “no plane” theories have done more damage to the truth movement than any other issue. Scholars for 9/11 Truth was ripped apart at one point because researchers such as Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman did not want their work associated with “no plane” theories.

I haven't spent anytime at the CIT forum, and lately I've been spending alot of time arguing with them. Maybe you should make fewer silly assumptions. The simple fact of the matter is that early on in the 9/11 truth movement everyone doubted that a 757 hit the pentagon. It was only when disinfo came up with the "no planes" campaign that people started getting hesitant to say there was no plane at the pentagon. Its gotten to the point no where people like you have deluded themselves into thinking their is evidence of a 757 there. Sorry, I'm with Stubblebine on this one.

There are a number of other genuine truth movement outlets that explicitly refute “no plane” theories such as WTC7.net, 911Research and 911Review. The WhatReallyHappened site concludes the issue, “The Pentagon was hit by a plane, end of story”.

It is only the CIT and P4T forums where “no plane” theories are most prevalent, i.e. a minority of the truth movement.

Garbage assertion. David Ray Griffin doubts a plane at pentagon. I've heard Gage allude to this as well. There are many respected people in the Truth Movement that don't think a plane hit so stop trying to make it sound like there aren't. It's just silly. As far as the term "no planes" itslef - the phrase should be reserved ONLY for people that think there were no planes at the WTC. Otherwise you are in the uncompfortable position of calling DRG a no-planer.

[Q24]

What do you mean? I just supplied you with news footage of a witness who is being told what to say and I aked you what your explanation is? The news clip is the evidence. All I get from you is silly sarcasm, a couple stupid emoticons, and an ad hominem. Why is she (dawn vignola) being coached?

Yes sorry, I just lose the will sometimes.

Two possible interpretations: -

1. Timmerman and Vignola are in the pay of the powers that be and were tasked with putting out false witness statements. For some reason Vignola forgot to read her brief and/or did not know the requirements of her false statement so had to be “coached” by Timmerman during the live news call.
   
2. Vignola was giving her version of events and Timmerman in the background, also as a witness, filled in pieces from his own recollection which she then repeated to flesh out her account. This can happen when two people are recounting the same event and want to ensure the receiver gets the full story.
   

Either of the above could be true, one is farfetched and the other is normal human behaviour. We can go through some other witnesses if you like – I would like to pick the next one.

But before anything else… please could you respond to the flyover image and comments at the top of my post #412 above. It is insincere to persist with your theory whilst ignoring huge problems like this (I already let it go once with the Pentagon security footage that you are unwilling to seriously address). It is completely unreasonable to believe that so many witnesses saw the airliner approach the Pentagon and yet not a single one of them (or anyone on I-395 who would have had a great view) saw it perform a flyover and head to Reagan National Airport.

Can you explain why there are many witnesses to the approximate blue route and not a single solitary witness to the orange route?

I can explain this very simply - the blue route was end of the line for that aircraft.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Q24

[enzian]

Yes sorry, I just lose the will sometimes.

Two possible interpretations: -

1. Timmerman and Vignola are in the pay of the powers that be and were tasked with putting out false witness statements. For some reason Vignola forgot to read her brief and/or did not know the requirements of her false statement so had to be coached by Timmerman during the live news call.
   
2. Vignola was giving her version of events and Timmerman in the background, also as a witness, filled in pieces from his own recollection which she then repeated to flesh out her account. This can happen when two people are recounting the same event and want to ensure the receiver gets the full story.
   

She is clearly just saying what Timmerman is telling her to say. She is not giving her own view at all.

Either of the above could be true, one is farfetched and the other is normal human behaviour. We can go through some other witnesses if you like I would like to pick the next one.

No Q, an "eyewitness" being told what they say they witnessed is not normal at all. Are you sure you aren't being intellectually dishonest to suggest that it is?

But before anything else… please could you respond to the flyover image and comments at the top of my post #412 above. It is insincere to persist with your theory whilst ignoring huge problems like this (I already let it go once with the Pentagon security footage that you are unwilling to seriously address).

Q, the reasson I didn't "seriously address" the footage is because I just plain and simply think you are wrong. There's nothing more to say about really. How anyone can look at those 5 frames and think it is evidence of a 757 is beyond me. How anyone cannot question why unambiguous video was never released is beyond me. Why was the FBI confisctaing security footage from local businesses if there is nothing to hide? You seem to want to ignore the fact that they put alot of effort into not giving us clear evidence of what happened that day.

It is completely unreasonable to believe that so many witnesses saw the airliner approach the Pentagon and yet not a single one of them (or anyone on I-395 who would have had a great view) saw it perform a flyover and head to Reagan National Airport.

It's not completely unreasonable at all. First of all look up psychology studies on attention and perception. I think if you google "invisible gorilla" you will get some info. Also, Roosevelt Roberts did see a flyover. We don't know how many people saw a plane flying around afterwards...it's not really a remarkable story and many of the witnesses of this fact would have been Pentagon employees who at a minimum want to keep their jobs (and lives) so there is a big reason not to speak out.

I can explain this very simply - the blue route was end of the line for that aircraft.

Yes, I agree that is one explanation. The problem is I don't think other explanations are impossible or even unlikely. Read Operation Northwoods again...a flyover sounds like the exact type of thing they would come up with.

Edited July 31, 2010 by enzian

[Q24]

She is clearly just saying what Timmerman is telling her to say. She is not giving her own view at all.

No Q, an "eyewitness" being told what they say they witnessed is not normal at all. Are you sure you aren't being intellectually dishonest to suggest that it is?

As I said, what we are seeing is normal human behaviour. Have you and a friend not ever been telling a story where either of you has interjected in the others description to fill in some detail that one felt was missed? Really, stop and really think about it for a moment. It happens all the time, especially when it is a dramatic story being recounted. It seems quite apparent this is happening in the Vignola interview.

Also, for you to claim that Vignola is “just” saying what Timmerman is telling her is blatantly incorrect if you listen to the interview. Below, I have reproduced what Vignola said with the interjections from Timmerman in red, everything else is her own words: -

“I saw the.. it was an American Airlines 757.. and it came in and hit the side, it hit the heliport,

it came down Columbia Pike

and hit the heliport next to the Pentagon, I live in an apartment building on that side of the Pentagon, and it just crashed right into it. I don’t know if it damaged the side of the Pentagon but the Pentagon doesn’t look that badly damaged but I know it hit at least the heliport on the side of the Pentagon.

American Airlines.

Yes, I could see it.

And my roommate is an airplane person

and he saw it too, I mean we saw the whole thing.

It came right down Comulbia Pike. Low and with throttles on. He actually added power right by the Sheraton.

This was aimed right at it, but fortunately I think it hit the heliport and didn’t look like it damaged too much of the Pentagon.”

To be quite fair, if we want to know what Vignola saw herself, we should remove all of the red text that was not her own input. What this still leaves us with is yet another witness to the approach and impact who did not see any flyover, i.e. further corroboration of the official impact event.

I will pose it as a question because you did not address the point again: how could Vignola, as an agent of this elaborately planned flyover conspiracy, be intentionally putting out a false statement and have not known before the live interview exactly what she was supposed to say? The idea is a bit ridiculous really isn’t it.

Q, the reasson I didn't "seriously address" the footage is because I just plain and simply think you are wrong. There's nothing more to say about really. How anyone can look at those 5 frames and think it is evidence of a 757 is beyond me. How anyone cannot question why unambiguous video was never released is beyond me. Why was the FBI confisctaing security footage from local businesses if there is nothing to hide? You seem to want to ignore the fact that they put alot of effort into not giving us clear evidence of what happened that day.

Please listen carefully… there is a FUSELAGE and TAIL visible in the footage.

Watch the top-right frame (close-up given at 32s in the video). No really, actually watch it! Please.

What is that thing (circled) which appears above the skyline?

Either you agree that something with a tail approached and impacted the Pentagon or you can tell me you think the footage is also manipulated along with all of the photographic evidence of approach damage - which is it?

Please read my post #409 above – I clearly said there may indeed be something to hide.

It's not completely unreasonable at all. First of all look up psychology studies on attention and perception. I think if you google "invisible gorilla" you will get some info. Also, Roosevelt Roberts did see a flyover. We don't know how many people saw a plane flying around afterwards...it's not really a remarkable story and many of the witnesses of this fact would have been Pentagon employees who at a minimum want to keep their jobs (and lives) so there is a big reason not to speak out.

In the “invisible gorilla” example we are already preoccupied watching something completely different (the ball being passed about); no one sees the gorilla either come into the scene or leave again. To equate this to a Pentagon flyover would be to say that many witnesses saw the gorilla arrive on the scene and yet every single one of them missed it leave. No, once you spot the gorilla (an unusual event) you are going to focus on it until it is out of sight. That is, once you spot the plane coming in extremely low and fast at the Pentagon, there is no way that every witness is going to miss it pull up, continue over the building and bank hard right to Reagan National.

Roosevelt Roberts saw a plane some moments after the impact. We know the plane was not extremely low and fast like the one that impacted the Pentagon otherwise he would never even have seen it (as he was in the parking lot on a different side to the impact). By the time he got to the impact side the plane must have been higher and slower for him to get a view and he also describes it as flying back in the direction it came from. Well lo and behold… that’s pretty much what we know the C-130 did. Any guesses as to what he likely saw then?

Yes, I agree that is one explanation. The problem is I don't think other explanations are impossible or even unlikely. Read Operation Northwoods again...a flyover sounds like the exact type of thing they would come up with.

I’ve read Northwoods to death – shootdown/crash fakery was planned out to sea, not in a densely populated area.

[enzian]

Dawn Vignola is being told what to say. It's not normal human behavior at all. She is being told what to say. It is evidence her testimony is fake. If you refuse to acknowledge this point I see absolutely no reason in talking to you. I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post. Take care.

[Q24]

Dawn Vignola is being told what to say. It's not normal human behavior at all. She is being told what to say. It is evidence her testimony is fake. If you refuse to acknowledge this point I see absolutely no reason in talking to you. I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post. Take care.

I acknowledge your claim though cannot support it when you provide no evidence.

You have…

1. zero evidence that Vignola had to repeat the comments from Timmerman.
   
2. zero evidence that Vignola or Timmerman are lying.
   
3. refused to address a pertinent question regarding your claim.
   
4. chosen to be wilfully ignorant to the very basic concept of interjection in an account.
   

You must understand that you need to give me reason to fall in line with your claim otherwise obviously it’s not going to happen. You have been given the opportunity to support what you believe with evidence and logic but instead have shut down with stubborn repetition of your base claim as your only defence. This is very telling and shows that your argument is poor; you cannot uphold your claim in honest discussion.

Quite honestly, I’d be running and hiding in your position too.

[enzian]

Basically your argument is that there is nothing weird about a "witness" being told what to say. In my opinion it is just flat out silly. It's the exact type of thing I would expect to hear at JREF. Also, you are really arrogant and self-assured. You and I probably agree on alot of things but your arrogance and closed-mindedness is really off putting.

[Q24]

Basically your argument is that there is nothing weird about a "witness" being told what to say. In my opinion it is just flat out silly. It's the exact type of thing I would expect to hear at JREF. Also, you are really arrogant and self-assured. You and I probably agree on alot of things but your arrogance and closed-mindedness is really off putting.

My argument is that in this case there is nothing unexpected about one witness interjecting and adding details of what they saw into another witness’ account. If we were talking about something more official like a police interview or witness evidence in a court of law then it would be different. But here we are dealing with two members of the public who have just seen a dramatic event and are on a phone-in to a newsroom. What is silly (and this is your argument) is to assume that as soon as one witness adds details to another’s account then that automatically makes them both liars… there’s no logic to it I’m afraid.

Those over at JREF certainly wouldn’t give you the time that I am. I’ll accept the “arrogant and self assured” description which comes because I have reason to be extremely confident in what I’m saying. I don’t need to be afraid of anything in these discussions because I always keep some sort of evidence or logic on my side.

As for “closed-mindedness” I can’t accept that one - heck, I believe in a grand Neocon/Zionist conspiracy behind 9/11. If you want to talk about a closed-mind, you could start off by explaining why you refuse to view and respond to the security footage clearly showing the tail of an aircraft. After that you could have another go at explaining how all of the witnesses missed the ‘flyover’ because your “invisible gorilla” attempt clearly does not cut it. No wait, you didn’t even read my last post on any of that because I’m the one with the closed mind.

Perhaps what is most off-putting to you of all is that you cannot uphold your position.

[Ove]

Edited September 11, 2011 by Ove

[Mario Lemieux]

I dare one of you to go up to someone and say 9/11 was planned. You'll get smacked in the face.