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

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

2,524 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

bee

Whatever happened at the Pentagon, either a plane really hit the building or it was a planned stage, whereas the latter requires months of accurate planning and, of course, foreknowledge of the event. You can't stage such a scenario in half an hour just because the US force took the decision to shoot down the plane minutes before.

I disagee....... :)

I think that there WOULD be time to do a mock up and knock down a few poles.

Send a military helicopter in to blast a hole. Send for bits of plane to be placed

at the scene...?

In the real-time News Report video that I put a couple of posts back...the reporter says how

the whole area was sealed off and people were forced out of their cars at gunpoint.

How long it was before any released filming was done, I don't know.

I think that the mock up might have been regretted and they wished they had dealt with it in a different

way....but once the decision was made in the chaos of the day, for the reasons I have said....the die was cast.

I will admit that the whole thing is bizarre....to do such a thing.

But America was under attack. They didn't know what was coming next...they must

have decided (according to my theory) that under no circumstances they would add to the pain and

embarrassment of the day by admitting they had to bring down 2 of their own Airliners, killing all on board.

Imagine the headlines, world-wide.

The news reporter on the day said the Senior Airforce person he spoke to was OUTSIDE when it happened.

He reported seeing a helicopter. No plane. Others being evacuated (real-time, not later when everyone got

on the same page) didn't say anything about a plane to the reporter.

IMO the Pentagon is the lynch pin of 9/11....neither the Official Account OR the Inside Job conspiracy

'works'....without it being a plane.

To put the whole thing to rest...all they had to do was release footage of Flight 77 smashing into the Pentagon.

But they obviously couldn't do this. Because that footage doesn't exist....???

Forget the pathetic CCTV footage....that's just embarassing.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Just my opinion, of course.

Sorry, but your theory makes no sense at all.

Well, I would disagree with that on one count; it makes sense to bee. However, I think that upon closer examination, one is led inexorably to what you state afterwards:

A mock up requires an accurate planning. You can't mock up a plane hitting the Pentagon and causing a damage path like that without:

1) a real plane hitting the facade (official version, Q24 version)

2) a stage (NoC/flyover version)

After having reviewed a lot of evidence given by both Citizens Investigation Team (CIT) and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, I am convinced that there's no way that a 757 could have hit the pentagon, either south of the Citgo gas station (official/Q24 version) or north of it where all of the credible witnesses swear they saw the plane fly. But what if it wasn't a 757 plane, but something smaller? This is something that I'm not yet sure about. The main detractor point against the possibility that the plane simply carried on is the dearth of witnesses that say that this is what happened. However, there was one witness who, although he didn't himself see it happen, does say that -others- believed that the plane "kept on going". This witness has since forgotten that he even said this, so clearly he doesn't remember who had said it to him, but it's something to consider. I've also heavily researched the witness testimony of Roosevelt Roberts. Virtually everyone agrees that his testimony contradicts itself. This being said, I think it is atleast possible that the plane that he describes as a "second plane" was, in fact, the flyover plane. For me, the main reason for this hinges on something that he may well have said. Here's the quote:

Roosevelt Roberts:

I was in south parking, and I was at the [east?] loading dock, when I ran outside and saw the low flying aircraft above the parking lot.

The key here is the [east?] bit. Roosevelt Roberts was being interviewed by CIT over a cell phone, allegedly while he was driving. It's understandable that some of the words he said are hard to hear. The reason whether he was, in fact, at the east loading dock, is so crucial, because if he was, there is -no way- that he could have seen the pentaplane unless it had already flown over the pentagon. He even essentially confirms this, when Aldo asks him the following:

Aldo Marquis:

[so the plane came] From the impact side basically, from that direction?

Roosevelt Roberts:

Everyth....right..exactly.

It's been pointed out that he said that it came to him from a southwest direction; had it done so, it wouldn't have come from the impact side if he was at the east loading dock. But I happen to know that most people aren't familiar with cardinal directions; they are generally much more familiar with landmarks. There's more corroborating evidence Roosevelt wasn't sure about his cardinal direction. Take a look at the first time he says that the plane was heading south west:

Roosevelt Roberts:

It was heading.. back across 27, and it looks like, it appeared to me I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh... south west.. coming out.

Here's an overhead map of the pentagon:

PENTAGON_MAP.gif

The eastern loading dock is on the point of the pentagon that is near the "BLUE LINE" curves north. Look at where 27 is; it's west of the pentagon to be sure, but it seems to be more -north- west then south west. Could it be that Roosevelt actually meant -north- west? It would make a lot more sense; if it had come over the pentagon and gone southwest, it would have taken a long time to curve around and have been in his sight for a lot longer then the 10 seconds he estimates he could see it. But if it had been turning northwards after flying over the pentagon, then it's easy to imagine how it could have disappeared from his field of view fairly quickly.

It would be great if we could get Roosevelt Roberts to literally put his position on an overhead map of the pentagon as well as the flight path that he believed this "second plane" took. Unfortunately, I believe he's no longer interested in answering any more questions from people who believe in anything but the official story. The person who wrote the above transcript is, incidentally, not an adherent of CIT's flyover theory and isn't on speaking terms with me either. Nevertheless, I'm happy that he took the time to write out the transcript of Roosevelt's conversation with CIT. The complete transcript of CIT's conversation with Roosevelt Roberts can be seen here:

http://911blogger.com/node/20826

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

Thank you very much Scott G.

You saved a lot of time. :rolleyes:

Replying to Q24's post requires a little time in order to collect links and other sources. Also, as you probably noticed, English is not my native language, so treating such complex topics requires an extra effort to me.

I'll come back to this soon.

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Thank you very much Scott G.

You saved a lot of time. :rolleyes:

Replying to Q24's post requires a little time in order to collect links and other sources. Also, as you probably noticed, English is not my native language, so treating such complex topics requires an extra effort to me.

I'll come back to this soon.

Regards.

No problem :-). I've debated Q24 on this subject for a very long time. While Q24 can at times think he knows more than he actually does, I do believe that he was treated too roughly over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and I did voice my discontent there; it led to a 3 month suspension there and to this day I can only write in one or 2 of their forums. I also had a disagreement with CIT and have been permanently banned from there. Because of this, I can't rely on them to help me with my arguments, but I think I know enough to defend the '757 couldn't have crashed at the pentagon' conclusion at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

Well, I would disagree with that on one count; it makes sense to bee. However, I think that upon closer examination, one is led inexorably to what you state afterwards:

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.

But what if it wasn't a 757 plane, but something smaller? This is something that I'm not yet sure about.

The small plane theory is another possibility that I tend to rule out, although not completely for the reasons shown above:

1) very small number of witnesses (not more than 5, if my memory is not failing)

2) light poles damage

A small plane hitting the Pentagon would have not knocked down five light poles. Therefore we must assume a stage anyway.

The key here is the [east?] bit. Roosevelt Roberts was being interviewed by CIT over a cell phone, allegedly while he was driving. It's understandable that some of the words he said are hard to hear. The reason whether he was, in fact, at the east loading dock, is so crucial, because if he was, there is -no way- that he could have seen the pentaplane unless it had already flown over the pentagon. He even essentially confirms this, when Aldo asks him the following:

It's been pointed out that he said that it came to him from a southwest direction; had it done so, it wouldn't have come from the impact side if he was at the east loading dock. But I happen to know that most people aren't familiar with cardinal directions; they are generally much more familiar with landmarks. There's more corroborating evidence Roosevelt wasn't sure about his cardinal direction. Take a look at the first time he says that the plane was heading south west:

Here's an overhead map of the pentagon:

[...]

The eastern loading dock is on the point of the pentagon that is near the "BLUE LINE" curves north. Look at where 27 is; it's west of the pentagon to be sure, but it seems to be more -north- west then south west. Could it be that Roosevelt actually meant -north- west? It would make a lot more sense; if it had come over the pentagon and gone southwest, it would have taken a long time to curve around and have been in his sight for a lot longer then the 10 seconds he estimates he could see it. But if it had been turning northwards after flying over the pentagon, then it's easy to imagine how it could have disappeared from his field of view fairly quickly.

It would be great if we could get Roosevelt Roberts to literally put his position on an overhead map of the pentagon as well as the flight path that he believed this "second plane" took. Unfortunately, I believe he's no longer interested in answering any more questions from people who believe in anything but the official story. The person who wrote the above transcript is, incidentally, not an adherent of CIT's flyover theory and isn't on speaking terms with me either. Nevertheless, I'm happy that he took the time to write out the transcript of Roosevelt's conversation with CIT. The complete transcript of CIT's conversation with Roosevelt Roberts can be seen here:

[...]

I know Roosevelt Roberts' account very well. My concise opinion: it's not enough to build a flyover theory on it. His account is widely inaccurate.

I think that flyover is just a theoretical hypothesis so far. It arises as a consequence of the NoC path, however it's far from being proven.

The fact that I am convinced it happened does not mean I can prove it. :-)

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

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.

I believe I can rule out certain aspects of it; I've ruled out that the pentaplane flew on the official story flight path; all that damage had to have been staged. I also believe that no 757 could have crashed into the pentagon, because of the evidence I've seen that points out that such a crash would have been impossible given the unhit obstacles involved, from either a North or South of Citgo approach. The official story FDR data is also incompatible with the pentaplane hitting the pentagon. The only thing I haven't ruled out that would marginally fit into one of the official story pieces is that a plane or drone smaller than a 757 hit the pentagon from a North of Citgo approach.

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.

Yes, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

The small plane theory is another possibility that I tend to rule out, although not completely for the reasons shown above:

1) very small number of witnesses (not more than 5, if my memory is not failing)

2) light poles damage

A small plane hitting the Pentagon would have not knocked down five light poles. Therefore we must assume a stage anyway.

Definitely. An SoC staging and a small plane hitting from an NoC direction.

I know Roosevelt Roberts' account very well. My concise opinion: it's not enough to build a flyover theory on it. His account is widely inaccurate.

I don't see why you couldn't build a flyover theory on it. And yes, I know that his account can't all be true, but if main reason it is flawed is because he may have gotten his cardinal directions wrong, then I think it may be possible. I might as well put in CIT's bit on this:

We also present the testimony of Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. who, although he did not see the plane approach due to being just inside a loading dock on the other side of the building, reports seeing a "commercial aircraft" with "jet engines" flying away "10 seconds tops" after the explosion at "no more than 100 feet" altitude "like it missed the wrong target, like it missed the landing zone".

Source: http://www.citizenin...agon-Statement/

I think that flyover is just a theoretical hypothesis so far. It arises as a consequence of the NoC path, however it's far from being proven.

The fact that I am convinced it happened does not mean I can prove it. :-)

Laugh :-). Well, I'm not entirely convinced that it happened, but CIT does provide additional information other then Roosevelt Roberts. Once again quoting from the above link:

We present firsthand audio testimony obtained from the Center of Military History from Erik Dihle, who specifically stated on record in 2001 that immediately after the explosion "some people" (plural) were yelling that "a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going." His words. It's in National Security Alert.

...

We have also explained that although the 9-1-1 calls were released in New York there has been a deliberate cover-up of the 9-1-1 calls in Arlington/DC, which would reveal what people first reported before the propaganda set in."

Given these facts (and more) it's reasonable to conclude that others saw the plane fly away as well but that this information was either covered up or simply written off as anomalous and incorrect and not reported.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

The only thing I haven't ruled out that would marginally fit into one of the official story pieces is that a plane or drone smaller than a 757 hit the pentagon from a North of Citgo approach.

Possible, but widely unplausible.

1) All NoC accounts point to an airliner such a commercial jet. Therefore I conclude it was either the real AA-77 (which I don't believe) or an AA-77-alike airplane, no matter in this context whether drone or manually guided.

2) As known, the North of Citgo path is not compatible with the damage path.

Therefore I see no room for a small airplane at the scene, unless we're talking about a second plane. Also, the small aircraft scenario requires a stage, no question. Five light poles were knocked down, neither a small plane nor a missile or whatever could do this.

[sPECULATION MODE ON]

The "light poles" issue is more than central here. Whenever you speculate about a stage, the first objection you hear is: "OK, maybe it was a bomb or any other kind of stage, but... how could they stage five light poles knocked down at the same time?" That's a fundamental question and I confess that none of the answers I received from CIT so far appears exhaustive to me.

As you know, there is one and only one path which is compatible with 5 light poles on the ground. That's the SoC/official path. Now ask yourself: how many possibilities are there that a plane should follow exactly that track among many others?

I speculate that light poles were knocked down within a sort of stage I can't exactly explain. But they are the most important part of the stage.

1) They rule out a smaller aircraft

2) They rule out a different path

Conclusion: the perps planned the stage very accurately. They were aware from the beginning that people would question the damages and the debris since no real plane would hit the Pentagon. Therefore they chose the best and only track that would convince people about the presence of a real 757.

[sPECULATION MODE OFF]

Thank you for your time, Scott.

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montmorency the Dog

I believe I can rule out certain aspects of it; I've ruled out that the pentaplane flew on the official story flight path; all that damage had to have been staged. I also believe that no 757 could have crashed into the pentagon, because of the evidence I've seen that points out that such a crash would have been impossible given the unhit obstacles involved, from either a North or South of Citgo approach. The official story FDR data is also incompatible with the pentaplane hitting the pentagon. The only thing I haven't ruled out that would marginally fit into one of the official story pieces is that a plane or drone smaller than a 757 hit the pentagon from a North of Citgo approach.

Yes, I agree.

What do you feel as regards the question I asked a little while ago; what are your views about the two planes that (apparently) did hit the WTC? Who and what were they, and why was it so crucially important that the Pentagon was seen to be hit?

Edited by 747400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

The only thing I haven't ruled out that would marginally fit into one of the official story pieces is that a plane or drone smaller than a 757 hit the pentagon from a North of Citgo approach.

Possible, but widely unplausible.

1) All NoC accounts point to an airliner such a commercial jet. Therefore I conclude it was either the real AA-77 (which I don't believe) or an AA-77-alike airplane, no matter in this context whether drone or manually guided.

I guess you're right. Which, in my view, would mean that the plane had to have flown over the pentagon. The problem still remains the issue of what happened to the plane, but CIT does provide some credible explanations on that point.

2) As known, the North of Citgo path is not compatible with the damage path.

I think anyone who has sufficiently analyzed the evidence must conclude that the SoC damage wasn't caused by an airplane. I have also been shown that there's no way that a 757 that took an NoC flight path (which is what all the witnesses who were in a position to know state) could have hit the pentagon without creating and NoC damage path that simply isn't there.

Therefore I see no room for a small airplane at the scene, unless we're talking about a second plane.

CIT has provided evidence that only one plane got close enough to the pentagon to be able to deceive people into believing it hit it.

Also, the small aircraft scenario requires a stage, no question. Five light poles were knocked down, neither a small plane nor a missile or whatever could do this.

Agreed.

[sPECULATION MODE ON]

The "light poles" issue is more than central here. Whenever you speculate about a stage, the first objection you hear is: "OK, maybe it was a bomb or any other kind of stage, but... how could they stage five light poles knocked down at the same time?" That's a fundamental question and I confess that none of the answers I received from CIT so far appears exhaustive to me.

I know that CIT believes that they were staged in advance:

The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance

Someone in this forum once stated that he heard they were rigged with explosives and popped at around the time of the pentagon attack, but I've heard nothing further on that possibility.

As you know, there is one and only one path which is compatible with 5 light poles on the ground. That's the SoC/official path. Now ask yourself: how many possibilities are there that a plane should follow exactly that track among many others?

I speculate that light poles were knocked down within a sort of stage I can't exactly explain. But they are the most important part of the stage.

1) They rule out a smaller aircraft

2) They rule out a different path

Conclusion: the perps planned the stage very accurately. They were aware from the beginning that people would question the damages and the debris since no real plane would hit the Pentagon. Therefore they choose the best and only track that would convince people about the presence of a real 757.

[sPECULATION MODE OFF]

Thank you for your time, Scott.

No problem :-). As to the SoC flight path, it's a lost cause. Craig Ranke of CIT explains why in this thread:

G Force calculations prove official Pentagon attack flight path impossible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

What do you feel as regards the question I asked a little while ago; what are your views about the two planes that (apparently) did hit the WTC?

Who and what were they,

I think that 2 planes did hit the WTC towers, yes. I heard that the first one may well have been smaller than a 767, and it's possible that perhaps both were controlled by remote control, but that's about it.

and why was it so crucially important that the Pentagon was seen to be hit?

For the same reason that it was important that the Twin Towers appeared to be hit; it distracts from the true causes of most, or even all of the damage; that is, explosives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

Laugh :-). Well, I'm not entirely convinced that it happened, but CIT does provide additional information other then Roosevelt Roberts. Once again quoting from the above link:

Scott,

I am aware about all that. Still I repeat we have not enough evidence about a flyover. It does not mean I don't consider flyover as the most probable theory at the moment. Theory is theory, evidence is evidence.

I don't see why you couldn't build a flyover theory on it.

Because it's far from being an accurate account. And it's only one witness. Not enough, I repeat, to build a theory on. Of course, this is just my opinion.

I see stronger suspects of a flyover in the Porter Goss' interview, that I guess you know already:

here

Far from being conclusive evidence, of course, but something that can at least corroborate a flyover theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Scott,

I am aware about all that. Still I repeat we have not enough evidence about a flyover.

Not enough evidence about a flyover for what?

It does not mean I don't consider flyover as the most probable theory at the moment. Theory is theory, evidence is evidence.

I think there's enough evidence for a flyover to make it the most plausible theory. How's that :-)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

I don't see why you couldn't build a flyover theory on it.

Because it's far from being an accurate account. And it's only one witness. Not enough, I repeat, to build a theory on. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Well, I think it's plenty for a theory, not least of which because it's not the only piece of evidence out there. CIT and PFT have both documented tons of evidence that points towards the flyover theory.

I see stronger suspects of a flyover in the Porter Goss' interview, that I guess you know already:

here Far from being conclusive evidence, of course, but something that can at least corroborate a flyover theory.

I hadn't seen that before, actually. Why do you think that that was a key piece of evidence for the flyover theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

I hadn't seen that before, actually. Why do you think that that was a key piece of evidence for the flyover theory?

Hold on, hold on, my friend. :-)

I never said it is evidence of a flyover! If I learned something from these years of research, it is that we shouldn't use the word "evidence" without a lot of caution. As you can easily see from other threads, not even nanothermite is considered as a conclusive evidence by many people. So caution please.

I would call this video an additional clue ponting into the flyover direction. Just that.

OK, why do i think so. Because:

1) Porter Goss was at Capitol Hill on 9/11. There is plenty of evidence about this. There is no doubt about the setting of that video. Also, please note that a little piece of the southern Capitol Hill's facade is visible during the very first seconds of the clip.

2) The real question here is the time. This makes the whole difference. I should talk a lot about this, but I am really low on time currently. Anyway, in my opinion everything points to 9:37. Remember that Capitol Hill was evacuated after 9:48. All sources report that the atmosphere at Capitol Hill after the Pentagon was hit was frantic, with congressmen, staffers, journalists and even tourists rushing to the streets around the House and the Capitol Police screaming very loudly to evacuate. This is not the scenario you see in the video until the blast is heard (around 0:20). Therefore I would rule out any different timing than 9:37. If the blast we hear in the video were a later explosion (as reported at the Pentagon as late as 10:10, for example), you shouldn't see that scenario.

Of course, no conclusive evidence can be drawn from this video. We have no idea what kind of plane it was. We can only speculate it was flying very low from the reactions of the people and the noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

I think there's enough evidence for a flyover to make it the most plausible theory. How's that :-)?

Again.

Remove the word evidence from all your last statements I will fully agree with you.

No, Scott, we don't have conclusive evidence for a flyover. We have lots of items pointing into that direction. It's very different.

That's enough to make me tend to believe to the flyover theory. Not enough to let me say we have a smoking gun.

Therefore I am ready and open to discuss also alternative theories, such as that of Q24.

I am not saying I agree with him. I am simply open to discussion and further evidence or opinions to the contrary.

Regards

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

After having reviewed a lot of evidence given by both Citizens Investigation Team (CIT) and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, I am convinced that there's no way that a 757 could have hit the pentagon,

Apparently a B-757 did in fact, strike the Pentagon. I have identified components of a B-757 within the wreckage and outside the Pentagon as well.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Prove to me that that was landing gear from a 757. It looks like a scrap of metal that could have been easily placed there for a photo op. And where is the tail and wing sections?

The comparison of the landing gear and outer skin for one. Note the zinc cromate primer used on large aircraft and no one is going to be planting aircraft wreckage within the Pentagon or outside.

Apparently, that B-757 never made its scheduled destination because it ended up at the Pentagon.

This initial picture has no background to it; how do i know that it was actually photographed at the pentagon?

I have been by the Pentagon while TDY at Andrews AFB, MD. I was billeted at Bolling AFB, Wasington D.C., during my TDY to Andrews AFB

Secondly, even if you could find that, what evidence do you have that it actually came from the sky?

The surveillance video for one thing and radar trackings, which were following the American flight to the general location to where contact was lost.

It was all just a matter of tracking American Flt 77 on radar until contact was lost.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I believe I can rule out certain aspects of it; I've ruled out that the pentaplane flew on the official story flight path; all that damage had to have been staged. I also believe that no 757 could have crashed into the pentagon, because of the evidence I've seen that points out that such a crash would have been impossible given the unhit obstacles involved, from either a North or South of Citgo approach. The official story FDR data is also incompatible with the pentaplane hitting the pentagon. The only thing I haven't ruled out that would marginally fit into one of the official story pieces is that a plane or drone smaller than a 757 hit the pentagon from a North of Citgo approach.

Apparently, pieces of a B-757 are depicted within the photos and no small aircraft nor drone could have created the kind of damage we saw at the Pentagon. You only have to look at the small aircraft that struck the White House years ago. Nothing on the scale we saw at the Pentagon.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

Apparently, pieces of a B-757 are depicted within the photos and no small aircraft nor drone could have created the kind of damage we saw at the Pentagon. You only have to look at the small aircraft that struck the White House years ago. Nothing on the scale we saw at the Pentagon.

I agree it could not be a small aircraft, I also explained my reasons above.

But how can you rule out a drone based on debris and damage?

Please understand that when people talk about a drone, they're talking about a plane similar or apparently identical to the alleged AA-77, i.e. a clone of a commercial jet, but not manually guided and without passengers. How can you rule out that the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon could not be remotely guided? For the same reasons why you believe it was AA-77, you can't rule out the possibility it was an AA-77 alike plane. How can debris and damages be a valid evidence for the real AA77 and not for a - let's say - identical clone?

For the records: I don't think the plane (whatever it was) hit the Pentagon and I am not saying it was a drone (it makes little difference to me in this context whether it was manually or remotely guided).

I would simply like to understand why you rule out this possibility.

Regards

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

hang on, "i see no precedent"? Can you point to a precedent for a government, or the Secret Service of a supposedly friendly government, carrying out an attack againt [either] its own military nerve centre, or the nerve centre of its most important ally, using such an elaborate and ambitious method? So therefore surely whatever modus operandi may have been used, it would have been without precedent? Where is the evidence, likelihood or precedent for the remote-control-planes concept actually ever being used in practice before on an operation of this scale? (or indeed, for a false-flag operation of this scale ever being planned before by anyone); it completely redefines the false-flag ballpark, any precedents that anyone could come up with pale into insignificance.

We were discussing one particular aspect of the operation; the most efficient way to crash a plane into the Pentagon; not the event as a whole, for which I agree there is no precedent.

Specific to the aspect we were discussing, there is much precedent for aircraft remote and guidance systems. There is no precedent I am aware of for Mossad suicide squads. The first method therefore appears far more likely and dependable - it’s certainly the way I would go if tasked with planning the attack.

i wonder if i could ask, bee or anyone else who might want to, if there were without doubt two planes that were involved in NY, (unless anyone wants to prefer the theory that they were holograms or something), why go to all this extraordinary lenghts to not fly a plane into the Pentagon?

I agree - this is what I was alluding to in point 10 back here.

1) Porter Goss was at Capitol Hill on 9/11. There is plenty of evidence about this. There is no doubt about the setting of that video. Also, please note that a little piece of the southern Capitol Hill's facade is visible during the very first seconds of the clip.

2) The real question here is the time. This makes the whole difference. I should talk a lot about this, but I am really low on time currently. Anyway, in my opinion everything points to 9:37. Remember that Capitol Hill was evacuated after 9:48. All sources report that the atmosphere at Capitol Hill after the Pentagon was hit was frantic, with congressmen, staffers, journalists and even tourists rushing to the streets around the House and the Capitol Police screaming very loudly to evacuate. This is not the scenario you see in the video until the blast is heard (around 0:20). Therefore I would rule out any different timing than 9:37. If the blast we hear in the video were a later explosion (as reported at the Pentagon as late as 10:10, for example), you shouldn't see that scenario.

Porter Goss was in the Capitol building at the time of the Pentagon impact: -

The explosion in the interview you refer to is therefore at a later time (probably around 10:10 a.m. as you mention when a couple of media outlets reported an explosion at Capitol Hill) and the aircraft heard would be fighter planes which were patrolling the airspace by that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

Porter Goss was in the Capitol building at the time of the Pentagon impact: -

Sorry Q24, but I can't see any evidence that Porter Goss was in the Capitol building and not just outside it at the time when the Pentagon was hit in the video you linked. I repeat: evidence.

The explosion in the interview you refer to is therefore at a later time (probably around 10:10 a.m. as you mention when a couple of media outlets reported an explosion at Capitol Hill) and the aircraft heard would be fighter planes which were patrolling the airspace by that point.

I guess you missed the part of my post where I pointed out that evacuation at Capitol Hill began at 9:48. Scenes from the evacuation are also shown in the same video you linked.

10:10 is absolutely incompatible with the scenario shown in Porter Goss' interview video. It's half an hour after the Pentagon attack, more than 20 minutes after the evacuation began. Read all the reports and the transcripts about the evacuation.

No way.

* I made some minor edits to my original post

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Sorry Q24, but I can't see any evidence that Porter Goss was in the Capitol building and not just outside it at the time when the Pentagon was hit in the video you linked. I repeat: evidence.

Porter Goss states, “I tried to call the Speaker and all the phone lines were obviously very jammed by that time, so I just ran down to his office which was two floors down, got in to see him just as the plane had hit the Pentagon.”

This is indication Goss was at least two floors up in the Capitol building at the time the plane hit the Pentagon.

I guess you missed the part of my post where I pointed out that evacuation at Capitol Hill began at 9:48. Scenes from the evacuation are also shown in the same video you linked.

10:10 is absolutely incompatible with the scenario shown in Porter Goss' interview video. It's half an hour after the Pentagon attack, more than 20 minutes after the evacuation began. Read all the reports and the transcripts about the evacuation.

No, I didn’t miss any of your post - I just don’t see how people evacuating the Capitol (running and frantic) at 9:48, applies to 10:10. You didn’t expect them to keep running for 22 minutes non-stop did you? These are not Olympic athletes. I suggest they had possibly stopped running by the time the Porter Goss interview took place outside.

Did you have a response to my post #68?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

Porter Goss states, “I tried to call the Speaker and all the phone lines were obviously very jammed by that time, so I just ran down to his office which was two floors down, got in to see him just as the plane had hit the Pentagon.”

This is indication Goss was at least two floors up in the Capitol building at the time the plane hit the Pentagon.

No. This is a clear indication of what Porter Goss wants us to know about where he was at the time when the Pentagon was hit. It does not prove he was actually inside the building at all.

How could he know the exact moment the Pentagon was hit if he were inside the building? If he heard a blast, how could he be sure that it was the alleged plane hitting the Pentagon and not, for example, a bomb?

Wherever Porter Goss was at the exact time of the Pentagon attack, his own account does not prove he's telling the truth.

No, I didn’t miss any of your post - I just don’t see how people evacuating the Capitol (running and frantic) at 9:48, applies to 10:10. You didn’t expect them to keep running for 22 minutes non-stop did you? These are not Olympic athletes. I suggest they had possibly stopped running by the time the Porter Goss interview took place outside.

Are you trying to tell me that Porter Goss and all the other people we see in the video were quietly giving an interview at 10:10, while Capitol Hill had been evacuated long before?

Please watch the video again carefully. Among other things, you should notice two young girls with a backpack coming from left and disappearing behind Goss on the right. No question they are tourists. We know from tons of transcripts and reports that tourists were evacuated along with congressmen, staffers and all the other people at 9:48. Are you trying to tell me that two tourists were still visiting Capitol Hill without running if it were 10:10? Are you trying to tell me that Capitol Police would allow them to do this? Also, a guard is visible on the background. Does he look like someone who's frantically ordering to all people in the building to leave the House?

And finally. We know from lots of reports that the Capitol Police had had "word that an airplane [was] heading this way and could hit the building anytime."

How can you explain that all those people were still there at 10:10 when another plane hitting Capitol Hill was expected?

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

How could he know the exact moment the Pentagon was hit if he were inside the building? If he heard a blast, how could he be sure that it was the alleged plane hitting the Pentagon and not, for example, a bomb?

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.

Wherever Porter Goss was at the exact time of the Pentagon attack, his own account does not prove he's telling the truth.

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.

Are you trying to tell me that Porter Goss and all the other people we see in the video were quietly giving an interview at 10:10, while Capitol Hill had been evacuated long before?

It looks that way.

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.

Please watch the video again carefully. Among other things, you should notice two young girls with a backpack coming from left and disappearing behind Goss on the right. No question they are tourists. We know from tons of transcripts and reports that tourists were evacuated along with congressmen, staffers and all the other people at 9:48. Are you trying to tell me that two tourists were still visiting Capitol Hill without running if it were 10:10? Are you trying to tell me that Capitol Police would allow them to do this? Also, a guard is visible on the background. Does he look like someone who's frantically ordering to all people in the building to leave the House?

And finally. We know from lots of reports that the Capitol Police had had "word that an airplane [was] heading this way and could hit the building anytime."

How can you explain that all those people were still there at 10:10 when another plane hitting Capitol Hill was expected?

It was an ‘evacuation’, not a ‘lockdown’.

I came across this video: -

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

This aligns with audio in the Goss interview footage, and as you can see, the Pentagon has already been hit.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.