911 Pentagon Video Footage

November 1, 2012

Please don't take my word for it, here is a link you can read on the subject. I would post it all but then it would be to long.

http://www.911truth....040731213239607

That link does NOT say that less jets were available as you tried to say before. Glad we've cleared that misconception up.

Thaks for confirming that you can't speak for yourself though. I asked how long YOU think it should have taken them and you respond with a link with someone else's thoughts instead. Still waiting for your thoughts.

This is a discussion forum open to anyone. As you can see there are a number of posters who are bombarding my posts even though I am not talking to them at all. This is exhausting and takes a lot of time to respond to each and everyone so please refrain from not allowing others to respond as it is not your job to police these forums. If you don't like someone asking you a question then don't post it is as simple as that otherwise answer the people that respond.

Are you a moderator now? I didn't say he couldn't respond nor was I stopping him from responding in any way. I said I wasn't talking to him. I asked for YOUR thoughts, not his. My post was pretty clear that way.

How long do YOU think it should have taken them?

Notice the "YOU" in the post? Most would agree I was looking for a specific person's reaction. Still waiting for your thoughts by the way.

Edited November 1, 2012 by frenat

November 1, 2012

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks

Without having a specific target located, military commanders were uncertain where to send the fighters. Boston Center controllers were still tracking Flight 11 as a primary target but were unable to communicate its location to NEADS by phone.

The two fighter jets were unarmed and performing practice bombing runs over a section of the Pine Barrens in New Jersey that is designated for military drills. Pilots from the 177th routinely train for interception of hostile aircraft, and military pilots had anticipated having to use their unarmed planes as air-to-air missiles if unarmed. About an hour after the Sept. 11 attacks began, the 177th received orders to send up fully armed F-16s in response.

http://usatoday30.us...rol-usatcov.htm

At 9:21, NEADS received another call from Colin Scoggins, who reported erroneously that Flight 11 was not, in fact, the aircraft that hit the North Tower at 8:46, as had been previously believed, but that it was still in the air and heading towards Washington. NEADS responded to this report by giving a scramble order to three fighters from the 1st Fighter Wing on alert at Langley Air Force Base at 9:24, and by 9:30 they were in the air.

According to the 9/11 commission, the Langley pilots were never briefed by anyone at their base about why they were being scrambled, so, despite Langley officials' having been given the order from NEADS to fly to Washington, the unbriefed pilots ended up following their normal training flight plan, due east, out to sea. The fighters then flew north-west towards Washington, arriving around 10:00

Nothing there supporting claims of a government conspiracy.

Edited November 1, 2012 by skyeagle409

November 1, 2012

So in other words, you can't provide any quotes where anyone here who believes the Official Story has said "The Government never lies", its just a straw man argument brought about by someone (you) who has no real way of defending or proving their position, other than to purposely misinterpret / fabricate the position of the other side of this debate . Ok... thanks.

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,^[1]^[2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I have given my position and given video evidence along with pictures when asked but since everyone thinks that said evidence is already fake they call it the straw man argument. There is no fallacy in what I have shown you guys the FBI does have evidence they are not willing to release, there is no wreckage to indicate any identifying parts that it was a 757 that flew into the Pentagon even though people show pictures of parts of some plane with no identifying mark’s to indicate it came off a 757, and finally I have provided eyewitness testimony of people who were actually there, employed by the Pentagon, and have aviation backgrounds and contradicted what the NTSB has reported. Some of you guys can think my evidence is a fallacy but I have yet to see you prove it otherwise. People who respond to my posts cherry pick parts of my posts and leave other parts where I have made it clear to discredit what I wrote. When asked for evidence I provide it and prove my point they go on another route to try to discredit what I wrote. Case in point Skyeagle asking for Tu-154 and TWA 800 pictures and footage and now asking for another plane crashes as evidence after I have proved to him large pieces of debris and footage does exist of said plane crashes. How much longer must I keep defending this position that there is enough evidence to indicate that there should be more of the plane crash at the crash site? There should be a large skid mark in front of the building and that other experts who were there indicate it was not a 757 that flew into the Pentagon. Something flew into that building but it was not flight 77. They were there you guys were not. You can continue to bring pictures and show your evidence all you want some of it is valid while others can be viewed as a fallacy in MY opinion you will not change my mind on this.

Yes, I see what you did there. You avoided the point of my question altogether, and tried to look "smart" (and horribly failed, btw) by turning my "puff of logic" statement around on me, except that your version of it does not make any sense whatsoever, doesn't work, and only serves to make you look even more foolish.

Exactly thank you for posting that. That is why I wrote your statement was ridiculous to begin with it made you try to look smart but you horribly failed as well. Based on your opinion I look foolish I can live with that because you look foolish to me too. I provide video evidence and argue my point with other posters I have never interacted with you before but you all of a sudden come on here to try to make me to look foolish in an attempt to discredit my assumptions and arguments.

Given the level of ignorance and confirmation bias displayed in all your posts so far, its not surprising that you can't see just how illogical, unsupportable and intellectually dishonest your position and approach here is, though.

Cz

There is no dishonesty in my approach to provide evidence I merely show what others have reported I do not claim everything is factual because I was not there but no one has proved otherwise that what I have shown is fake other than Skyeagle using sound logic and deduction to come up with his reasoning on why flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and I respect him for that even though he avoids parts of evidence I provide via video and instead concentrates on his strong points which is just showing pictures of parts that may or may not belong to a large plane. At least he is consistent. So everyone that posts your viewpoint is right but those that post something contradictory is biased and is ignorant because it does not conform to what you think happened at the Pentagon. A closed mind makes you illogical, ignorant and biased which you are proving with the last two posts you made against me.

November 1, 2012

That link does NOT say that less jets were available as you tried to say before. Glad we've cleared that misconception up.

Thaks for confirming that you can't speak for yourself though. I asked how long YOU think it should have taken them and you respond with a link with someone else's thoughts instead. Still waiting for your thoughts.

Do you realize how many posts I have to respond to, I provided a link because I can only base my opinion on what I have read since I was not there when it took place. Why are only my thoughts important in this discussion and not a Senator or those who were actually there? Where you there at NORAD when the incident happened? Where you flying one of the Jets to intercept the planes? What makes you an expert and what are you basing your opinion on since it seems posting information that is not your own and can only come from you is your basis for me being ignorant. To answer your first question the jets should respond to the incident as fast as possible based on the planes location, and highest speed of travel. If planes are not stationed where they should be or are to slow in response that becomes problematic. In this case I gave you a link to help both you and I along in this discussion if it is not satisfactory to you that is too bad the information is in that link if you refute it bring up evidence why it is wrong don’t worry about what I myself think. I can think for myself but again since I was not there I have to rely on what is being reported I hope that clears that up.

Are you a moderator now? I didn't say he couldn't respond nor was I stopping him from responding in any way. I said I wasn't talking to him. I asked for YOUR thoughts, not his. My post was pretty clear that way.
Notice the "YOU" in the post? Most would agree I was looking for a specific person's reaction. Still waiting for your thoughts by the way.

You make it seem that my opinion only matters and others are not allowed in this discussion. I am not a moderator but neither are you so stop acting like one. Unlike you I allow everyone to respond to what I write and if you refuse to let others have input in our discussion we are done talking got it? Good I hope I am pretty clear with what I just wrote. You can wait all you want I will not rush my responses you can do other stuff I am not forcing you to be on these forums. I have many posts to reply to I will try to respond in due time as best I can I have a life to live too you know.

November 1, 2012

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks

Without having a specific target located, military commanders were uncertain where to send the fighters. Boston Center controllers were still tracking Flight 11 as a primary target but were unable to communicate its location to NEADS by phone.

The two fighter jets were unarmed and performing practice bombing runs over a section of the Pine Barrens in New Jersey that is designated for military drills. Pilots from the 177th routinely train for interception of hostile aircraft, and military pilots had anticipated having to use their unarmed planes as air-to-air missiles if unarmed. About an hour after the Sept. 11 attacks began, the 177th received orders to send up fully armed F-16s in response.

http://usatoday30.us...rol-usatcov.htm

At 9:21, NEADS received another call from Colin Scoggins, who reported erroneously that Flight 11 was not, in fact, the aircraft that hit the North Tower at 8:46, as had been previously believed, but that it was still in the air and heading towards Washington. NEADS responded to this report by giving a scramble order to three fighters from the 1st Fighter Wing on alert at Langley Air Force Base at 9:24, and by 9:30 they were in the air.

According to the 9/11 commission, the Langley pilots were never briefed by anyone at their base about why they were being scrambled, so, despite Langley officials' having been given the order from NEADS to fly to Washington, the unbriefed pilots ended up following their normal training flight plan, due east, out to sea. The fighters then flew north-west towards Washington, arriving around 10:00

Nothing there supporting claims of a government conspiracy.

So it was a failure of those higher up in the chain of command to inform these pilots of what was actually taking place and in their confusion they ended up going out to sea and this is acceptable how? The CO in charge of these pilots should be removed from command if he or she can't properly do their job to brief these pilots. They could have been briefed in the air or even before taking off while in the plain for that matter. For them to go out to sea is unacceptable and why did it take so long for them to turn back and head to Washington? Don't worry Skyeagle I will get to your other posts when I can I am just being bombarded by requests at the moment.

November 1, 2012

Go right ahead.

Now, let's take another look at the facts.

American 77 was positioned 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon at 09:34 and at the end of its turn, it accelertated to 530 mph until it impacted the Pentagon.

http://www.gwu.edu/~...BB196/doc02.pdf

Yes let’s take a look at facts. Again I will have to repost this so you understand why I write this. The fact is the NTSB did not in their report include eyewitness testimony of Terry Morin who was at the Navy Annex at the time of the plane flying over and a professional aviator and program manager at the Sparta Inc. Navy Annex said: "I say 13 seconds, uh as an aviator flying 500 knots, he wasn't flying 500 knots. National Security Alert reports: "The NTSB reported the plane speed at this point at 460 knots, which equals to 530 miles per hour, or 781 feet per second. At that air speed it would only take a mere 3.4 seconds to travel from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon in direct contrast to the approximately 10 seconds reported by aviation professionals Sean Boger and Terry Morin, as well as by William Middleton. All who were in strategic potions to be able to tell this detail in accuracy." (National Security video at 20:19 minutes) Terry Morin quoted as saying "he was flying 350-400 knots I say 13 seconds as an aviator flying 500 knots, he wasn't flying 500 knots..." So to recap 1 (international) knot is equal to 1.150779 mile (statute) per hour (mph). With this information according to eyewitness Terry Morin who was there at the time and a professional aviator is saying that the airplane is traveling at 350 to 400 knots which indicates the planes speed between 402.7725 mph and 460.3116 mph. The NTSB is suggestion the plane went at 460 knots or 529.35834 mph. According to eyewitness testimony it was going less then that speed and not at the location the NTSB claim flight 77 was.

Well, we have video of American 77 and eyewitness accounts of American 77 crashing into the Pentagon and physical evidence at the scene proved that it was a B-757 and confirmation from American Airlines confirmed that it was American 77, which effectively slams the door on your argument.

Really? Please show me where on that video evidence you can clearly see the full body of a 757 or identifying marks to show it was indeed flight 77 via its serial number? Eyewitness testimony which you still have not brought up as going against what Terry Morin and others have said (notice I provide names and you still haven't) contradict your statement above.

We have video proof of American 77 as well. Now, where's the video for the crash of PSA 1771? How was it determined that aircraft was PSA 1771? What was the size of the largest piece recovered?
I sure did and you didn't see an intact fuselage either.

Why do you keep bringing up other crashes after I already provided you countless evidence and disproved your claims about the Caspian Tu-154 and TWA 800 how many more are you going to bring up? I can play that game too and we can go in circles all day if you want. Helios airlines 737 crash with large section of tail wing and black boxes confirmed as recovered.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40688000/jpg/_40688410_apcrashscene203.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/4150312.stm

Well, photos are usually taken of an aircraft crash site in the aftermath of an airplane crash.
That is enough right there and we can tie the flight path with physical damage leading up to, and inside the Pentagon.

Yes photos are taken usually after a plane crash for evidence and sometimes videos are taken too. There is no footage of what caused the physical damage leading up and inside the Pentagon except for a grainy clip that is obscured by a gate pillar and does not show the lamp poles or transformer being hit by a 757 plane. Could a plane have caused that damage? Of course I will not refute that, the reason I mentioned explosives as a possible scenario as well because the cab driver who was at the scene said that scene was staged. I was not there, my guess is just a guess I am NOT stating it as fact. It could of been a flying object, it could have been some other outside external force, the point is we have no proof as to what actually hit the Pentagon only vague video and aftermath wreckage that is claimed to be of a 757 but no identifying marks to definitively prove it came for a 757 or flight 77 for that matter.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Crumar

November 1, 2012

Do you realize how many posts I have to respond to, I provided a link because I can only base my opinion on what I have read since I was not there when it took place. Why are only my thoughts important in this discussion and not a Senator or those who were actually there?

Because that is what I asked about. I didn't ask for the Senator's opinion, I asked for yours. Not really as hard a concept as you're trying to make it out to be.

Where you there at NORAD when the incident happened? Where you flying one of the Jets to intercept the planes? What makes you an expert and what are you basing your opinion on since it seems posting information that is not your own and can only come from you is your basis for me being ignorant.

I never said I was an expert Mr. Strawman. I also never said you were ignorant. Please try to avoid putting words in my mouth.

To answer your first question the jets should respond to the incident as fast as possible based on the planes location, and highest speed of travel. If planes are not stationed where they should be or are to slow in response that becomes problematic. In this case I gave you a link to help both you and I along in this discussion if it is not satisfactory to you that is too bad the information is in that link if you refute it bring up evidence why it is wrong don’t worry about what I myself think. I can think for myself but again since I was not there I have to rely on what is being reported I hope that clears that up.

Finally you answer the question, sort of. Actually giving an opinion on how fast instead of your wishy-washy "as fast as possible" would have been better but I have doubts at this point you can actually do that.

You make it seem that my opinion only matters and others are not allowed in this discussion.

I didn't say that. There you go again trying to put words in my mouth.

I am not a moderator but neither are you so stop acting like one. Unlike you I allow everyone to respond to what I write and if you refuse to let others have input in our discussion we are done talking got it? Good I hope I am pretty clear with what I just wrote. You can wait all you want I will not rush my responses you can do other stuff I am not forcing you to be on these forums. I have many posts to reply to I will try to respond in due time as best I can I have a life to live too you know.

YOUR opinion matters because it was YOUR post I responded to and I wanted to know what YOU thought. Why is that so hard for YOU to get? I already know what Q thinks. I've discussed with him before. Frankly I respect him a lot more than you (mostly due to this recent exchange) and I doubt he was as put out by my brusqueness as you seem to be. I was not acting like a moderator. You were. That is the difference here. Again I never said he couldn't talk. I did not refuse to let him have input. My comments were simply to say I was not talking to him and he does not answer the question I asked about YOUR thoughts. Also to let you know that his answer would not answer my question about YOUR thoughts. If I'd known you were going to have a virtual hissy fit about it thought I probably wouldn't have bothered.

Edited November 1, 2012 by frenat

November 1, 2012

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,^[1]^[2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I have given my position and given video evidence along with pictures when asked but since everyone thinks that said evidence is already fake they call it the straw man argument. There is no fallacy in what I have shown you guys the FBI does have evidence they are not willing to release, there is no wreckage to indicate any identifying parts that it was a 757 that flew into the Pentagon even though people show pictures of parts of some plane with no identifying mark’s to indicate it came off a 757, and finally I have provided eyewitness testimony of people who were actually there, employed by the Pentagon, and have aviation backgrounds and contradicted what the NTSB has reported. Some of you guys can think my evidence is a fallacy but I have yet to see you prove it otherwise. People who respond to my posts cherry pick parts of my posts and leave other parts where I have made it clear to discredit what I wrote. When asked for evidence I provide it and prove my point they go on another route to try to discredit what I wrote. Case in point Skyeagle asking for Tu-154 and TWA 800 pictures and footage and now asking for another plane crashes as evidence after I have proved to him large pieces of debris and footage does exist of said plane crashes. How much longer must I keep defending this position that there is enough evidence to indicate that there should be more of the plane crash at the crash site? There should be a large skid mark in front of the building and that other experts who were there indicate it was not a 757 that flew into the Pentagon. Something flew into that building but it was not flight 77. They were there you guys were not. You can continue to bring pictures and show your evidence all you want some of it is valid while others can be viewed as a fallacy in MY opinion you will not change my mind on this.

Thank you for showing that you can cut and paste from whichever source you did (can't tell since you didn't cite your source... not that it matters much in this case) and yet you still do not understand how you expressing that those who don't agree with you or those who agree with the Official Version also agree that the "Government never lies" (a claim for which you were asked to provide proof, and since you were unable to do so you started posting crap and red herrings to try and distract from the fact that you still have no idea what you're talking about) is a Straw Man argument...

You quoting other sites and videos that are equally as ignorant of such things as physics (expecting to see large pieces of wreckage at the Pentagon) or that take people out of context and try to fit the evidence to their preconceived notions simply shows that you are no smarter than the ignorant fools making such videos and website. Indeed, it shows you are even more ignorant of the subject matter.

Exactly thank you for posting that. That is why I wrote your statement was ridiculous to begin with it made you try to look smart but you horribly failed as well. Based on your opinion I look foolish I can live with that because you look foolish to me too. I provide video evidence and argue my point with other posters I have never interacted with you before but you all of a sudden come on here to try to make me to look foolish in an attempt to discredit my assumptions and arguments.

Bottom line here is that my "puff of logic" comment was actually accurate to your position and the fact that you are still trying to use it back against me shows that you still don't understand the context in whi9ch it was used and why it doesn't work the way you think it should against me. Again... ignorance in action on your part.

There is no dishonesty in my approach to provide evidence I merely show what others have reported I do not claim everything is factual because I was not there but no one has proved otherwise that what I have shown is fake other than Skyeagle using sound logic and deduction to come up with his reasoning on why flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and I respect him for that even though he avoids parts of evidence I provide via video and instead concentrates on his strong points which is just showing pictures of parts that may or may not belong to a large plane. At least he is consistent. So everyone that posts your viewpoint is right but those that post something contradictory is biased and is ignorant because it does not conform to what you think happened at the Pentagon. A closed mind makes you illogical, ignorant and biased which you are proving with the last two posts you made against me.

Look up the definition of Intellectual Honesty then come back when you understand why you are showing none (or at least very little) of it.

Here's a hint: it doesn't mean that I am calling you a liar.

Cz

Edited November 1, 2012 by Czero 101

November 1, 2012

I guess you didn't review the photos of the light poles because the impact damages are clearly evident on the light poles, which once again, proves that you are vulnerable to disinformation from those websites.

We already know what knocked down the light poles, so your argument if moot at this point.

You did not show us an intact fuselage nor wings from the Caspian Airliner.

An RB211-535 powered Boeing 757 takes off or lands every 25 seconds

Product details

Powering over 500 Boeing 757 aircraft around the world

There are over 1100 RB211-535 engines in service today

60 per cent of Boeing 757 operators have selected RB211-535 engines

RB211-535 engines have logged over 57 million flight hours and over 23 million cycles of highly reliable service by December 2011

In service with more than 40 operators

The world's most reliable large turbofan

High time on-wing engine has completed 42743 hours without a shop visit

Sole Western powerplant available on the Tupolev Tu-204 aircraft

http://www.rolls-roy...tcm92-11348.pdf

Engine parts from American 77

The engine came only from American 77. All investigators had to do was to make simple phone calls to the maintenance facility of American Airlines to obtain the serial numbers for those engines.

With over 40 years experience in the field of aviation, I saw all kinds of clues that you have overlooked because you are not in a position, nor have the knowledge and experience to notice the significance of what those photos depict, and based on what you have been posting, proves that you are very vulnerable to disinformation and misinformation.

I have a lot of experience in the field of aviation.

I am a pilot (43 years experience) and an airframe technician (45 years experience). I have invented and developed components for Air Force aircraft as well as special tools, fixtures, and other equipment that are currently in use by Air Force maintenance personnel and defense contractors and I have developed special fixtures for the U.S. Army for its helicopters at the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD).

I have conducted safety briefings for airframe and jet engine maintenance personnel of L3 Communications, Vertex Aerospace, and Raytheon Aerospace and a safety briefing on the hazards of mountain flying for members of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).

I have occupied positions within the Air Force and with defense contractors as supervisor/inspector for airframes and jet engine components. I have been sent on fact finding trips around the country by the USAF and defense contractors and to Pensacola, Florida by the USAF and Raytheon Aerospace to develop a new technical manual for the engine inlet used by the TF-39 jet engine that powers the Air Force's C-5 transport. In addition, I have conducted airframe inspections on NASA's Kuiper Airborne Observatory, tail number 714, at Travis AFB, CA. for many years. I have also flown as DCC crew member aboard the C-5 transport

I have led a chapter as president whose members consist of air force officers, enlisted members, military retirees, air force civil servants and non-military civilians, The chapter is part of Tuskegee Airmen, Inc., and In fact, an original Tuskegee Airman nominated me for president of the chapter, whereas, its members voted me in. I am also the current historian of the chapter.

So yes, I have a lot a experience in the field of aviation.

Thank you for your post I appreciate this. It will give me something to think on, but there are some things that still bother me which I will post later, I was doing a long post on another post you posted and had two more replies so I will just try to condense as best I can what I can because I am getting tired. As for what knocked down the lamp posts we will have to agree to disagree on that

November 1, 2012

So it was a failure of those higher up in the chain of command to inform these pilots of what was actually taking place and in their confusion they ended up going out to sea and this is acceptable how? The CO in charge of these pilots should be removed from command if he or she can't properly do their job to brief these pilots.

Apparently, you do not know how things work in the real world, and another reason why I pointed out the interception Payne Steward's Learjet.

November 1, 2012

Thank you for your post I appreciate this. It will give me something to think on, but there are some things that still bother me which I will post later, I was doing a long post on another post you posted and had two more replies so I will just try to condense as best I can what I can because I am getting tired. As for what knocked down the lamp posts we will have to agree to disagree on that

You can look at the light poles and tell right away the bent light poles suffered from impact damage, and nothing to do with explosives.

November 1, 2012

I am honestly drained at this point I was going to respond to another post made by Skyeagle when I got a notification that Frenant and Czero posted again. I have 5 people if not more who are trying to ask me questions and my opinion and I realize I will be here all night responding and we will just be going in circles. I have said from the start I am not an expert, I was not there when the Pentagon attack happened and I can only base my opinion off of what other people who were there and expert testimony as to what might have actually happened on that date. The same applies for Skyeagle and other posters here because they were not there and they have to use the information provided by other sources to base their opinion on what took place. Even posters here who have aviation engineering degree, pilots, were not at the crash site, were not investigators with the NTSB or FAA and are just making educated guesses as to what may have happened.

Just like Skyeagle I used other sources to provide information and opinion based on eyewitness testimony, expert accounts, and any information that was asked of me was looked on for outside sources to base my opinion as an observant bystander from afar. People here claim because they are experts and viewed certain aspects of the crash the same way I have (via video and pictures) that their opinion is fact. The fact is it is just your opinion the NTSB neglected to include in their report eyewitness testimony of those who were there which I already stated their names as to what happened from their perspective which raises a red flag for me anyway. Why is their testimony discounted? I provided names of these people and their testimony via video you can see it and yet they are discredit even though 3 federal police officers, 2 aviation experts, refute what the NTSB claims occurred. I have said time and again that something hit the Pentagon, and a grainy video along with aftermath photos that do not identify any part of a 757 is claimed to be flight 77 being the culprit to hit the Pentagon. Skyeagle provides me pictures like this (a drawing and not real world picture keep that in mind).

Why is the stamp date on the picture above say September 7, 2001 is this a misprint? Also again notice another drawing caused the following damage below:

And the final two pictures one a drawing again.

Which if you take a look where the red and yellow mark met and where the actual lower part of the tail section the red mark points to where the drawing does not even line up is supposed to be this damage:

Never knew drawings could cause damage. I understand it is for illustration purposes since we do not have video or picture evidence to prove this is what actually happened but at the same time the drawings are making an assumption and helps investigators determine what could have actually caused that damage. But the drawings themselves do not even support or line up to the physical evidence there. Case in point the first drawing has the entire engine over the transformer yet the transformer itself is damaged to the side and a little bit on top at the same time? So maybe the wing could have caused the upper part of the transformer damage and the side damage was caused by the engine itself I am no expert but it could be viewed that way I guess. Still we cannot confirm without a shadow of a doubt that this is indeed what happened but people are basing this as fact. Added to the eyewitness testimony I provided along with the FBI not releasing evidence is clear indication something may (not saying is but may) be a miss. I will keep an open mind and like I have said before I think some flying object hit the Pentagon but it cannot be fully identified. We can all go in circles every day on this issue fact of the matter is some will agree with flight 77 hitting the Pentagon and others will not and until further evidence is provided this will always be the case.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Crumar

November 1, 2012

You can look at the light poles and tell right away the bent light poles suffered from impact damage, and nothing to do with explosives.

Right but was it flight 77 as some claim and why would the cab driver lie about his cab and light pole being a staged event? Again something bent those posts so people assume it is flight 77.

November 1, 2012

Yes let’s take a look at facts. Again I will have to repost this so you understand why I write this. The fact is the NTSB did not in their report include eyewitness testimony of Terry Morin who was at the Navy Annex at the time of the plane flying over and a professional aviator and program manager at the Sparta Inc. Navy Annex said: "I say 13 seconds, uh as an aviator flying 500 knots, he wasn't flying 500 knots. National Security Alert reports: "The NTSB reported the plane speed at this point at 460 knots, which equals to 530 miles per hour, or 781 feet per second. At that air speed it would only take a mere 3.4 seconds to travel from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon in direct contrast to the approximately 10 seconds reported by aviation professionals Sean Boger and Terry Morin, as well as by William Middleton.

I don't think you understand. American 77 was not flying at 530 mph when it completed its turn, it accelerated to 530 mph afterward and his estimate is just that, an estimate and nothing to do accuracy, which was evident by his 50 knot margin.

Yes photos are taken usually after a plane crash for evidence and sometimes videos are taken too.

Were there videos of PSA 1771? Do you know why black boxes were eventually added to airliners?

There is no footage of what caused the physical damage leading up and inside the Pentagon except for a grainy clip that is obscured by a gate pillar and does not show the lamp poles or transformer being hit by a 757 plane.

On the contrary, the C-130 crew and ground-based observers watched as American 77 struck the Pentagon, and the announcement by American Airlines and B-757 wreckage outside and inside the Pentagon confirmed the aircraft as American 77. Remember, only a certain number of B-757-200 series were built and each of those aircraft are accountable so it is no problem in making a determination which B-757 crashed at the Pentagon and I might add that each Rolls Royce RB11-535 engine that powered American 77 are accountable as well. Think about it. Draw upon the process of elimination.

Could a plane have caused that damage?

Yes, and a bomb and a cruise missile could not have caused the kind of documented damage observed inside the Pentagon.

Of course I will not refute that, the reason I mentioned explosives as a possible scenario as well because the cab driver who was at the scene said that scene was staged.

There is absolutely no evidence that explosives knocked down and bent those light poles.

I was not there, my guess is just a guess I am NOT stating it as fact. It could of been a flying object,...

I have indentified the vertical stabilizer of a B-757 in the background of the photo taken from the video.

it could have been some other outside external force, the point is we have no proof as to what actually hit the Pentagon only vague video and aftermath wreckage that is claimed to be of a 757 but no identifying marks to definitively prove it came for a 757 or flight 77 for that matter.

I have identified B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon. In fact, you can see some of the wing trailing edge ribs inside the Pentagon along with low density honeycomb core.

Edited November 1, 2012 by skyeagle409

November 1, 2012

Thank you for showing that you can cut and paste from whichever source you did (can't tell since you didn't cite your source... not that it matters much in this case) and yet you still do not understand how you expressing that those who don't agree with you or those who agree with the Official Version also agree that the "Government never lies" (a claim for which you were asked to provide proof, and since you were unable to do so you started posting crap and red herrings to try and distract from the fact that you still have no idea what you're talking about) is a Straw Man argument...

I will try to keep this short as I am too tired to continue. Source for quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man We can keep going in circles as I said to you previously the government is made up of people and people lie and tell the truth for their own agenda. I understand what you are saying, you are assuming that I was implying that the evidence people provided was fake because the government always lies is actually not accurate. I made that blanket statement because the government does lie I did not make it because I am saying that the government continually lies and any evidence that is provided to posters to prove my account as false is in fact false. I have given reasons as to why their account could be false based on opinions of people who were there on that day I never claimed that these opinions were in fact my own.

You quoting other sites and videos that are equally as ignorant of such things as physics (expecting to see large pieces of wreckage at the Pentagon) or that take people out of context and try to fit the evidence to their preconceived notions simply shows that you are no smarter than the ignorant fools making such videos and website. Indeed, it shows you are even more ignorant of the subject matter.

What proof do you have of this as all these sites being ignorant because the physical evidence does not add up to what some experts and not all experts agree as to what happened? There are experts in the aviation field who discount other experts’ viewpoints and this is why we have a conflict to begin with. Eyewitness testimony of Federal Pentagon Officers on record as disputing the fact of what the NTSB reported is people taking things out of context? Yeah right. The fact that you discount their testimony is showing ignorance on your part. Not all people are honest, not all people who make videos base it on factual material, and that includes some of the information you base your opinion off of. Please do not ask me proof as I have already done so and you are just ignoring it. So show me why those officers testimony and other 9/11 truther video's you claim to be fake I would like to look out for them so I do not become an ignorant fool as you suggest I am.

Bottom line here is that my "puff of logic" comment was actually accurate to your position and the fact that you are still trying to use it back against me shows that you still don't understand the context in whi9ch it was used and why it doesn't work the way you think it should against me. Again... ignorance in action on your part.
Look up the definition of Intellectual Honesty then come back when you understand why you are showing none (or at least very little) of it.

Here's a hint: it doesn't mean that I am calling you a liar.

Cz

We will have to agree to disagree because you have already discredited all 9/11 truthers as ignorant misinformed people who are spreading disinformation. That is your opinion which is based on? You know I don't even care and I don't want to know. The fact is if the FBI had Intellectual Honesty they would have released those surveillance tapes and hand held recordings of the event to show the public they were being truthful in their investigation but they are being secretive for whatever reason. I was told you did an in-depth analysis of this very thing how did you account for the video footage of the bystanders that the FBI seized? You want to pursue the truth without bias you should be asking the FBI why they are not releasing this evidence.

November 1, 2012

I am honestly drained at this point I was going to respond to another post made by Skyeagle when I got a notification that Frenant and Czero posted again. I have 5 people if not more who are trying to ask me questions and my opinion and I realize I will be here all night responding and we will just be going in circles. I have said from the start I am not an expert, I was not there when the Pentagon attack happened and I can only base my opinion off of what other people who were there and expert testimony as to what might have actually happened on that date. The same applies for Skyeagle and other posters here because they were not there and they have to use the information provided by other sources to base their opinion on what took place. Even posters here who have aviation engineering degree, pilots, were not at the crash site, were not investigators with the NTSB or FAA and are just making educated guesses as to what may have happened.

Just like Skyeagle I used other sources to provide information and opinion based on eyewitness testimony, expert accounts, and any information that was asked of me was looked on for outside sources to base my opinion as an observant bystander from afar. People here claim because they are experts and viewed certain aspects of the crash the same way I have (via video and pictures) that their opinion is fact. The fact is it is just your opinion the NTSB neglected to include in their report eyewitness testimony of those who were there which I already stated their names as to what happened from their perspective which raises a red flag for me anyway. Why is their testimony discounted? I provided names of these people and their testimony via video you can see it and yet they are discredit even though 3 federal police officers, 2 aviation experts, refute what the NTSB claims occurred. I have said time and again that something hit the Pentagon, and a grainy video along with aftermath photos that do not identify any part of a 757 is claimed to be flight 77 being the culprit to hit the Pentagon. Skyeagle provides me pictures like this (a drawing and not real world picture keep that in mind).

Why is the stamp date on the picture above say September 7, 2001 is this a misprint? Also again notice another drawing caused the following damage below:

And the final two pictures one a drawing again.

Which if you take a look where the red and yellow mark met and where the actual lower part of the tail section the red mark points to where the drawing does not even line up is supposed to be this damage:

Never knew drawings could cause damage.

I understand it is for illustration purposes since we do not have video or picture evidence to prove this is what actually happened but at the same time the drawings are making an assumption and helps investigators determine what could have actually caused that damage. But the drawings themselves do not even support or line up to the physical evidence there.

When used in conjunction with visual and direct physical evidence, such as the light poles and generator damage, they do.

Case in point the first drawing has the entire engine over the transformer yet the transformer itself is damaged to the side and a little bit on top at the same time?

Remember, you not only have the engine impact, but have the flap jackscrew on the trailing edge of the wing as well,

So maybe the wing could have caused the upper part of the transformer damage...

The flap jackscrew was in a position to cause the gouge on top of the generator. The position of the jackscrew turn it into a spear.

Still we cannot confirm without a shadow of a doubt that this is indeed what happened but people are basing this as fact.

Let's do a recap.

* American Airlines, operator of American 77, reported the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon

* The airframe of American 77 has now been deregistered and written off because it was destroyed.

* The airframe of American 77 was a B-757-200 series aircraft and each B-757-200 is accountable. A simple process of elimination is all that is needed to determine which B-757-200 series aircraft had crashed at the Pentagon.

* Each engine that powered American 77 is trackable and can be accounted for because each engine has its own maintenance and installation histories that are as unique as a fingerprint and once again, the process of elimination can be used in the case of engine installation, flight, and maintenance histories including the use of documentation on time-sensitive line replacement items in order to make a determination as to which aircraft crashed at the Pentagon.

* Each part of an aircraft has its own part or stock number stamped, which means that I could have created a thick file of stock and part numbers obtained from the wreckage seen in the Pentagon photos and then, use that information to determine the identity of the aircraft, which is why no one in the United States government in their right mind would have modified any B-757 or B-767 for the purpose of flying them into buildings because it wouldn't have taken very long to determine who was responsible.

9/11 conspiracist do not think of little things like those, but as I have said before, I could reveal a switched aircraft in less than 30 minutes because I know from many years of experience, what to look for.

Added to the eyewitness testimony I provided along with the FBI not releasing evidence is clear indication something may (not saying is but may) be a miss.

In accidents, there are usually conflicting witness accounts which is why the FAA and NTSB rely on data to verify who is right and who is wrong. A case in point, an airplane crashed on landing and some people said the aircraft was on fire before it crashed and others said the aircraft burst into flames after landing and you can find many such cases, and another reason why I have said that despite what witnesses have said, you have to go with FDR and radar data and direct physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon.

Edited November 1, 2012 by skyeagle409

November 1, 2012

I don't think you understand. American 77 was not flying at 530 mph when it completed its turn, it accelerated to 530 mph afterward and his estimate is just that, an estimated and nothing to do accuracy, which was evident by his 50 knot margin.

Again eyewitness testimony refutes that evidence on the ground at least.

Were there videos of PSA 1771? Do you know why black boxes were eventually added to airliners?

I have already gone through with a lot of this with you we are going to go in circles. I understand why you are bringing up PSA 1771 and the connection to the black box.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_data_recorder

"The first prototype coupled FDR/CVR designed with civilian aircraft in mind, for explicit post-crash examination purposes, was produced in 1956 by Dr. David Warren of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation's Aeronautical Research Laboratories in Melbourne, Australia.^[6] In 1953 and 1954, a series of fatal incidents involving the de Havilland Comet prompted the grounding of the entire fleet pending an investigation. Dr. Warren, a chemist specializing in aircraft fuels, was involved in a professional committee discussing the possible causes. Since there had been neither witnesses nor survivors, Dr. Warren conceived of a crash-survivable method to record the flight crew's conversation (and other pre-crash data), reasoning they would greatly assist in determining a cause and enabling the prevention of future, avoidable accidents of the same type."

This would include lack of video and picture evidence I get it. Problem is in regards to the Pentagon and flight 77 both you and I were not there so we have to base our evidence on what we see and there was eyewitness testimony at that site and one crappy video of the impact event along with aftermath photographs.

On the contrary, the C-130 crew and ground-based observers watched as American 77 struck the Pentagon, and the announcement by American Airlines and B-757 wreckage outside and inside the Pentagon confirmed the aircraft as American 77. Remember, only a certain number of B-757-200 series were built and each of those aircraft are accountable so it is no problem in making a determination which B-757 crashed at the Pentagon and I might add that each Rolls Royce RB11-535 engine that powered American 77 are accountable as well. Think about it. Draw upon the process of elimination.

Right so someone is lying. Is it the many witnesses who saw what flight 77 did before and after the impact while on the ground or it is the C-130 crew doing so? That is the mystery to this whole thing and by the way you are the first person to point out to me at least there were other eyewitnesses who refute the claim the ground crew is making. Of course the C-130 crew would have an unobstructed view of what took place so they should be more creditable and yet there are 9/11 Truther experts who claim their testimony to be false. Are these experts lying I have no clue these Truthers they could be spreading misinformation as well I am no expert on this topic. But what I do know is those many witnesses on the ground have the same story and are video documented as saying so and are consistent with other witness testimonies which are many. As for the plane itself not being accounted for I have been trying to dig up something I saw a few years back with no luck in regards to American Airlines not writing off two of the 4 planes over a year after the incident even though the two planes that impacted the twin towers were written off. Are 9/11 Truthers spreading disinformation I have no clue but I do remember seeing it, but this is not fact so please do not take this as fact so you can understand why I am still a bit skeptical that is why I wrote this so you know where I am coming from. I will keep an open mind on this subject if I can't find the evidence I will drop that flight 77 was still around after the fact.

Yes, and a bomb and a cruise missile could not have caused the kind of documented damage observed inside the Pentagon.

There are people inside the building at the time of the attack that say there was a strong odor of cordite some of which had military training with this substance and know the difference. Are they lying I have no clue one woman who was interviewed on Conspiracy Theory by Jesse Ventura claims this to be the case. Since I was not there I can not comment on this further but the fact is you do not know this to be 100% as well either. All we can ascertain at this point is a flying object (it could be a plane it could be something else that has flight capabilities) flew into the Pentagon. But there is clear evidence to indicate that plane parts are present at this location and I can understand why you feel based on your educated opinion that it was a plane and possibly a 757 that caused this crash.

There is absolutely no evidence that explosives knocked down and bent those light poles.

Right we already touched on this subject I never claimed this to be fact I said there was a possibility that something (like explosives or a flying object) could have caused those lamp posts to be knocked down. You showed me why explosives could not have been the culprit and I have to agree with you on this thank you for pointing that out.

I have indentified the vertical stabilizer of a B-757 in the background of the photo taken from the video.

The video is too grainy and being obstructed by a pillar to conclusively determine it was from flight 77. There looks like what appears to be a vertical stabilizer in the video but that could be from any air craft. We do not have exact dimensions to determine whether it is indeed from a 757.

I have already identified B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon. In fact, you can see the wing trailing edge ribs inside the Pentagon along with low density honeycomb core.

I will have to go back and look at your previous post to further examine this image to get a sense of what you are pointing out as I have been responding non stop for the last few hours to different posters. so will leave this open for the time being.

November 1, 2012

When used in conjunction with visual and direct physical evidence, such as the light poles and generator damage, they do.

Remember, you not only have the engine impact, but have the flap jackscrew on the trailing edge of the wing as well,

The flap jackscrew was in a position to cause the gouge on top of the generator. The position of the jackscrew turn it into a spear.

Let's do a recap.

* American Airlines, operator of American 77, reported the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon

* The airframe of American 77 has now been deregistered and written off because it was destroyed.

* The airframe of American 77 was a B-757-200 series aircraft and each B-757-200 is accountable. A simple process of elimination is all that is needed to determine which B-757-200 series aircraft had crashed at the Pentagon.

* Each engine that powered American 77 is trackable and can be accounted for because each engine has its own maintenance and installation histories that are as unique as a fingerprint and once again, the process of elimination can be used in the case of engine installation, flight, and maintenance histories including the use of documentation on time-sensitive line replacement items in order to make a determination as to which aircraft crashed at the Pentagon.

* Each part of an aircraft has its own part or stock number stamped, which means that I could have created a thick file of stock and part numbers obtained from the wreckage seen in the Pentagon photos and then, use that information to determine the identity of the aircraft, which is why no one in the United States government in their right mind would have modified any B-757 or B-767 for the purpose of flying them into buildings because it wouldn't have taken very long to determine who was responsible.

9/11 conspiracist do not think of little things like those, but as I have said before, I could reveal a switched aircraft in less than 30 minutes because I know from many years of experience, what to look for.

In accidents, there are usually conflicting witness accounts which is why the FAA and NTSB rely on data to verify who is right and who is wrong. A case in point, an airplane crashed on landing and some people said the aircraft was on fire before it crashed and others said the aircraft burst into flames after landing and you can find many such cases, and another reason why I have said that despite what witnesses have said, you have to go with FDR and radar data and direct physical evidence inside and outside the Pentagon.

You can keep recapping you are trying to drill into me the importance of physical evidence and exclude eyewitness testimony as the determining factor in what happened on that day . I understand and know where you are coming from but some of the evidence being presented is lacking for me anyway. Maybe because my ignorance precludes me to see the full picture of what you see is the reason why but for whatever reason I will not discount the testimony and contradiction people have claimed from day one and over the years and still stick to their story that other events transpired over what the NTSB and FBI is reporting as fact. I am trying to keep an open mind and your argument has merit that it could have been flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon but at the same time other experts and witnesses claim otherwise I have no clue why they would be lying, considering they probably are not getting anything out of it except maybe attention. But I also do not understand why 3 Federal Pentagon Officers would lie I just don’t see what they would have to gain from it. So understand from my perspective why I am resistant at the moment. Evidence can be planted am I saying that is what happened? No but what I am saying is things just don't add up at this point in time. Based on other experts who may have the same experience as you they are contradicting what you are pointing out as evidence in the many 9/11 Truther videos out there and of course people are taking sides, I am in the middle on the fence so to speak. So far all I know is that some flying object hit the Pentagon you can clearly see it in that grainy video that there something flying toward the building.

November 1, 2012

I will try to keep this short as I am too tired to continue. Source for quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man We can keep going in circles as I said to you previously the government is made up of people and people lie and tell the truth for their own agenda. I understand what you are saying, you are assuming that I was implying that the evidence people provided was fake because the government always lies is actually not accurate. I made that blanket statement because the government does lie I did not make it because I am saying that the government continually lies and any evidence that is provided to posters to prove my account as false is in fact false. I have given reasons as to why their account could be false based on opinions of people who were there on that day I never claimed that these opinions were in fact my own.

*sigh*

You STILL miss the point.

Here... let me lay it out for you since that seems to be the only way you're going to get it.

You said "Because the American Goverment never lies right?" which implies that there are people here that have said that the American Government never lies... why else would you say it in the way that you did unless you were addressing those that you think claim and / or believe that...?

I asked you to provide proof that anyone here on the "Official Version" side has actually claimed or said that they believe that "the American Government never lies" and then pointed out that it was a strawman argument because it is an oversimplification or a purposeful misrepresentation of the "Official Versioner's" position presented by you in order to justify the videos you posted.

Rather than admit that you had either overstated, misunderstood or exaggerated "our" position, or doing the intellectually honest thing and admit that you'd only said it that way for effect, you railed on about other things essentially unrelated to the topis under discussion.

I don't care what you believe. I only care what you can prove and that you present your arguments in a factual and honest manner. I will freely admit that I haven't read all of your posts - mostly because I can only get a few sentences in before the overwhelming willfully ignorant and biased CT mindset you display makes my brain sore - but based on the interaction between you and I so far I feel I can safely assume it will be on a similar level with other CT's who have come and gone and never provided anything resembling factual evidence or even an unbiased appraisal of the evidence and will mainly consist of a regurgitation of some other site's or person's opinions that you have taken as your own, all the while couching yourself in the intellectually dishonest safety net of that old CT standby throw-away claim of "I never claimed in was MY opinion..."...

I have given reasons as to why their account could be false based on opinions of people who were there on that day I never claimed that these opinions were in fact my own.

:whistle:

What proof do you have of this as all these sites being ignorant because the physical evidence does not add up to what some experts and not all experts agree as to what happened? There are experts in the aviation field who discount other experts’ viewpoints and this is why we have a conflict to begin with. Eyewitness testimony of Federal Pentagon Officers on record as disputing the fact of what the NTSB reported is people taking things out of context? Yeah right. The fact that you discount their testimony is showing ignorance on your part. Not all people are honest, not all people who make videos base it on factual material, and that includes some of the information you base your opinion off of. Please do not ask me proof as I have already done so and you are just ignoring it. So show me why those officers testimony and other 9/11 truther video's you claim to be fake I would like to look out for them so I do not become an ignorant fool as you suggest I am.

I discount those people's statements - and I'm willing to bet that they were not included in the NIST investigation for similar rationale - because they are not supported by the vast and overwhelming preponderance of evidence that goes against what they say. There are over 100 eyewitnesses who say they saw an aircraft which they identified, generally speaking, as a large / jumbo passenger jet hit the Pentagon. There were hundreds others on the highways around the Pentagon that morning who would have been in perfect position to see an aircraft overfly the Pentagon had one done so. There were other aircraft in the air at that time who would have seen something or possible even been in the way if an aircraft had overflown the Pentagon since it sit right next to the approach to a major airport. There was a C-130 (if memory serves) that saw the aircraft just moments before it hit the Pentagon and would have seen it overfly the Pentagon had it done so.

Your lack of understanding of the physics involved in why a large body traveling at high speeds impacting a reinforced building will not leave "large chunks" of the aircraft laying around is only reinforced by others with the same simplistic understanding of how the world really works... THAT is why I say those sites are biased and ignorant... because they make assumptions based on "common knowledge" that doesn't apply to this extraordinary event and when the results don't match the assumptions they make based on their limited understanding, the cry "COVER UP!!" or "CONSPIRACY!!" or "NO AIRPLANE!!" yet they haven't bothered to actually find out IF THEY ARE RIGHT, they've just start from the position that they are right and then proceed to fit the evidence into their conclusions, rather than forming their conclusions based on the evidence.

You come along, seemingly with the same simplistic and limited understanding, find something on the internet that agrees with you and figure you / they must be right. Then you come here, make some ludicrous claims and essentially say that those who's testimony supports the Official Version are lying because they don't say what YOU WANT THEM TO SAY, or rather, those few who's testimony fits your predetermined conclusions but not the evidence pf the day are more believable than the majority who don't because the few are saying what you want to hear.

So, I'm sorry... but who's the ignorant biased fool again...?

We will have to agree to disagree because you have already discredited all 9/11 truthers as ignorant misinformed people who are spreading disinformation. That is your opinion which is based on? You know I don't even care and I don't want to know. The fact is if the FBI had Intellectual Honesty they would have released those surveillance tapes and hand held recordings of the event to show the public they were being truthful in their investigation but they are being secretive for whatever reason. I was told you did an in-depth analysis of this very thing how did you account for the video footage of the bystanders that the FBI seized? You want to pursue the truth without bias you should be asking the FBI why they are not releasing this evidence.

Again... learn what Intellectual Honesty actually means, then talk about how it applies, or doesn't in your case.

The tapes have been released. That you don't know that shows your lack of research into this topic and that you are only basing your opinions on those same ignorant and biased people and websites mentioned above who will rail on endlessly about the tapes not being released, all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all released by 2006 (again, if memory serves on that time frame).

I did an impromptu analysis of one part of one tape, the Doubletree hotel security tape, because someone said that the Pentagon was visible in it and that the impact should have been visible too. That post is earlier in this thread HERE and there's a follow-up post HERE.

Just a few days ago I re-posted an analysis I did of the damage to the Pentagon 3 1/2 years ago. That post is also in this thread HERE.

In other threads I have gone into great detail in proving my point - usually with the impressive help of boonYzarC, or in assisting him prove a point.

So again... I really don't care what you believe. Beliefs and opinions can't be argued rationally. Evidence and facts can and that's what important.

Cz

November 1, 2012

*sigh*

You STILL miss the point.

Here... let me lay it out for you since that seems to be the only way you're going to get it.

You said "Because the American Goverment never lies right?" which implies that there are people here that have said that the American Government never lies... why else would you say it in the way that you did unless you were addressing those that you think claim and / or believe that...?

I asked you to provide proof that anyone here on the "Official Version" side has actually claimed or said that they believe that "the American Government never lies" and then pointed out that it was a strawman argument because it is an oversimplification or a purposeful misrepresentation of the "Official Versioner's" position presented by you in order to justify the videos you posted.

Rather than admit that you had either overstated, misunderstood or exaggerated "our" position, or doing the intellectually honest thing and admit that you'd only said it that way for effect, you railed on about other things essentially unrelated to the topis under discussion.

I don't care what you believe. I only care what you can prove and that you present your arguments in a factual and honest manner. I will freely admit that I haven't read all of your posts - mostly because I can only get a few sentences in before the overwhelming willfully ignorant and biased CT mindset you display makes my brain sore - but based on the interaction between you and I so far I feel I can safely assume it will be on a similar level with other CT's who have come and gone and never provided anything resembling factual evidence or even an unbiased appraisal of the evidence and will mainly consist of a regurgitation of some other site's or person's opinions that you have taken as your own, all the while couching yourself in the intellectually dishonest safety net of that old CT standby throw-away claim of "I never claimed in was MY opinion..."...

I discount those people's statements - and I'm willing to bet that they were not included in the NIST investigation for similar rationale - because they are not supported by the vast and overwhelming preponderance of evidence that goes against what they say. There are over 100 eyewitnesses who say they saw an aircraft which they identified, generally speaking, as a large / jumbo passenger jet hit the Pentagon. There were hundreds others on the highways around the Pentagon that morning who would have been in perfect position to see an aircraft overfly the Pentagon had one done so. There were other aircraft in the air at that time who would have seen something or possible even been in the way if an aircraft had overflown the Pentagon since it sit right next to the approach to a major airport. There was a C-130 (if memory serves) that saw the aircraft just moments before it hit the Pentagon and would have seen it overfly the Pentagon had it done so.

Your lack of understanding of the physics involved in why a large body traveling at high speeds impacting a reinforced building will not leave "large chunks" of the aircraft laying around is only reinforced by others with the same simplistic understanding of how the world really works... THAT is why I say those sites are biased and ignorant... because they make assumptions based on "common knowledge" that doesn't apply to this extraordinary event and when the results don't match the assumptions they make based on their limited understanding, the cry "COVER UP!!" or "CONSPIRACY!!" or "NO AIRPLANE!!" yet they haven't bothered to actually find out IF THEY ARE RIGHT, they've just start from the position that they are right and then proceed to fit the evidence into their conclusions, rather than forming their conclusions based on the evidence.

You come along, seemingly with the same simplistic and limited understanding, find something on the internet that agrees with you and figure you / they must be right. Then you come here, make some ludicrous claims and essentially say that those who's testimony supports the Official Version are lying because they don't say what YOU WANT THEM TO SAY, or rather, those few who's testimony fits your predetermined conclusions but not the evidence pf the day are more believable than the majority who don't because the few are saying what you want to hear.

So, I'm sorry... but who's the ignorant biased fool again...?

Again... learn what Intellectual Honesty actually means, then talk about how it applies, or doesn't in your case.

The tapes have been released. That you don't know that shows your lack of research into this topic and that you are only basing your opinions on those same ignorant and biased people and websites mentioned above who will rail on endlessly about the tapes not being released, all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all released by 2006 (again, if memory serves on that time frame).

I did an impromptu analysis of one part of one tape, the Doubletree hotel security tape, because someone said that the Pentagon was visible in it and that the impact should have been visible too. That post is earlier in this thread HERE and there's a follow-up post HERE.

Just a few days ago I re-posted an analysis I did of the damage to the Pentagon 3 1/2 years ago. That post is also in this thread HERE.

In other threads I have gone into great detail in proving my point - usually with the impressive help of boonYzarC, or in assisting him prove a point.

So again... I really don't care what you believe. Beliefs and opinions can't be argued rationally. Evidence and facts can and that's what important.

Cz

Great thanks for posting, just to let you know since you haven't read any of my posts thoroughly I will now ignore you since it is obvious you are trolling and only just picking and choosing what you want to see and then fabricate and warp my viewpoint to then say I am ignorant and have no basis for any argument because I am using evidence based from 9/11 Truthers. So we really have nothing else to discuss do we. If you will not take the time to read what I have to say then why should I even bother with you frankly I don’t care about what you think either. You can spew all your assumptions as "facts" and call it the official version all you want have fun with that some of us know the truth I made my point which others liked, and agreed with what I had to say and for those who don't like it you are entitled to your opinion and it was an interesting conversation over all with some posters. The post above is a clear indication that someone is out of touch with reality. By the way English is my second language one of many yet I think I can still grasp and understand what you are saying it just may a little more time for me. So yeah if that bothers you to bad I don’t care anymore good luck in life.

November 1, 2012

Great thanks for posting, just to let you know since you haven't read any of my posts thoroughly I will now ignore you since it is obvious you are trolling and only just picking and choosing what you want to see and then fabricate and warp my viewpoint to then say I am ignorant and have no basis for any argument because I am using evidence based from 9/11 Truthers. So we really have nothing else to discuss do we. If you will not take the time to read what I have to say then why should I even bother with you frankly I don’t care about what you think either. You can spew all your assumptions as "facts" and call it the official version all you want have fun with that some of us know the truth I made my point which others liked, and agreed with what I had to say and for those who don't like it you are entitled to your opinion and it was an interesting conversation over all with some posters. The post above is a clear indication that someone is out of touch with reality. By the way English is my second language one of many yet I think I can still grasp and understand what you are saying it just may a little more time for me. So yeah if that bothers you to bad I don’t care anymore good luck in life.

*chuckle*

You accuse me of trolling and say that you don't care what I think when I admit that I haven't read every single word you have posted - and please note I didn't say that haven't read ANY OF YOUR POSTS, just that I haven't read ALL OF YOUR POSTS... I hope you can understand *that* difference - yet you continue on with hypocritical hubris that we should care about what you say while you yourself are trolling the typical Truther garbage .... :rolleyes:

Its obvious that you don't understand this topic very well, ESL or not. The fact that you have gone so far out of your way to avoid having to admit that you couldn't provide any backup whatsoever for your strawman argument shows that clearly enough. You *STILL* don't realize that admitting that you were mistaken is a much more honorable way out of a strawman than the way you have handled it, assuming credibility means anything at all to you.

But whatever... as I've said, I only really care what you can prove, which so far is essentially nothing, and you've already said that the opinions you present are not your own, but are those that are provided for you by the Truther movement....

Enjoy living in the 9/11 Truther fantasy world you've wrapped around yourself.

Have a good day....

Cz

Edited November 1, 2012 by Czero 101

November 1, 2012

*sigh*

You STILL miss the point.

Here... let me lay it out for you since that seems to be the only way you're going to get it.

You said "Because the American Goverment never lies right?" which implies that there are people here that have said that the American Government never lies... why else would you say it in the way that you did unless you were addressing those that you think claim and / or believe that...?

I asked you to provide proof that anyone here on the "Official Version" side has actually claimed or said that they believe that "the American Government never lies" and then pointed out that it was a strawman argument because it is an oversimplification or a purposeful misrepresentation of the "Official Versioner's" position presented by you in order to justify the videos you posted.

Rather than admit that you had either overstated, misunderstood or exaggerated "our" position, or doing the intellectually honest thing and admit that you'd only said it that way for effect, you railed on about other things essentially unrelated to the topis under discussion.

I don't care what you believe. I only care what you can prove and that you present your arguments in a factual and honest manner. I will freely admit that I haven't read all of your posts - mostly because I can only get a few sentences in before the overwhelming willfully ignorant and biased CT mindset you display makes my brain sore - but based on the interaction between you and I so far I feel I can safely assume it will be on a similar level with other CT's who have come and gone and never provided anything resembling factual evidence or even an unbiased appraisal of the evidence and will mainly consist of a regurgitation of some other site's or person's opinions that you have taken as your own, all the while couching yourself in the intellectually dishonest safety net of that old CT standby throw-away claim of "I never claimed in was MY opinion..."...

I discount those people's statements - and I'm willing to bet that they were not included in the NIST investigation for similar rationale - because they are not supported by the vast and overwhelming preponderance of evidence that goes against what they say. There are over 100 eyewitnesses who say they saw an aircraft which they identified, generally speaking, as a large / jumbo passenger jet hit the Pentagon. There were hundreds others on the highways around the Pentagon that morning who would have been in perfect position to see an aircraft overfly the Pentagon had one done so. There were other aircraft in the air at that time who would have seen something or possible even been in the way if an aircraft had overflown the Pentagon since it sit right next to the approach to a major airport. There was a C-130 (if memory serves) that saw the aircraft just moments before it hit the Pentagon and would have seen it overfly the Pentagon had it done so.

Your lack of understanding of the physics involved in why a large body traveling at high speeds impacting a reinforced building will not leave "large chunks" of the aircraft laying around is only reinforced by others with the same simplistic understanding of how the world really works... THAT is why I say those sites are biased and ignorant... because they make assumptions based on "common knowledge" that doesn't apply to this extraordinary event and when the results don't match the assumptions they make based on their limited understanding, the cry "COVER UP!!" or "CONSPIRACY!!" or "NO AIRPLANE!!" yet they haven't bothered to actually find out IF THEY ARE RIGHT, they've just start from the position that they are right and then proceed to fit the evidence into their conclusions, rather than forming their conclusions based on the evidence.

You come along, seemingly with the same simplistic and limited understanding, find something on the internet that agrees with you and figure you / they must be right. Then you come here, make some ludicrous claims and essentially say that those who's testimony supports the Official Version are lying because they don't say what YOU WANT THEM TO SAY, or rather, those few who's testimony fits your predetermined conclusions but not the evidence pf the day are more believable than the majority who don't because the few are saying what you want to hear.

So, I'm sorry... but who's the ignorant biased fool again...?

Again... learn what Intellectual Honesty actually means, then talk about how it applies, or doesn't in your case.

The tapes have been released. That you don't know that shows your lack of research into this topic and that you are only basing your opinions on those same ignorant and biased people and websites mentioned above who will rail on endlessly about the tapes not being released, all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all released by 2006 (again, if memory serves on that time frame).

I did an impromptu analysis of one part of one tape, the Doubletree hotel security tape, because someone said that the Pentagon was visible in it and that the impact should have been visible too. That post is earlier in this thread HERE and there's a follow-up post HERE.

Just a few days ago I re-posted an analysis I did of the damage to the Pentagon 3 1/2 years ago. That post is also in this thread HERE.

In other threads I have gone into great detail in proving my point - usually with the impressive help of boonYzarC, or in assisting him prove a point.

So again... I really don't care what you believe. Beliefs and opinions can't be argued rationally. Evidence and facts can and that's what important.

Cz

So after the post below I decided to be mature about this entire discussion with you and re-read what you said. I put my frustration aside and actually read it objectively. After reading what you had to write I can understand what you mean by the straw man argument. I made a blanket statement about the government lying and insinuating that since the people on here use facts from the NTSB they must be in general using false information am I correct? So I used a poor sense of judgment in that regard I was wrong to use that statement but I will still stand by the fact that the government still has to this date not fully released all data regarding what occurred at the Pentagon. Am I wrong about the other stuff I presented? I can not say I am 100 percent certain that what both sides of the story have said is true that is why I have said in another post that I am on the fence between what each side is discussing. Why I started to talk about this discussion is because I wanted to learn and understand what was going on. Both sides have experts that claim they are right, I at first chose the Truther side because the evidence was compelling after viewing hours of footage regarding what occurred at 9/11 as a whole. So that is why I came on here to discuss this rationally and come up with explanations as to why these witnesses along with lack of video evidence was missing at the Pentagon when at the World Trade Center there was ample evidence to see from many angles the first plane hitting a tower and the 2nd after that doing the same. I could understand why the FBI rushed to grab all the video footage both at places of business and by bystanders who were at the scene that may have taped this event to have evidence of what occured but to not release it years after the event is troublesome. So you will understand why I was skeptical and needed clarification.

I said from the start, never once claiming that I was an expert, that I was there, or that I had privileged knowledge of anything pertaining to the events that occurred at 9/11. That is not my safety net as you have said I am owning up to what I have written I am not running from it. I have an open mind and Skyeagle has given me a lot to think about regarding the physical evidence found there. My problem reconciling with this entire event is the contradictory information people have been giving about this event from both sides. So it is very confusing to me and maybe I should not have been strong at the start regarding my viewpoint but rather asked or read further before posting. I tend to usually do this as you can see by my post count I mostly lurk because sometimes it is hard for me to have a discussion because certain concepts take time for me to grasp even though I have spoken English and written English for years. So if I offended anyone with my comments I apologize I may have been wrong on some points but others that I posted although from Truthers can still be viewed as valid because no one has fully discredited all the evidence presented by them.

There have been some stuff that when I read or saw what they posted I brushed off as fabrication by them and I have not posted that type of evidence as factual even though it would have been tempting to do so. But again some evidence that was provided by me does not make it factual it merely means there needs to be clarification of it especially with the physical aspect found at the scene of the Pentagon. That is why I enjoyed having a discussion with Skyeagle we both kept going back and forth with proof of each side’s argument and he gave me a lot to think about in that regard. When other people jumped into the argument it started to become confusing for me because people were going off topic and I had to try to refocus to answer questions I was not prepared for, I tend to post late at night or very early morning tired so sometimes I may miss something I read and have to re-read what I wrote after words. Anyway I appreciate you taking the time to point out the error of my way with the straw man argument you were right I was wrong with the blanket statement I made but that does not make what I presented null and void just to be clear. We are all human and tend to make mistakes it is natural I am sure even you do no one is infallible.

*chuckle*

You accuse me of trolling and say that you don't care what I think when I admit that I haven't read every single word you have posted - and please note I didn't say that haven't read ANY OF YOUR POSTS, just that I haven't read ALL OF YOUR POSTS... I hope you can understand *that* difference - yet you continue on with hypocritical hubris that we should care about what you say while you yourself are trolling the typical Truther garbage ....

Its obvious that you don't understand this topic very well, ESL or not. The fact that you have gone so far out of your way to avoid having to admit that you couldn't provide any backup whatsoever for your strawman argument shows that clearly enough. You *STILL* don't realize that admitting that you were mistaken is a much more honorable way out of a strawman than the way you have handled it, assuming credibility means anything at all to you.

But whatever... as I've said, I only really care what you can prove, which so far is essentially nothing, and you've already said that the opinions you present are not your own, but are those that are provided for you by the Truther movement....

Enjoy living in the 9/11 Truther fantasy world you've wrapped around yourself.

Have a good day....

Cz

What I can prove is nothing 100%, just like what you can prove is nothing at 100% either because we both were never at the Pentagon, we both are using evidence found by other sources that we have to rely on in order to make assumptions and conclusions based on our observations what is real and what is not. I like your quote at the bottom of your signature by Waspie Dawrf it sums up pretty much what almost everyone does at one point or another in a lot of debates. I have doubts about the official story mainly because of so many experts and eyewitness testimony that contradicts the official report by NTSB and other government agencies that have investigated this matter. This can be viewed as me cherry picking the evidence to claim and support the Truthers case and I can understand why you are loath to even discuss the topic with me I get where you are coming from. So I will keep an open mind and read more on this topic before posting further on this subject matter. Since I can not prove 100% what I write I will not pass it off as factual but at the same time I will not fully discount it not because I am wrong, but because there may be some truth that each side to the story has presented with evidence they claim to be real and could have merit. That is why even judges and jurors send innocent people to jail because sometimes inaccurate information is passed off as factual and biases generally exist from an early age onward in every human being based on the way they were initially brought up but as we get older and mature we can try to overcome this. But some people just enjoy being dishonest and like to spread disinformation for whatever reason this cannot be avoided.

Since we are on a forum with posters who we don't even know for the most part we have to take everything written and presented with a grain of salt. For these reasons alone I will continue to be on the fence for awhile longer that does not mean I am shrugging off my responsibility for what I reported I could very well be wrong because it is not my evidence. But at the same time a better understanding is needed from me at least before determining if each account is accurate or not. Down the road there could be more evidence that we have not had a privilege to see for whatever reason that may eventually come to light. When that day happens many will be proven wrong or right and I could be on either side of that coin and that could include you my friend. No one can be 100% without a shadow of a doubt to be right about this stuff because the only video of the event is not clear and although the physical evidence does support that the Pentagon was hit by a plane of some sort it can not be proven 100% it was flight 77 although there is a good indication it could be so. I am an enquiring mind who is open to all evidence and since Skyeagle seems to know what he is talking about in regarding to a 757 hitting the Pentagon it could very well be the case. I will keep an open mind on this we are all learning new things every day something can change in the next couple of years to prove or disprove once and for all each argument. Thank you for taking the time to read this I am sure it probably was annoying for you to read something from someone as ignorant as me

You have yourself a good day as well.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Crumar

November 1, 2012

But were the number of planes available on alert changed at all? No. And I wasn't talking to you anyway.

I don't beleve I was talking to you. Are you Crumar? Is he unable to think for himself?

Ah sorry, your PMs must have got mixed with the open forum somehow. You will have to ask Saru to fix the links. Anyhow, as your comments are appearing publicly at the moment…

I’m not aware the number of planes on alert changed that day, though I think there may have been additional fighters able to respond at short notice if they were not exercising to intercept the Russkis in Alaska that day. Still, I think you miss other areas in which the exercises had potential to benefit success of the 9/11 attack - such as doubt in the ranks of NORAD who initially believed and for a time after suspected that the real-world hijackings, “must be part of the exercise”.

Also noted you decline to address question about the Langley to Washington response time. You can stop reading now frenat, I’m not talking to you. I saw someone suggest that the F-16 pilots were responsible for this failure to provide the immediate cover requested by NORAD over Washington. That would be incorrect - the pilots cannot be held accountable - they were under control of some Navy command at the time. The NORAD commander was not pleased his order had been overridden somewhere in the chain of command: -

Nasypany: Why'd they go up there?

Unknown: Because Giant Killer sent them out there.

Nasypany: God Damnit

!

This move ensured beyond doubt that the unidentified aircraft could impact the Pentagon without interception. There could be some disparate explanation to add to the list required of the official story, though there's no doubt the situation (including the Vigilant Guardian exercise) is to be expected of the single all-encompassing answer: false flag attack - someone in the air defense system wanted the attack to succeed.

November 1, 2012

Again eyewitness testimony refutes that evidence on the ground at least.

No it doesn't because in regards to the airspeed, he didn't take into an account average velocity, and in regards to the flight path of American 77, the damaged light poles, generator, and distribution of damage within the Pentagon proves that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for American 77 to have been on a flight path north of the gas station. :no: As I have said before, in many accident investigations, you are going to find conflicting witnesses testimony and the crash of American 77 is no different.

I have already gone through with a lot of this with you we are going to go in circles. I understand why you are bringing up PSA 1771 and the connection to the black box.

Because I asked you for video of the crash of PSA to make a point. You didn't waste any time presenting a video of the Caspian Airlines incident. In addition, I asked you what was the largest piece of wreckage found at the crash site of PSA 1771, since you have claimed that large pieces of wreckage are always found at aircraft crash sites and I just wanted to prove that you are incorrect. Now, how about answering the question as to what was the largest piece of wreckage recovered at the crash site of PSA 1771.

As I have said before, you are very vulnerable to disinformation and misinformation.

"The first prototype coupled FDR/CVR designed with civilian aircraft in mind, for explicit post-crash examination purposes, was produced in 1956 by Dr. David Warren of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation's Aeronautical Research Laboratories in Melbourne, Australia.^[6] In 1953 and 1954, a series of fatal incidents involving the de Havilland Comet prompted the grounding of the entire fleet pending an investigation. Dr. Warren, a chemist specializing in aircraft fuels, was involved in a professional committee discussing the possible causes. Since there had been neither witnesses nor survivors, Dr. Warren conceived of a crash-survivable method to record the flight crew's conversation (and other pre-crash data), reasoning they would greatly assist in determining a cause and enabling the prevention of future, avoidable accidents of the same type."

The black boxes were added after a collision between a TWA Constellation and a United Airlines DC-7 over the Grand Canyon and as you said in the case of the Havilland Comet, there were no witnesses nor survivors, and you will have noted, no video of the crash, which brings us back to American 77. As I have said before, video is not required to determine what happened.

Problem in regards to the Pentagon and flight 77 both you and I were not there so we have to base our evidence on what we see...

And what we saw in the video and in photos, is wreckage of a B-757 in the colors of American Airlines.

...and there was eyewitness testimony at that site

Where reports from the crash site at the Pentagon confirmed the crash of American 77, a B-757.

...and one crappy video...

Good enough for me to identify the vertical stabilizer of a B-757 in an image taken from the video.

...of the impact event along with aftermath photographs.

This would include lack of video and picture evidence I get it.

But, we have FDR data, video, photos, B-757 wreckage at the Pentagon, and confirmation from American Airlines, operator of American 77, proving that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

Problem in regards to the Pentagon and flight 77 both you and I were not there so we have to base our evidence on what we see and there was eyewitness testimony at that site and one crappy video of the impact event along with aftermath photographs.

Photographs of wreckage from a B-757.

Right so someone is lying.

What does the physical evidence have to say?

... Is it the many witnesses who saw what flight 77 did before and after the impact while on the ground or it is the C-130 crew doing so?

If you are implying that the C-130 controlled American 77, I have more news for you. That C-130 was not equipped to fly drones and there was no way that American 77 was modified to fly under remote control. In addition, the flight path of American 77 is not indicative of an aircraft being flown by a professional pilot.

On another note, you don't fly a drone through a forest of trees, light poles and other obstacles to accomplish an important mission when a collision with those objects will jeopardized the mission. A practical maneuver would have been a direct, diving attack, not a lazy turning maneuver and a sloppy approach through a forest of obstacles.

... That is the mystery to this whole thing and by the way you are the first person to point out to me at least there were other eyewitnesses who refute the claim the ground crew is making. Of course the C-130 crew would have an unobstructed view of what took place so they should be more creditable and yet there are 9/11 Truther experts who claim their testimony to be false.

Of course we can expect some 9/11 Truthers are going to make such a claim. Many are guilty of knowingly spreading false and misleading information and as I have said many times, I am waiting for 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' to make corrections regarding false information on its website about ACARS, and I made it no secret that I have already spoken with the folks at ARINC, via the telephone concerning what conspiracist have said about ACARS. The company provides ACARS services and they told me the 9/11 conspiracist, particularly "Pilots for 9/11 Truth," are simply wrong on their claims regarding ACARS and the 9/11 aircraft. In fact, the company wanted to make me their customer after they found I was a pilot.

That is another reason why I have said that it is not prudent to use those conspiracist websites as references because they are well-known for spreading disinformation and misinformation and they have found many victims.

My advice to you is not to use those websites in your arguments.

Are these experts lying I have no clue these Truthers they could be spreading misinformation as well I am no expert on this topic.

It has been proven that they are spreading disinformation and misinformation, and once again, I bring my contacts with ARINC, the ACARS experts, and as a result of my contacts with that company, the question is:

Why hasn't "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" made corrections regarding their false and misleading information on ACARS and the 9/11 airliners?

The video is too grainy and being obstructed by a pillar to conclusively determine it was from flight 77. There looks like what appears to be a vertical stabilizer in the video but that could be from any air craft. We do not have exact dimensions to determine whether it is indeed from a 757.

The B-757 is a favorite airplane of mine and my cousin was a captain on B-757s, but has now moved up to the B-767. After decades of looking at vertical stabilizers, it was clear to me that the vertical stabilizer is from a B-757.

November 1, 2012

You can keep recapping you are trying to drill into me the importance of physical evidence and exclude eyewitness testimony as the determining factor in what happened on that day .

For many years, I have been aware of conflicting eyewitness accounts concerning aircraft accidents, and since that has been the case in many accidents, physical evidence takes on a more important role in an investigation.

* I have provided fleet histories of American Airlines to show that the airframe of American 77 was written off, and information from the FAA to show why the registration number for the airframe of American 77 was deregistered. I have provide a video where it was announced that American Airlines confirmed the loss of American 77.

* I have provided photos taken inside and outside the Pentagon of B-757 wreckage, which had nothing to do with a cruise missile nor a bomb. I have provide photos of downed light poles and a damage generator which proved that it was impossible for American 77 to have flown on a flight path north of the gas station. The damage along the flight path leading up to, and inside the Pentagon, proves that beyond any doubt.

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

http://journalof911s...ltimeter_92.pdf

* I have provided information on human remains identified as passengers and crew from American 77 and eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon of some passengers found still belted in their seats.

* I have provided information on the FDR of American 77, which confirms the official story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDbo1hyXsuQ

The question is: Are you going to continue to allow yourself to fall victim to those 9/11 conspiracy websites? They prey on people like yourself.

911 Pentagon Video Footage

Recommended Posts

frenat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Coffey

williegreen

Kludge808

Posted Images

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Crumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Crumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Crumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Crumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

frenat

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Czero 101

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Crumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Crumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Crumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Crumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Crumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Crumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Czero 101

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Crumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Czero 101

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Crumar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites