911 at the Pentagon is a done deal I reckon but there is this one thing keeps ringing bells

a reply to: neutronflux

With you saying yeah for my side, some person claims to have seen a photo of concrete that probably had a covering over it on 9/11 with no scuffs?

Sounds about right. The second ring had no scuffs either.

a reply to: neutronflux

So? What’s easier to fabricate? A claim concerning a single photo not provided for scrutiny? Or all the physical evidence, and all the physical events witnessed at the pentagon? So what is the more likely?

The misinformation has been think, taken years to work through. Take each case on its own merits. The physical evidence is the best to work with, it has no agenda as it's just an object. These parts establish strong facts around the situation.

Witness statements also help put it all together. There is usually some inconsistent statements among it all, different perspectives and understandings, memory errors, intentional lies and misdirection. Overall it does provide an important part of putting all the facts together.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
that one thing the missing scrape marks.......

Be careful pinning it all on the Pentagon.
What if they hid those tapes until they were beneficial?

Giving the impression that planes didn't hit the Pentagon could be a brilliant 4d chess move.

Of course I could be a disinfo agent.

Edit to add...
I'm lead to believe a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
That's why I'm skeptical, I don't disagree with you, I disagree with us.

Can some one tell me the name of the flying trining Companie that train'd the terrist.
they must be the Best. just train in a light air craft and you can fly the big jets!

a reply to: buddha

The pilot of American 77 was Hani Nanjour - he received training at Jet Tech in Mesa Az in a 737 simulator

&37 and 757 are almost identical as both are Boeing Products

His instructor signed him off as making "tight turns" , just like the 270 deg turn needed to line up on Pentagon

8th February - 16th March 2001: More flight training

Hanjour undergoes flight training at Jet Tech International. Part of the course involves training on a Boeing 737 simulator.

21st February 2001: Boeing 737-200 systems ground training

Hanjour (as "Hani Hanjoor") receives a certificate showing he's completed "60 hours of Boeing 737-200 Systems Ground Training" at Jet Tech International

. Being the Pentagon that is the best video.

The gas station and motel had video.

One frame of a passenger jet I go away.

But, these blurry frames settle nothing for me.

a reply to: whyamIhere

The camera in question was observing a PARLING LOT ……. Because of this the camera was triggered to take one photo a seconds to save storage space on tape (this being 2001, was recorded on video tape, not digital )

Slow scan camera are not designed to track fast moving objects

Surveillance camera are designed to watch things like entrances or parking lots, not scan sky for rouge aircraft

a reply to: whyamIhere

The problem is it’s hard to interpret evidence and judge scale.

When you go into the situation with your mind already made up .


so let me rephrase my position. Due to the size difference is there’s no way on earth it was a missile .

a reply to: zatara

Indeed, even the 911 Commission noted many times in its report that "we found no evidence" to support various claims made by the official story.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: zatara

Indeed, even the 911 Commission noted many times in its report that "we found no evidence" to support various claims made by the official story.

Good thing nobody so far has referred to the 911 commission other than you.

a reply to: neutronflux

Many people posting today were born after the event took place. They do not even know there was a commission, just as many don't know what the Warren Commission was.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Many people posting today were born after the event took place. They do not even know there was a commission, just as many don't know what the Warren Commission was.

The only reasonable explanation for the damage at the pentagon was a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon. Sorry.

And that is backed by radar data, the bulk of eyewitness accounts, human remains, flight path damage, and the release of human remains for burial/cremation.

Sorry. But keep pushing truth movement lies.

a reply to: neutronflux

LOL, yes a large commercial jet with no engines or landing gear left at the crash scene.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

LOL, yes a large commercial jet with no engines or landing gear left at the crash scene.

You can only refer to the large commercial jet because the damage at the pentagon fits no other conclusion.

Sorry.

a reply to: abeverage those Pentagon tapes have been held in secret for nearly 20 years.

originally posted by: RimiroAnlyss
a reply to: abeverage those Pentagon tapes have been held in secret for nearly 20 years.

Except the videos released from freedom of information requests and lawsuits.

Judicial Watch v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No.06-1135)
www.judicialwatch.org...

there absolutely no reason to not show video of this airplane hitting the pentagon

its been 20 years.

i never concentrate on what is true

i concentrate what isnt

what isnt, is a video showing proof of that plane hitting.

and the public hasnt seen that.

so its not true

there absolutely no reason to not show video of this airplane hitting the pentagon

a reply to: LOIUSCIPHERE

They have -

The only camera which showed anything of interest was the parking lot camera which caught fleeting image of the plane
striking the Pentagon

So what video are you referring to - the FBI got some 85 tapes from building along the route American 77

Only thing was a shadow on the ground from the Gas station near the Pentagon

Are you one of those conspiracy fantasists who think there was a camera every inch .............

you believe there isnt one single video other than the blur you have been shown? not one single video?

nothing

originally posted by: LOIUSCIPHERE
you believe there isnt one single video other than the blur you have been shown? not one single video?

nothing

Why would there be. The security cameras where to monitor points of car entry / foot traffic for a glorified business building by a military at that time who’s attitude was to use human watch standers for the bulk of security. With security cameras not as wide spread as today.

a reply to: Fallingdown
That first GIF you posted, does not show the "security truck" driving across the lawn. You seem to be referring to Mickey Bell's truck, which was on the southern end of the lawn.
That moving vehicle is a police Cruiser which drove down from north of the Pentagon, along the western wall, then turned to the west, north of the helipad.
You can follow this vehicle all the way from when it first appears at the left of the screen, on both Gatecam videos.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

So? What’s easier to fabricate? A claim concerning a single photo not provided for scrutiny? Or all the physical evidence, and all the physical events witnessed at the pentagon? So what is the more likely?

The misinformation has been think, taken years to work through. Take each case on its own merits. The physical evidence is the best to work with, it has no agenda as it's just an object. These parts establish strong facts around the situation.

Witness statements also help put it all together. There is usually some inconsistent statements among it all, different perspectives and understandings, memory errors, intentional lies and misdirection. Overall it does provide an important part of putting all the facts together.

There is certainly a great deal of inconsistency to be accounted for.