Reformed no-757 theorists weigh in here

oops see below


[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by gottago
Caustic Logic,

Thanks for your remarks, they are balm on the soul after having to deal with all the all-caps nutjobs that troll this board. Thankfully this thread hasn't been hijacked by trolls because it is offering excellent food for thought.

I hope tht’s t sarcasm, since I did use more caps than usual…

Why didn't the noob hijacker just plunge the plane into the Pentagon from above? Just point and shoot.

I still say he may not’ve been a newbie, just acted like one. But yeah, good pilot or no, I’d do that:, Short building, hit it too high, risk flyover, too low risk burying. I’d go middlish. This is evidence maybe a hijacker pilot was not in control, and a suggestion of precision guidance.

Infinity Oreilly has backed down it seems. A U2U even, and no response, just slinking away...

Mirage: People give up becuse they see another fraud forming and have not the energy to tackle it tho they suspect it's wrong. Relentless wave afte wave of no-757 theorizing has a way of wearing people down. The hole's too small. No? It's big enough? Then it was faked, the plane flew over. The FDR data (filtered by P49T) shows that, including a 500 foot flyover. Some eyewitnsses prove that, testifying to the same non-official path but an 80-foot flyover (actully no flyver, CIT put that puzzle together). So clealry, even these two new no-plane-hit cases don't line up with each other. Since relaity only happens one way, at leat one of these is wrong. Is it the one proven by the FDR that disproves itself, or the witnesses who disagree wth the conclusion drawn from their testimony? Perhaps both, with their faked bomb damage and planted ploes, which is possible but seems just silliness.. Look at the damage and tell me what pyrotechnics could rip out the const. fence, smashe the generator, and trick dozens of eyewitnesses into reporting a southern path...

Ultima: Yes, no serial numbers I've seen. It's a problem. Maybe the tail broke up too much, maybe we just haven't been shown the photos for reason of... mmmm hyper-speculation maybe, as with the video? If so you're playing in quite well. Perhaps it was an unmarked drone, painted AA and filled with passengers. Maybe empty, DNA collected from victims' hairbrushes. I dunno. The numbers and FAA registry and wahtnot is not what I'm arguing for here - just that a 757 r something very much on that scale hit the building. That's all.

But nobody can bring themselves to admit it's feasibility, other than Gotta go. Just one more unsolved mystery, then another. Then pretend we know nothing at all and start with the guessing... Have a nice Tuesday, all.

Oh, and the firetruck story: I"ll post that in a few...


[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

I finally got to watch the PentaCon video - very interesting. From listening to what the witnesses had to say, and the fact there was CCTV to back up the info, I think the witnesses are right regarding the flight path, and that the aircraft did hit the building.

That raises some interesting points:

* Why does the official story have downed light poles just to make matters more complex?

* Why is the CCTV of the impact still unavailable?

* Why does the FDR not show a pull-up maneuver in it?

* Why does the FDR suggest a fly over (I calculated that in the missing two seconds, the rate of descent increased from 5,500 ft/min to 8,000 ft/min to hit the building; see the point below).

* Why does the official Pentagon video frames clearly show an aircraft in extremely low, and level flight, if the aircraft had to nose-down to hit it from 273ft as per the FDR?

Conflicts, conflicts, conflicts........

Looking forward to the fire truck explanation CL!

[edit on 20-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

So we disagree strongly on the PentaCon. Cool. I've answered all yer questions, feel free to skim around for them if you care to...

Okay, once upon a time, on September 11, 2001, President Bush was outta town, at Booker elementary, as hijacked planes started flying into things. At the Pentagon that morning, people may've been preparing for a celebratory ceremony (if so, soon cancelled and not reported as far as I've seen) to mark the 60th anniversary of the building's groundbreaking. President Bush was an expected visitor that day, before getting to the Oval Office to sign the agreed plans of action against Afghanistan put on his desk two days before, he’d stop by on his helicopter Marine One to the helipad on the Pentagon's west lawn and visit Rumsfeld for some reason. Secret Service showed up early, the place was crawling with them as the attacks began.
Another guy there was Alan Wallace, a 55-year-old firefighter, usually worked out of the Fort Myer fire station, but on Sept. 11 he was one of three firefighters assigned to the Pentagon's heliport. Along with crew members Mark Skipper and Dennis Young, Wallace arrived around 7:30 in the morning. There's a small fire house beneath the heliport tower, which few know, with a truck permanently there to handle fuel fired from crashed helicopters I guess.
Here's a map of the scene I made (scale at bottom no longer correct unless sized back up):

Also ignore the oficial flight pth if need be: That's just for my map. Wallace's account is too vague to verify eirher CIT or official path.
Wallace Location: Between the heliport and impact site, moving out the fire truck in advance of President Bush's anticipated touchdown later that day. They parked the truck perpendicular to the west wall, where it remained all morning after it was burnt by explosion and jet fuel. Wallace and Skipper were walking along the right (north) side of the truck (Young was in the station) when the two looked up and saw an airplane. It was about 25 feet off the ground and just 200 yards away-the length of two football fields. They had heard about the WTC disaster and had little doubt what was coming next. "Let's go," Wallace yelled and they turned and ran. They all got out okay, Wallace scraped his arms up crawling under a van, fearing the fireball would be worse than it was.

So that's the story: Bush was gonna go there for some reason, possibly to celebrate six decades of the bunker, eventually just flew by it to see the damage as he formulated war planes. One more part, Marine One is interesting - fifteen minutes before the impact, the Doubletree video shows a helicopter going over to the Pentagon (no vid link sorry). I's possible they heard of an incoming plane, and had anti-aircraft weapons on board... but no witnesses have reported helicopter landing or missiles as far as I know... some evidence the plane "broke up" just before impact...
[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Another guy there was Alan Wallace, a 55-year-old firefighter, usually worked out of the Fort Myer fire station, but on Sept. 11 he was one of three firefighters assigned to the Pentagon's heliport. Along with crew members Mark Skipper and Dennis Young, Wallace arrived around 7:30 in the morning. There's a small fire house beneath the heliport tower, which few know, with a truck permanently there to handle fuel fired from crashed helicopters I guess.

Seems strange we have not seen a security video from the heliport air traffic control tower cameras or the security station thats also on that side of the building.

I have seen armed helicopters flying around the area that the president will be going to. When thier were presidential visits at NSA they had a armed helcopter flying around ahead of the backup and support helicopters.

Yes the fire truck is for in case of helicopter crash.

This camera? It sure would've had a great view. It does appear burnt, but not melted. Maybe the footge did survive, and s being suppressed. Who knows. Another small detail to trip over. Remember absence of video doesn't mean absence of plane.
Are they hiding something or making us wonder what they're hiding? Reverse psychology - consider it before leaping to conclusions...
And if by security station you mean the booth at the north end of the lawn, that IS where the CCTV videos we've now seen came from. Y'know the one fps crap ones everyone makes fun of.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
And if by security station you mean the booth at the north end of the lawn, that IS where the CCTV videos we've now seen came from. Y'know the one fps crap ones everyone makes fun of.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

No thats not the 1. That was the security camera at the gate that has the poor frame footage.

Thier is a security station on the other side of the air traffic control tower for the heliport.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Maybe the footge did survive, and s being suppressed.

Why wouldn't the video survive? The recording is on a computer somewhere not in the camera itself, so even if the camera was damaged there should still be video up till that point, no?

It's not a small detail, withholding evidence should be the first sign they are trying to cover something up.

There are cameras on the corners of the pentagoon also.

Security station and air traffic control tower.

Maintenance again! type over...
Damn it was a nice post too. VERY summarized then:

Okay, that was a bit of a cheap ploy on my part.
Yes, videos woud probably survive, computer elsewhere agreed...
cams on corner affirmative, stil unseesn...
videos suppressed, check....
coverup of 757 evidence or no-757 evidence, undecided...
other pointers - almost all to 757...
mystery and speculation persists where?
Over the video record... what a nice little perch.
Reverse psychology... then yoink!

The other 757 threds are based on mystery and the lack of evidence. This one is based on positive evidence - what we can actually see, and it looks to me like a 757. Eh? No direct responses to that part... How about that sixteen foot hole? How many people have yammered at that for how many yars despite clear photos of the 100-footer available since almost the day of the attack? Anyone care to revive that one?

PS - I take it as a sign of reason that there is now silence on the physical damage.
[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

CL explain your view as to withholding the vids, what's behind that? What are we not to see?

Where' the gain in that?

this has been a really graet thread. adult discussions on topics not on people posting their thoughts. open mindedness...what more could one want?

about the lack of evidence or the supression of evidence by the govt id like to offer an opinion.

this is ONLY an opinion and once posted i will do NOTHING to support this opinion though i will listen to everyones ideas about it and concider contrary opinions with an open mind.

having said that:

is it possible that we're not getting all the video evidence or data because it is being held as part of an ongoing criminal investigation and will be used in trial should we ever actually catch the people reported to be respoinsible?

we all know that you cant release information that is intended to be used in a trial because you acnt allow for the public, who would ideally be chosen for jurists, (assuming its a real trial not a military tribunal) that way you insure the defendant gets a fair trial?

is that something thats been discussed elsewhere? to me it makes sense that the govt is holding on to their evidnce so that the potential jurors arent swayed by preformed opinions in the matter.

and as to the flightpaths, i cant explain the poles, but is it possible that the govt guys simply just....got it wrong? we'd all like to think they are better than that at their jobs, but they are afterall only human. again an opinoin which i will not defend cuz i have NOTHING to prove it other than, well, my opinion.

thanks agian for the great thread

Caustic~Read your blog last night for hours, very interesting.
Sarcasm does not fare well on the internet, I think your point may be lost at times when dripping with the good stuff. This is coming from a fellow sarcasmer (I tend to just piss people off and later wonder what I said:0)
Thank you for your research.

Plane or no plane?
who cares?
I am not trying to be argumentative but seriously WHY would they NOT crash the plane into the Pentagon? If "they" (whoever "they" may be) took the time and made the effort to plan the entire 911 scenario, why would they forgo the plane and shoot the missile? and then shoot the plane down over the Atlantic? WHY? Why would they do that? They have the plane, they have the plan in place why would they take the chance and not crash the plane?
This argument is ridiculous at best.
If we really want to have a discussion let's talk about how in the world was a commercial plane able to even get into the pentagon's airspace? esp. after the towers had already been hit?
and that is just 1 of the many questions I have.

Originally posted by Damocles
is it possible that we're not getting all the video evidence or data because it is being held as part of an ongoing criminal investigation and will be used in trial should we ever actually catch the people reported to be respoinsible?

Problem is that was already used as an excuse for the first trial. They said they were not going to release the videos due to the trial but then they never even used them at the trial (see listing of evidence), so what is the excuse now.

I have to say if held for evidence there's no good reason. Wasn't last time either. Why is a plane engine rotor inside the Pentagon evidence of Moussaoui's guilt? It's just arbitrary at best. "Everybody knows" a 757 hit the bldg, why not prove it?

And here we are again. Why the secrecy? I've said it many time that it's likely A campaign of secrecy to keep us guessing and then make us look the fools when they finally do release the smoking gun video.

Why keep staring at a blank screen wondering why there's novideo on it? Then start guessing: they're hiding something... t first it was a missile, Then we saw plane parts. Missiles do't have wheels, so in 2003 it became the GLobal Hawk, which nakes no sense tho it was in the news. Then finall to twin engine planes in 2005 it was an A3 Skywarrior. That didn't pan out so well, so now syuddenly it's not a plane again, just special effects (done wrong) and a flyover.

Anything but a 757. All it taks now is them finally PROVING, as the evidence always suggeted, a 757. Why video should be such proof when it's so easily manipulated is beyond me, but the lack of it seems to be the catch point that keeps the speculation going. Which is why I recommend ignoring the annoyance this secrecy causes - either file another FOIA request and hope it works, or ignore it and look at what else there is: eyewitness accounts (there ARE more than CIT's four), and the physical evidence.

Planted plaene parts? Or planted no-757 theories?

Originally posted by Damocles
this has been a really graet thread. adult discussions on topics not on people posting their thoughts. open mindedness...what more could one want?
[...]
thanks agian for the great thread

Damn Damocles, thanks!

Originally posted by SEEWHATUDO
Caustic~Read your blog last night for hours, very interesting.
Sarcasm does not fare well on the internet, I think your point may be lost at times when dripping with the good stuff. This is coming from a fellow sarcasmer (I tend to just piss people off and later wonder what I said:0)
Thank you for your research.

Ego swelling... hey thanks!

Plane or no plane?
who cares?
I am not trying to be argumentative but seriously WHY would they NOT crash the plane into the Pentagon? If "they" (whoever "they" may be) took the time and made the effort to plan the entire 911 scenario, why would they forgo the plane and shoot the missile? and then shoot the plane down over the Atlantic? WHY? Why would they do that? They have the plane, they have the plan in place why would they take the chance and not crash the plane?
This argument is ridiculous at best.
If we really want to have a discussion let's talk about how in the world was a commercial plane able to even get into the pentagon's airspace? esp. after the towers had already been hit?
and that is just 1 of the many questions I have.

Yep. good Q. Who cares? Well obv. me. It seems silly that so many should insist NO WAY a 757, but they do. Some of them are disinfo people hellbent on their theories, prob. getting paid and will never abandon it unless you put a gun to their head. Other tho are real people just suckered and may still benefit from some common sense. I often despair that it's lost its power, but that's mostly when dealing with the disinfo artsists. At any rate, I tried, and I'm on the record. When the yoink comes I'll be unaffected at least. Too bad the "truth" movement in general is so bought in. Times like this I'm glad for internal divisions...

But thank you all for indeed a great thread. I'm glad its still rolling even tho I do kind of keep saying the same things...
I'll try not to be too jumpy - too much Coffee!

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

The evidence of an 90+ foot hole is not clear from any of your pics and or graphics. You may think that I don't believe a 757 hit the Pentagon, I'm sure something did, but the evidence does'nt support the theory. And it seems the evidence itself cannot be checked out because nobody's willing to put their name on the line. Too much annonamous photos, and claims of insider knowledge without names attached so you can do more reaserch.

And welcome back!
It's occurred to me that you aren't really being negative, just seemingly so, and really just prodding me to explain better, help you see what I'm seeing exactly. That seems in fact to be the case? Anyway, I will do this... upon edit when done I will again show, and use numbers, and find sources, etc... in one neat Photoshop thing with expl. that should clear this up... check back soon...

On sources: Many photos are anonymous or unknown photographers, and there are some legitimate causes for suspicion in some cases. Luckily the impact damage is hard to fake, widely verified, consistent with eyewitness accounts, etc.
The blue tinted shot - actually two shots - are by Jason Ingersoll - Cpl., USMC U.S. Marine Corps, between 9:38 and 10:00 am (Thanks to 9-11 Review)



Okay so that's one sourced, his res, and a name on the line. You callin Cpl Ingersoll a party to gov. manipulation of photos? If not then let's proceed... back soon


[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]
[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Okay here's the left side: captured by AP photographer Will Morris:



Again, the initial damage area is SO BIG and had such fire and smoke in the middle of it, it has to be seen in two pictures to see clearly. Note here the wiped-oit columns for a good span - car for scale - fire - etc. So we got Will Morris on the line, too. Disinfo? Contact Mr. Morris with any questions.

more...
Actually that's it for tonight. The rest will have to wait. Does this help at all OReilly?

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Damocles
this has been a really graet thread. adult discussions on topics not on people posting their thoughts. open mindedness...what more could one want?

and as to the flightpaths, i cant explain the poles, but is it possible that the govt guys simply just....got it wrong? we'd all like to think they are better than that at their jobs, but they are afterall only human.

thanks agian for the great thread

A big second on that, Damocles! Great thread, everyone's been exemplary

My big sticking points are still these:

Photo evidence/holes/debris:
I look at the photos and I expect a vertical stabilizer and some big wing struts and rear ailerons scattered about--or at least pieces of them. The plane is crashing against a structure at roughly 500 mph, it's going to crumple and at least the tail section is going to be thrown forward from momentum and crash against the facade. Didn't happen.

That really bothers me, because I can accept much of the fuselage shredding on impact, the engines thrown deep inside the structure (tho how they managed to fit perfectly into those low floor slabs and miss those columns is a hell of a stretch). But you should have some good chunks of the tail of the plane lying around after; it wasn't loaded (at least officially) with anything flammable or explosive, and those structures are built to withstand enormous stresses.

Flightpath:
The amazingly contorted and virtually impossible flightpath--the BIG smoking gun for rogue gov't conspiracy for me. That supposed hijacker just didn't fly that 757. Period.

Withholding the vids, no official NTSB/FAA report on the wreckage:
Occam's razor here. They don't let anything other than those tricked vids out because there's something obvious to hide. To me, the evidence (and its lack) suggests that the plane was wired to disintegrate on impact to reduce damage to the structure.

The missing vids might prove that. The facade damage and missing tail structure suggest that. That's where my money goes right now, all 2 cents.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by gottago]