Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crowd

Originally posted by 12m8keall2cAs for the differences in eyewitness accounts, I think it's more a matter of two entirely different locations, angles of attack, skylines, etc.

So how does that explain the differences between the 2 sets of witnesses?

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c


Personally, I think the answer is quite simple. There are Many videos both broadcast and personal that clearly show aircraft striking the towers, but there are only 5 frames and (what?) two very grainy videos of Anything at the Pentagon.

As for the differences in eyewitness accounts, I think it's more a matter of two entirely different locations, angles of attack, skylines, etc. THAT, and there was only one strike at the Pentagon, while there were Two strikes in NYC. Even though Many may not have seen the first plane hit the north tower, I'd say it's rather obvious that Many more were out on the streets with "eyes to the skies" when the second plane came into view, hit the south tower.

 

Thank you, that is presicely the point i was trying to get across. Just didnt do it as graceful as you!

Originally posted by Killtown
So how does that explain the differences between the 2 sets of witnesses?

Completely different landscapes, environments, population/traffic levels, AND Situations.

The Towers location had more "boots on the ground" than the Pentagon, especially after the first aircraft hit. It's a more densely populated and trafficked area than the Pentagon, to include the majority of said "traffic" being "on foot". I know I'd probably be capable of a more accurate "account", if I were walking down the street. That being opposed to sitting at a light, driving to work, or just waiting for that so and so to get out of the passing lane @ 40. (?)

The general vicinity around the Pentagon is more highways and byways. Sure there were Many "pedestrians" but no where near the numbers that were on the streets of NY.

Also,
The Pentagon was a "One and Done" event.
What's that honey? ... Yeah, I'll pick Susie up after work ... as soon as this A$$h ... What the hell was that!? Dear, your not gonna believe this, but ...

In NY, you[we] have a situation where the first aircraft striking the north tower drew attention, awareness, evacuations and More people out on the streets ... to gawk, to gather in awe, to seek shelter, to Capture the events that took place thereafter. Hence, the difference.


I'm not stating this as anything more than an opinion, my opinion.




? thoughts/questions ?

 

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Completely different landscapes, environments, population/traffic levels, AND Situations.

[...]
The general vicinity around the Pentagon is more highways and byways. Sure there were Many "pedestrians" but no where near the numbers that were on the streets of NY.

Also,
The Pentagon was a "One and Done" event.
What's that honey? ... Yeah, I'll pick Susie up after work ... as soon as this A$$h ... What the hell was that!? Dear, your not gonna believe this, but ...

In NY, you[we] have a situation where the first aircraft striking the north tower drew attention, awareness, evacuations and More people out on the streets ... to gawk, to gather in awe, to seek shelter, to Capture the events that took place thereafter. Hence, the difference.

Of course, there is a huge difference for all these reasons.  

And cameras and eyewitnesses work by the same principles - Cameras are like eyes, they go where eyes go, they just feed into the news and only cluster in certain spots.

I guess what I'm getting at is it's kind of silly that NY on 9/11 - one of the most-photographed times and places EVER- that mass recording is taken as some sort of norm, while the Pgon and even the first plane in NY were "barely seen" by comparison and so covered up or uber mysterious. In fact that's how one should expect a plane crash to be percieved. It's quick. People are looking the other way. They heard it, turned, saw it maybe 1-3 seconds w/the best view. Hardly anyone denies 175 hit the WTC, but look back and you'll find much more speculation of missiles and holograms and whatnot attached too Flight 11 (only one video?), and of course far far more over 77 (five frames only?) and now 93 (no video at all? Don't ranger stations have cameras on every tree?).

It's the same principle. But certainly if this reasoning doesn't work at the Pgon, and probably even if it does, it sure as hell has no ground to be upgraded to cast doubt on the New York scene with any believability.

Originally posted by talisman
Killtown


The reason I say this is because the military can't control every camera in the area, some people might be filming that day that the military would know nothing about.

Then how come when the fl93 picture was taken from the owner? I guarantee you if there is a video on 9-11 they didnt want you to see, then you will not see it.

So somehow they're going to be able to find the names of EVERY SINGLE PERSON around the WTC that had a video camera, and confiscate EVERY COPY of the video shot on 9/11. Even the people that didn't tell anyone they shot a video.

Sorry, that was referring to the pentagon, I totally believe that the WTC were hit by planes but the pentagon is still a little fishy too me.

Originally posted by racerzeke
Sorry, that was referring to the pentagon, I totally believe that the WTC were hit by planes but the pentagon is still a little fishy too me.

But if planes hit the WTC cause "thousands saw it", then a plane must have hit the Pentagon because "hundreds saw it", right?

I was previously in the "planes hit the WTC, nothing hit the Pentagon" camp, but after CLs research, and more recently that of the PentaCon video, I think an aircraft hit the Pentagon, too.

HOWEVER.... if a 757 did hit the Pentagon, why the secrecy with all the tapes? Why only this one bad video that shows nothing of use? No-one seems to have a reasonable answer for this point as yet.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

So does anybody have a good explanation of why the "thousands of witnesses" at the WTC matter and the "hundreds of witnesses" at the Pentagon don't?

2 Planes crashed at WTC


Hi,

In that day I was with a colleague driving to a customer (in Portugal), after the radio news about the first plane hit on WTC and his wife calling whim, we decided that was to strong for a joke and we went to a coffee shop to see the TV, the Portuguese TV was showing manly CNN images of the first plane hit and real time images of the building after the hit and what was happening, during a CNN news on the even I saw (with my colleague) the 2nd plane hit the WTC, that was a strong shock because the journalist only some seconds after was aware of the 2nd hit, and if someone has doubts about the 2 hits on WTC could see the video “The Secret History of 9/11 CBC Documentary” in this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... .

About the Pentagon, mho in this post www.abovetopsecret.com... in this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... .

brotherthebig.

edit: link

[edit on 2007/6/8 by brotherthebig]

Originally posted by Killtown
So does anybody have a good explanation of why the "thousands of witnesses" at the WTC matter and the "hundreds of witnesses" at the Pentagon don't?

I'm unclear as to how this matters within the context of these discussions. Perhaps if you provide some additional background on why this questions matters to you, we will have the additional context we need to understand what you're looking for.

(odd double post, sorry)

[edit on 8-6-2007 by mister.old.school]

The person Killtown, is trying to point out that a lot of people reject his idea that No Planes were used at the WTC based on eyewitness testimony. But that people don't use the same consistency with the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon when they suspect No Plane hit the Pentagon.

Which of course is logical thinking and he raises a valid point.As I have mentioned I for one agree with Jim Hoffman that indeed a plane has hit the Pentagon.

But Killtown I think here is the difference. What real evidence do we have in terms of *VIDEO* or *PHOTO'S* concerning the Pentagon? So naturally people become suspicious.

But here is the catch in all of this. IF people truly believe CGI was done on New York. Then why wasn't it done at the Pentagon? Why the hiding? So a similar question can be asked in the reverse.

I submit, that the hiding of video evidence is disinfo, designed to confuse us and to take our eyes off what is truly going on.

From *NO* plane at the Pentagon.
to *NO* plane at the tower
to *NO* plane hit Tower 7,

Can we not see how this will confuse people who are sitting on the fence and know hardly anything?


So the answer is YES, the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon are important. However people feel suspicion due to the lack of video evidence and photo imagery.

I don't want to derail his thread but I thought I might just add that.





[edit on 8-6-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by killtown
A lot of people who believe no 757 hit the Pentagon *don't* believe that 767's, or "no planes", hit the WTC. The reason I mostly hear why these people don't believe in the no planes at the WTC theory is because of the "thousands of witnesses" that they somehow know were watching the WTC before the alleged crash.

My question is, if 767's had to have hit the WTC because "thousands of witnesses" were watching there, how do you explain that a 757 *did not* hit the Pentagon when people say that there were "hundreds of witnesses" there?

1. The attention of everyone in the area was on the towers after the first plane hit when the Pentagon attack was a surprise.

2. The topography of the area by the Pentagon is very complex. The Pentagon sits at the bottom of the hill and you can not see it from just about anywhere in Arlington other than a very small stretch of 395 and a few of the high rise buildings in Crystal city. Certainly not from any of the residential areas. Unless you were at the citgo station or on route 27 right in front of the building you really couldn't see much at all. But guess what? EVEN IF you were on route 27 you wouldn't have had a good view of the alleged impact. I have proven this in this thread:
Route 27 Witnesses POV Of Flight Path.

3. Not only is the area complex but the Pentagon has extreme control over it because it is highly secure.

4. They used the same M.O. at the Pentagon that they did for the towers. Real planes were used as a psychological tool of deception while the actual destruction was caused with pre-planted explosives.



You see KT.......the problem with your "research" is that you have never gone to the area, surveyed the topography, or spoken with witnesses.

This operation will never be exposed by analyzing photos and video online.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I was previously in the "planes hit the WTC, nothing hit the Pentagon" camp, but after CLs research, and more recently that of the PentaCon video, I think an aircraft hit the Pentagon, too.

Obviously you weren't able to comprehend the data presented in our video.

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by 12m8keall2cAs for the differences in eyewitness accounts, I think it's more a matter of two entirely different locations, angles of attack, skylines, etc.

So how does that explain the differences between the 2 sets of witnesses?

There are very few witness accounts at the Pentagon in comparison and upon close scrutiny many can be proven to be questionable/dubious/suspicious for many reasons. Like...ummmm....PNAC signer Gary Bauer!

However there WAS a real plane so most witness accounts of the plane are completely legitimate.

But unlike the towers......only a tiny fraction of the much smaller total of witness accounts witnessed the alleged impact. Most saw only the plane and merely heard the explosion and therefore simply deduced the impact.

Get that?

While virtually everyone at the towers witnessed the impact this is not the case at the Pentagon where virtually all of the about 100 published accounts saw the plane but NOT the alleged impact.

HUGE difference.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by killtown
A lot of people who believe no 757 hit the Pentagon *don't* believe that 767's, or "no planes", hit the WTC. The reason I mostly hear why these people don't believe in the no planes at the WTC theory is because of the "thousands of witnesses" that they somehow know were watching the WTC before the alleged crash.

My question is, if 767's had to have hit the WTC because "thousands of witnesses" were watching there, how do you explain that a 757 *did not* hit the Pentagon when people say that there were "hundreds of witnesses" there?

1. The attention of everyone in the area was on the towers after the first plane hit when the Pentagon attack was a surprise.

2. The topography of the area by the Pentagon is very complex. The Pentagon sits at the bottom of the hill and you can not see it from just about anywhere in Arlington other than a very small stretch of 395 and a few of the high rise buildings in Crystal city. Certainly not from any of the residential areas. Unless you were at the citgo station or on route 27 right in front of the building you really couldn't see much at all. But guess what? EVEN IF you were on route 27 you wouldn't have had a good view of the alleged impact. I have proven this in this thread:
Route 27 Witnesses POV Of Flight Path.

3. Not only is the area complex but the Pentagon has extreme control over it because it is highly secure.

4. They used the same M.O. at the Pentagon that they did for the towers. Real planes were used as a psychological tool of deception while the actual destruction was caused with pre-planted explosives.



You see KT.......the problem with your "research" is that you have never gone to the area, surveyed the topography, or spoken with witnesses.

This operation will never be exposed by analyzing photos and video online.

Exactly.

NO ONE was staring at the Pentagon. They were all driving , looking straight ahead, talking on the cell phones, listening to radio reports.

Versus the WTC who had thousands of people staring UP at it because tower 1 was on fire.

Go to the Arlington area. The Pentagon is not visible until to get up right next to it.

Here is from the Navy Annex Parking lot:



on Columbia Pike:



Here is on 395 North:









[edit on 8-6-2007 by Aldo Marquis]

Craig Ranke CIT

Very interesting analysis indeed. The land being much different and the fact everyone was thinking NEW YORK and the manipulation of a REAL PLANE. This fits into a logical consistent framework from which to build a theory.

Originally posted by talisman
Craig Ranke CIT

Very interesting analysis indeed. The land being much different and the fact everyone was thinking NEW YORK and the manipulation of a REAL PLANE. This fits into a logical consistent framework from which to build a theory.

Exactly.

As we walked the streets of Arlington and spoke with people who saw the plane; many of them commented on how they had heard about what happened in New York so they instantly "knew" what was happening as the plane sped over them at tree top level and then they heard the big explosion coming from the Pentagon.

What else would they think?!

Their minds were already conditioned to believe the plane would hit the building. This is also why the sleight of hand illusion worked so well for people who could actually see the Pentagon like the citgo witnesses.

Of course everyone in the Arlington neighborhoods could not see the Pentagon at all. But if they were interviewed they would automatically be considered a witness to the "plane that hit the pentagon" to people who read their accounts online and don't bother to analyze their location or actual POV. This is how the witness accounts at the Pentagon get skewed by bloggers/compilers like Arabasque and why it is IMPERATIVE to confirm with witnesses directly exactly what they saw.

Realize too......the neighborhood people of Arlington think that conspiracy theorists who talk about missiles are idiots because they actually saw a plane!