another flight 77 video, again no plane!

Originally posted by LightWorker13
If it wasnt a missle, the plane was remotely controlled.

Do you actually know of the flight path that the plane took? It got hi-jacked out of Washington Dulles Airport, it was flown 45 minutes out into the midwest, "hijacked" and flown all the way back!

So you are a highly professional terrorists, you know about the NORAD response to hijackings, you take off from Washington and you want to hit a target in Washington....so what do you do? You sit on the plane for 45 minutes as it goes west, you hijack it, and fly it all the way back!

Not only that but the hijacker pilot, a man named Hanjour, was supposed to have flied that plane. According to the 911 commission report, he actually missed the Pentagon, so he has to do a U-turn, come around, do another U-turn, come within feet of the ground, and fly smack into the building, at 530 miles an hour, this is according to the 911 commission report.

He and others were trained at Zorbys flying school in Florida. The flight instructor is quoted as saying "it was like dumb and dumber, they were clueless! It was obvious they werent gonna make it as pilots." Rick Garba..

One instructor for other hijackers is famous for saying, they had such a lack of basic english language skills and basic coordination skills, they probably couldnt even drive a car....these hijackers probably couldnt even drive a damn car, nevermind a plane! I mean theyre used to driving a camel I guess!

They were trained with little Cessnas which they couldnt fly properly, but they can hijack a jumbo 757 jet airliner, and pull superman moves with it to crash it into the Pentagon.

Its ridiculous, if it wasnt a missle that hit it, it surely was a remote controlled plane. Yea there were eyewitness's who said there was a plane, but almost all of them said the plane had no markings...funny, people in New York also said the same thing..hmmm.

Spot on

They managed to guide the plane into the impact zone metres off the ground, without scraping an inch of lawn, all this while hitting lamp posts and retaining its course of destination.

All this learnt on a small Cessna

Its ridiculous, if it wasnt a missle that hit it, it surely was a remote controlled plane. Yea there were eyewitness's who said there was a plane, but almost all of them said the plane had no markings...funny, people in New York also said the same thing..hmmm.

"It was so eerily similar to another experience during the Gulf War - a missile strike that killed a Marine in my unit" - Phillip Thompson

"For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off" - Terry Morin

"A bomb had gone off. I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had been set off somewhere" - Don Perkal

"Most people knew it was a bomb" - John Bowman

"It smelled like cordite, or gun smoke" - Gilah Goldsmith

"I knew it was a bomb or something" - Mike Slater

A CNN Reporter at the scene states that there is no evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Watch this video clip: Source

To be fair there is also some contradicting witness's who claim they saw a large jet liner or a small plane.

If a plane crashing into 2 Skyscrapers can produce some wreckage you would think a plane crashing into the Pentagon would have considerably large amount of wreckage.

Have a look at this business jet that hit a warehouse after skidding off a runway in New Jersey on Feburary 2, 2005. See that the wing has folded back, however that strong cinder block construction still got knocked out by the one wing that hit the building. Interesting that the same was not shown on the Pentagon. Just note that the wings damaged the walls, but the 757 that apparently hit the Pentagon walls there were no damage, Also the plane is intact, it didn't go poof! Hmmm




[edit on 26-6-2007 by BeZerk]

Originally posted by BeZerk

To be fair there is also some contradicting witness's who claim they saw a large jet liner or a small plane.

That's putting it mildly - www.oilempire.us...

If a plane crashing into 2 Skyscrapers can produce some wreckage you would think a plane crashing into the Pentagon would have considerably large amount of wreckage.

Will this do? - www.rense.com...

Originally posted by Skunky

Originally posted by BeZerk

To be fair there is also some contradicting witness's who claim they saw a large jet liner or a small plane.

That's putting it mildly - www.oilempire.us...

If a plane crashing into 2 Skyscrapers can produce some wreckage you would think a plane crashing into the Pentagon would have considerably large amount of wreckage.

Will this do? - www.rense.com...

The link did not sure anything that i have not seen already.

Some quotes from the link your provided:

"The large circular piece in the middle appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, though this is not known for certain."

"Resting up against a bowed column is a large chunk of burned metal. It is unclear whether this is a piece of the plane."

"Most of the heaped scrap is unrecognizable, but there are two pieces of metal bearing yellow-green primer which were not burned thoroughly."

Theres alot of uncertainty. I am still not buying into the concept of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon. It just does not make sense.

As i have stated many times over. Why not release a video of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon if it indeed did happen? This will surely silence the critics.

BeZerK

Originally posted by Skunky

That's putting it mildly - www.oilempire.us...



Will this do? - www.rense.com...

Excellent links. Rense has some crazy stuff on his site, but these photos of the wreckage are very good.

Originally posted by BeZerk
The link did not sure anything that i have not seen already.

Some quotes from the link your provided:

"The large circular piece in the middle appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, though this is not known for certain."

"Resting up against a bowed column is a large chunk of burned metal. It is unclear whether this is a piece of the plane."

"Most of the heaped scrap is unrecognizable, but there are two pieces of metal bearing yellow-green primer which were not burned thoroughly."

Theres alot of uncertainty.

Uncertainty is one of the many marks of reason. But some people just looove certainty. If Chris Bollyn said emphatically 100% sure the same parts were for sure from a Global hawk would you agree with that, right? If someone says it may be a 757 part you say pshaw, if someone else says they prove nothing in paticular therefore clearly NO 757 you buy that reasoning?

As i have stated many times over. Why not release a video of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon if it indeed did happen? This will surely silence the critics.

You're asking the wrong people. Unfortunately none of us has this power and so we're left with the videos we have and the other evidence... so just keep the focus on absence of evidence as evidence of absence and we're sure to crack this case!

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by BeZerk
The link did not sure anything that i have not seen already.

Some quotes from the link your provided:

"The large circular piece in the middle appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, though this is not known for certain."

"Resting up against a bowed column is a large chunk of burned metal. It is unclear whether this is a piece of the plane."

"Most of the heaped scrap is unrecognizable, but there are two pieces of metal bearing yellow-green primer which were not burned thoroughly."

Theres alot of uncertainty.

Uncertainty is one of the many marks of reason. But some people just looove certainty. If Chris Bollyn said emphatically 100% sure the same parts were for sure from a Global hawk would you agree with that, right? If someone says it may be a 757 part you say pshaw, if someone else says they prove nothing in paticular therefore clearly NO 757 you buy that reasoning?

As i have stated many times over. Why not release a video of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon if it indeed did happen? This will surely silence the critics.

You're asking the wrong people. Unfortunately none of us has this power and so we're left with the videos we have and the other evidence... so just keep the focus on absence of evidence as evidence of absence and we're sure to crack this case!

Uncertainty is often quantifiable as risk or assumption.

As stated in previous posts, the "terrorists" managed to guide the plane into the impact zone metres off the ground, without scraping an inch of lawn, all this while hitting lamp posts and retaining its course of destination.

And all this learnt on a small Cessna

Please read previous posts of mine above.



BeZerK

Originally posted by Skunky
Will this do? - www.rense.com...

So what we got here. Pictures from inside the pentagoon that show nothing that you can say for certain came from an airliner, let alone flight 77.

You got a pic of one wheel, where are the other nine?
One part of a combustion chamber, could be from anything.
A landing gear, that could be from anything.

I'd like to see the engine parts that would not have burned up. The rest of the engine casings, the rotor shafts, the rotor hubs of which there should be around 20 or so, we get a pic of one. The counter weight. Fire from jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to completely obliterate these parts.

All wreckage that could easily have been planted before hand, how convenient.

Where are the serial numbers of these parts to prove they are from flight 77? What happened to the tail of the craft that flew over the top on impact, and why no pictures of it that would surely prove it was a Boeing 767, if it was one?

Why don't we see seats and luggage in all this wreckage? Where are the bodies that were supposed to be in there, and if nothing else survived how did bodies survive?

Originally posted by jprophet420
of course i cant post a quote of someone seeing someting not happen, that would be absurd. people saying they saw something other than an an american airlines jet is what i was refering to.

1) Lon Raines thought what he HEARD sounded like a missile
2) The one guy (Steve Patterson?) saw a small commuter jet, but he's never been heard from again and it might've been just farther away than he thought
3) For no Good reason PentaCon witness Brooks cited an off-white or beige United Airlines 737. (??)
Any others?
in the neighborhood of 100 people have cited a large AA jet. That's why the new no-plane theories are all based around that. Please try to keep up. Now the preferred MO is that this plane flew over the Pentagon and the building damage light poles clipped were caused by... whatever.

ive never seen any pictures of the initial impact being 75 feet wide, never seen any pictures of bodies, never seen any pictures of anything (as far as evidence of wreckage) but one small piece of aluminum on the lawn and some sort of rotor.

Here are some links if you'de LIKE to see these things and decide for yourself.
Plane parts - Sarah Roberts
Plane Parts - Russel Pickering
Landing Gear - me
entry hole - oilempire
entry hole - 911 Research
Another take - see how this compares with the others - anything missing?
Reasons for the wrong theories: there's fool's gold because there's real gold.

ETA: Oops, the bodies - Moussaoui trial exhibits - view with caution - dead people
M-CSP-00001488
What would seated bodies indicate to you? The human body can usually stand and run pretty quickly. Here are three seated bodies in one spot. That wiry stuff around them - not too sure that's seat remains but could be.

Otherwise, what's the point in mentioning you haven't even seen this stuff while you're sitting here insisting it's wrong and there was *clearly* no 757 impact?

Thank you.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by ANOK
Where are the serial numbers of these parts to prove they are from flight 77? What happened to the tail of the craft that flew over the top on impact, and why no pictures of it that would surely prove it was a Boeing 767, if it was one?

It could go like this:
1) they don't show us these proofs (you forgot the hidden videos!) for... some reason.
2) we conclude... there was no 757, that's what they're hiding! What was there? Whocares, it wasn't a 757 that's all we need to know etc...
3) We make a big deal of it - by fifteen circumstantial clues we've decided its proven no 757
4) THEN they show the tailfin, the reconstruction, the sserial numbers, the video...
5) And do you see where that puts "us?" Is this not a possibility worth hedging bets over? Probably not...

Why don't we see seats and luggage in all this wreckage? Where are the bodies that were supposed to be in there, and if nothing else survived how did bodies survive?

Have you seen all wreckage to confirm no seats bodies or luggage? Or are you extending your not having seen them to their necessarily not existing? Could such pictures largely be held back due to issues of "taste" or "decency" or "privacy?" And who the hell ever said nothing of the plane survived? This is made up by people who say there was no wreckage or if so it was necessarily planted. They'll tell you the government said the plane "evaporated," which has never been uttered seriously by anyone who knows. A passing mention doesn't count - show me an investigation that claims factually the plane burned up from jet fuel fire and left nothing. There is no such report.

Please smart people do not be suckered. Look it up yourself.

I'm already tired of the cover-up that has fooled all of america into believing flight 77 hit the pentagon, when I've seen footage after footage with no plane ever hitting it.

Then I ask. where are all the passengers that were on the plane. You can't deny that the flight existed. People saw family members & friends get on the plane.

Where did the Government divert the plane to? Was this flight not tracked like all other commercial flights?

This needs to be answered in order to give any credibility to the no plane theory.

My guess is that all we will have are more wild accusations without a shred of proof.

Here is a passenger list for flight 77
www.cnn.com...

Paul Ambrose, 32, of Washington, was a physician who worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the surgeon general to address racial and ethnic disparities in health. A 1995 graduate of Marshall University School of Medicine, Ambrose last year was named the Luther Terry Fellow of the Association of Teachers of Preventative Medicine.

Yeneneh Betru, 35, was from Burbank, California.

M.J. Booth

Bernard Brown, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

.snip......... 64 people on board.

These are real people with real families...and their plane suddenly disappears off the face of the earth? Then the passengers & crew are never seen again?

Can you see the absurdity of this scenario. I will be the first to admit that Governments are capable of evil things, but come on, Clinton and his administration were not even capable of keeping the lid on the Monica Lewinski ordeal. How could the Bush administration be capable of pulling this off. Too far fetched for me.

Originally posted by steve-o
I'm already tired of the cover-up that has fooled all of america into believing flight 77 hit the pentagon, when I've seen footage after footage with no plane ever hitting it.

so to praphrase (sorry I'm using you as an example of a larger problem)
Every video I've seen so far, which should not show the plane at any useful rsolution if at all, has not shown me the plane. Ergo there was no plane. Every time I get on the internet to look at evidence, I fail to go find the evidence for a big ass plane hitting and plowing in. Ergo it didn't. I refuse to look at the full ange of evidence in preference to the cozy warmth of pre-digested "truther" analysis that assures me, again, there was definitely no pane inside the building ever. I am putting my hands over my ears and humming slipknot song loudly, ergo, you are not talking.

We make our own realities here.

So how come is it I can take all the no-planer info in and absorb it, analyze and compare to what else I know from elsewhere, but no-planers can only keep coming back with the same inconclusive anti-evidence and false certainty and call the debate won and their nonexistent case proven?

This is not normal Human reason. Where are these bots breeding? An old tire left out in the rain? Time to do some draining...

Originally posted by Sparky63
These are real people with real families...and their plane suddenly disappears off the face of the earth? Then the passengers & crew are never seen again?

Can you see the absurdity of this scenario. I will be the first to admit that Governments are capable of evil things, but come on, Clinton and his administration were not even capable of keeping the lid on the Monica Lewinski ordeal. How could the Bush administration be capable of pulling this off. Too far fetched for me.

Thanks for the thought Spark. Indeed, this would be a tricky move to do. Now with stakes as high as 9/11, if they felt it was necessary, they could and would do whatever, IMO. Including hit the Pentagon with nothing but bombs, fly a remote control plane over, whatever, plant parts, lie about DNA, plant a few prisoner bodies (one odd thing in the bodies picture linked above - two of the three seem to be wearing orange jump suits...). All this IS possible, and at some level worth considering.

BUT... if they felt it was necessary, they could and would do it. I fail to see how it was necessary to do all these tings separatley, organize all the parties needed, and keep a lid on the whole fifty-prong operation. They could do it all in one fell swoop with a Remote Controlled 757 into the ground floor. It's not that they wouldn't pull the no-plane psyop, but that it seems to me, by the evidence, that they simply didn't.

I agree with what you have said about there being a smaller aircraft that had crashed but why did these people pick up the evidence and dispose of it and not let the public look at it or even analyse what aircraft it was in the first place,it sounds like a cover-up to me.

Originally posted by steve-o
I agree with what you have said about there being a smaller aircraft that had crashed but why did these people pick up the evidence and dispose of it and not let the public look at it or even analyse what aircraft it was in the first place,it sounds like a cover-up to me.

ME? I was just citing a witness who I think was wrong or irrelevant. I think it was a 757. Or, since I'm no expert, something of about that scale and paitned AA and apparently full of passengers. And probably luggage, but oh we haven't seen a photo yet of any indestructible Samsonite... ergo...

I was'nt thinking right when I posted ,but I'm still convinced it was'nt a 747 or any other large aircraft that was flown that day at all.I've also seen footage,that is not clear enough, that shows that there was a secret white aircraft that was near the area when it occured.

Originally posted by steve-o
I was'nt thinking right when I posted ,but I'm still convinced it was'nt a 747 or any other large aircraft that was flown that day at all.I've also seen footage,that is not clear enough, that shows that there was a secret white aircraft that was near the area when it occured.

A'ight. That's a theory. One thing tho - it's not too secret if you can see it in video, right? Just curious - is this from the five stills or some other source?
I'll have to catch ya later.

One instructor for other hijackers is famous for saying, they had such a lack of basic english language skills and basic coordination skills, they probably couldnt even drive a car....these hijackers probably couldnt even drive a damn car, nevermind a plane! I mean theyre used to driving a camel I guess!

And yet, in the end, Hani Hanjour earned a commercial pilot's license.........

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

One instructor for other hijackers is famous for saying, they had such a lack of basic english language skills and basic coordination skills, they probably couldnt even drive a car....these hijackers probably couldnt even drive a damn car, nevermind a plane! I mean theyre used to driving a camel I guess!

And yet, in the end, Hani Hanjour earned a commercial pilot's license.........

Here we go again about thinking terrorists are a bunch of idiots. I like the part about thinking terrorists can only drive camels. Of course in reality its not driving, its riding.