another flight 77 video, again no plane!

Originally posted by LightWorker13
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!

Yes, sorry I missed that before. I know we're getting derailed, but that is a very stupid and racist comment. Most people are capable of driving a car just fine, and yet you think al Qaeda/the Patsy factory sent guys what, too brain damaged, strung out, whatever to even drive a car? And this has now been "discovered" and proves Hani couldn't've piloted that plane? And for the record I'd guess most Arabs have never riden a camel. This is the 21st century now. Not everyone can be a Bedouin and most goods now cross the desert by truck or train.



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

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


Yes, sorry I missed that before. I know we're getting derailed, but that is a very stupid and racist comment. Most people are capable of driving a car just fine, and yet you think al Qaeda/the Patsy factory sent guys? And this has now been "discovered" and proves Hani couldn't've piloted that plane? And for the record I'd guess most Arabs have never riden a camel. This is the 21st century now. Not everyone can be a Bedouin and most goods now cross the desert by truck or train.

Not to mention "stupid" Arab terrorists that can hit an American state of the art warship back in 2000. Wow they really know about to "drive" a boat.

I still want to know why the government gave us only 5 frames rather than just show us the whole footage if they manage to have any sort of footage in the first place.Another thing is why did they take footage from hotels near the area saying it was a matter of national security,and the disappearance of that footage as well that was never shown to the public.

i applaud Caustic Logic on this thread....excellent points, facst, statements, and rebuttals in this thread. There was a plane, and like i said you can see the tail fly over the Pentagon after the initial impact. Why would they show charred bodies, to upset the famalies? Of course they won't plaster those pics everywhere. 911 was a one of a kind attack, and do you think they would be abke to pull that off today?? No f'ing way!! How will they go aabout their next attack, what new terrorism will we see next?? They bombed a state of the art warship, Us embassies, they appear to have a timetable of plans. When is the next attack on USA? Cause there will be one, after we become complacent again.

This one is for cosmocow, If you believe in the official story why bother posting if it has been told to us countless times by all the bs news channels across the world.My question to you is what happened to the infamous osama bin laden and his clan , is the government playing hide n seek or twister blaming it all of a sudden on saddam , leading to his capture and demise? The government needed this to happen as a pretext for the invasion of iraq ,"your either with the terrorists or your with us", if you actually believe what has been shown to you. Have you you even read documents of the government's past tries on cuba by faking the deaths of americans that were on a vessel to invade cuba. If there is another supposed "terrorist attack" by the time of the next election I'll rest my case and let you decide , what is truth and what is false.

Originally posted by steve-o
I still want to know why the government gave us only 5 frames rather than just show us the whole footage if they manage to have any sort of footage in the first place

This is a good suggestion

Originally posted by Cosmocow
Why would they show charred bodies, to upset the famalies? Of course they won't plaster those pics everywhere.

why would 'they' show people being tortured? why can i look up dead bodies all over the internet right now? does every cadaver on the internet have less rights than the pentagon ones?

the main fact behind my statement is that pictures were immediately released and there were no dead bodies in those pictures. pictures of the direct crash site. the hole wasnt 75 feet wide as caustic pointed out and it wasnt 60 feet wide as popular mechanics pointed out. there were pictures taken immediately after initial disaster. the pictures of almost all evidence are non-existant, and same with the videos.

i will look at all 3 legit videos again with an open mind and look for a tail. of course the main point of this thread is that there is no reason whatsoever that there shouldn't be plenty of video evidence. i have heard a few rebuttals to this and the main one is of course 'they dont want to upset the families. if thats anyones final answer i accept is as their final answer but no a legit reason.

in a nutshell ive asked a million times "wheres the plane?" and gotten a million answers other than "here's the plane".

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by Cosmocow
Why would they show charred bodies, to upset the famalies? Of course they won't plaster those pics everywhere.

why would 'they' show people being tortured? why can i look up dead bodies all over the internet right now? does every cadaver on the internet have less rights than the pentagon ones?

the main fact behind my statement is that pictures were immediately released and there were no dead bodies in those pictures. pictures of the direct crash site. the hole wasnt 75 feet wide as caustic pointed out and it wasnt 60 feet wide as popular mechanics pointed out. there were pictures taken immediately after initial disaster. the pictures of almost all evidence are non-existant, and same with the videos.

i will look at all 3 legit videos again with an open mind and look for a tail. of course the main point of this thread is that there is no reason whatsoever that there shouldn't be plenty of video evidence. i have heard a few rebuttals to this and the main one is of course 'they dont want to upset the families. if thats anyones final answer i accept is as their final answer but no a legit reason.

in a nutshell ive asked a million times "wheres the plane?" and gotten a million answers other than "here's the plane".

jprophet420, agreed entirely.

To shut the coffin on the conspirators all the Government would have to do is show a definitive Boeing 757 flying into the Pentagon that is all. Why first did they release 5 slides that did not show any evidence of a Boeing hitting the pentagon, then years later they released a 3 minute clip that also did not show anything then as of recent they released a video from the gas station that also did not show anything that resembles a Boeing.

Do we see a pattern here ?

There were hundreds of camera's in and around the pentagon. I am positive without a shadow of a doubt that at least a few in all different angles captured "something" hitting the pentagon. What this "something" is will remain a mystery till the Government can release a video that shows a Boeing slamming into the Pentagon.

BeZerK

Originally posted by BeZerk
I am positive without a shadow of a doubt that at least a few in all different angles captured "something" hitting the pentagon. What this "something" is will remain a mystery till the Government can release a video that shows a Boeing slamming into the Pentagon.

And until then we go around in circles postulating what 'could' have hit the Pentagon when there appears to be overwhelming evidence to suggest a 757, American Airlines Fight 77, hit the building. How? and Why? is more pertinent than What?

Originally posted by Skunky

Originally posted by BeZerk
I am positive without a shadow of a doubt that at least a few in all different angles captured "something" hitting the pentagon. What this "something" is will remain a mystery till the Government can release a video that shows a Boeing slamming into the Pentagon.

And until then we go around in circles postulating what 'could' have hit the Pentagon when there appears to be overwhelming evidence to suggest a 757, American Airlines Fight 77, hit the building. How? and Why? is more pertinent than What?

Overwhelming evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon?

Would you like to post the "overwhelming evidence" that a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon?

BeZerK

A major flaw in the theory that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon is explaining what did happen to that flight.

In a previous post I pointed out that the passengers and crew were people with families. Families who saw them get on the plane. No one I know of is denying that flight 77 existed so what is the explanation?

There is a passenger list. www.cnn.com...

Look at the list again and give some reasonable explanation for what happened to these people & the plane if it did not crash into the Pentagon.


[edit on 2-7-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 2-7-2007 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by jprophet420
in a nutshell ive asked a million times "wheres the plane?" and gotten a million answers other than "here's the plane".

Okay... "here's the plane." --->

That arrow is pointing to the internet, becuase I don't have time to explain again how the plane did not wind up in one spot and show the dozens of photos of its remaining and seen parts. It disintegrated - not to vapor but to smaller parts all throughout and in front of the building. We have some photos, if not all. Various fuselage scraps with standard green primer paint, a wheel, some engine rotors and a housing, the Flight Data Recorder, the AA-painted scraps that in landing outside were not burned up, othe scraps inside that did. Many people suspect they are planted, but can't show anything to prove that except their belief the were no parts there for real.

Most identifiable part IMO: The landing gear strut, found just inside the "punch-out" hole, in the inner C Ring.

Here compared to a 757 gear in the shop. This looks havy to me, and fairly hard to plant.
my blog post
Pentagonresearch.com - source of the shop photo.

And besides the scatted and often unrecognizably damaged physical parts that remained, the imprint of the intact plane is all over the place - from eyewitnesses and terminating radar track to the huge hole in the building, to the fifty support columns damaged inside. So lemme turn it around, via Dave Von Kleist in 911 In Plane Site: He said "If flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then where is it?" Well, IF it hit the Pentagon, itd be inside, as we've seen. The real question that hasn't been answered, is if it DIDN'T hit the building than where did it go? I know there are hypothetical answers to that, but why can a question with only hypothetical answers be used to trump a scenario with so much evidence for it and a set answer?

It's simple logic folks.


[edit on 2-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 2-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 2-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Sparky63
A major flaw in the theory that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon is explaining what did happen to that flight.

In a previous post I pointed out that the passengers and crew were people with families. Families who saw them get on the plane. No one I know of is denying that flight 77 existed so what is the explanation?

There is a passenger list. www.cnn.com...

Look at the list again and give some reasonable explanation for what happened to these people & the plane if it did not crash into the Pentagon.


[edit on 2-7-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 2-7-2007 by Sparky63]

How about an even better question to ask, why isn't the Pentagon releasing any tapes to show a Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

Surely enough and i have stated this before, showing a video of Flight 77 would close the door on the numerous people who believe that Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon its that simple.

Instead we are shown images and videos showing nothing but a fireball.

BeZerK

I am just wondering what effect ,if any, a video showing flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon would have now.

I really can't see all the supporters of alternate theories suddenly and humbly admitting they were wrong. I think it would just shift into the next phase of denying the validity of the video, calling into question why it took so long......and still there would be no answer as to what happened to the crew and passengers of Flight 77.

Originally posted by Sparky63
I am just wondering what effect ,if any, a video showing flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon would have now.

I really can't see all the supporters of alternate theories suddenly and humbly admitting they were wrong. I think it would just shift into the next phase of denying the validity of the video, calling into question why it took so long......and still there would be no answer as to what happened to the crew and passengers of Flight 77.

I'm not sitting here and pretending i have every answer, i surely don't, but when the Government suggested that flight 77 crashed head on into the Pentagon without a video to support its claim it basically becomes unrealistic from numerous evidence to suggest that the impact hole of the Pentagon would not even fit a Boeing 757.

A Boeing hits the pentagon penetrating 3 thick concrete and steel reinforced yet when a Boeing hit the Twin Towers it did not come through the other side of the Towers. It just does not make sense.



Does the below picture honestly represent a Boeing 757 crashing into it?



Moreover..

The below picture is always used in a debate when referring to wreckage.



Does the above picture really look like it came from a Boeing 757?



The below pictures are from a global hawk.




They look identical from the wreckage found in the pentagon.

BeZerK

Originally posted by Sparky63
A major flaw in the theory that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon is explaining what did happen to that flight.

so, when a mouse goes into his hole, if i can't say exactly where he is, now, then this is some kind of 'proof' that because i don't know where the mouse is, it MUST BE where you say it is?

hardly a 'major flaw'.
it was dumped in the ocean.
all the passengers were in on it, and were given huge bank rolls and new identities.
it landed at a CIA base, and everyone was shot.
it's on the dark side of the moon.
it slid into an alternate dimension.

bad logic. you don't have to know what did happen to know what didn't happen.

if there is a bonfire, i can safely surmise that it was not started by godzilla. i do not have to prove that godzilla doesn't exist, or how the fire did actually start to know that anyone who tells me godzilla started the fire with his atomic breath, is LYING.

This conspiracy theory will only remain a theory until all the loose ends are tied up. To ignore a the parts that don't make sense or fit your theory is self serving and disingenuous in my opinion.

I am the first to admit that there are many questions that need to answered and I long to see the day when this matter can be put to rest one way or another.
CT's are quick to point out even minor flaws or inconsistencies in the official version of events but seem to get very defensive if someone points out a hole or flaw in theirs.

I will also be the first to admit that Politicians and Governments in general are capable of horrendous acts against their enemies and sometimes against their own population but I still feel that it is somewhat slanderous to state for a fact that they have committed criminal or treasonous acts with out hard and incontrovertible evidence.

Painting the government & military with the broad brush of terrorism against its own population is too large a step for me to take at this time.
Its just seems wrong. I still adhere to innocent until PROVEN guilty.

But thats just me.

Originally posted by BeZerk
Does the below picture honestly represent a Boeing 757 crashing into it?

No, it shows the collapse that happened twenty minutes AFTER the 757 blew out or dmaged most of the support columns there. IMO of course.

Does the above picture really look like it came from a Boeing 757?

Yep.
the difference in the holes placed radially around the center mount: Both seem to have a symmetrical arrangement but a differing number – the Pentagon rim with eight, the intact gear sporting ten, it seems. This is not so odd though, as Russell Pickering found out with some research, the 757-200 series (which Flight 77 was) uses precisely two different types interchangably - "one with 10 slots and one with 8."

The below pictures are from a global hawk.

They look identical from the wreckage found in the pentagon.

Well, to be fair not quite identical...



But it is a bit sppoky, huh guys?

At least we finally have a theory here - but the RQ-4? R Q serious? Maximum loaded weight: 22,900 pounds. Did the tiny drone do this damage itself, or with the help of onboard missiles do you think?

Originally posted by Sparky63
This conspiracy theory will only remain a theory until all the loose ends are tied up. To ignore a the parts that don't make sense or fit your theory is self serving and disingenuous in my opinion.

I am the first to admit that there are many questions that need to answered and I long to see the day when this matter can be put to rest one way or another.
CT's are quick to point out even minor flaws or inconsistencies in the official version of events but seem to get very defensive if someone points out a hole or flaw in theirs.

I will also be the first to admit that Politicians and Governments in general are capable of horrendous acts against their enemies and sometimes against their own population but I still feel that it is somewhat slanderous to state for a fact that they have committed criminal or treasonous acts with out hard and incontrovertible evidence.

Painting the government & military with the broad brush of terrorism against its own population is too large a step for me to take at this time.
Its just seems wrong. I still adhere to innocent until PROVEN guilty.
But thats just me.

Have you heard of Operation Northwoods. I suggest you take a look at the information within that report.

There is a history of Government sponsored terrorism that is fact. When a government has such an agenda to go to war there is only one way to get the people behind a war that is to produce a false flag terrorism act which n its simplest form means to pretend to be the enemy, to fool people in believing that the entity at hand is the enemy.

Just take a look at Nero and the great fire of Rome.

Also the Spanish American War In 1898 which elites within the US government falsely accused Spain of blowing up the USS Maine in order to shift the American people into a flag-waving frenzy which resulted in the Spanish American War.

About 1931 Japan wanted to invade further into the Asian continent. So in a perfect display of false flag operation, Japan blew up its own railway and said, “hmmm Ummm Oh well hmmm…China did it! Yeah, that’s the ticket. It was China., instead of going to the beach, we gotta go kick their butts out of Manchuria.”

The Riechstag fire that Hitler accused the communists. Nazis wasted no time beginning the slide to dictatorship almost a month later they passed the Patriot Act, oops, I’m sorry, i mean the Enabling Act Regardless the title the law allowed Adlof Hitler and his cabinet to enact legislation without the consent of parliament. Something which happens constantly under the Bush Administration. Are we starting to see a pattern here?

I remember a time when Conspiracy Theorists were brandished as liars when the Japanese apparently inflicted a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Now evidence has surfaced that Roosevelt actually knew about the attacks and let it happen. That is fact.

I could name alot more and false flag terrorism does indeed exist.

BeZerK







[edit on 2-7-2007 by BeZerk]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by BeZerk
Does the below picture honestly represent a Boeing 757 crashing into it?

No, it shows the collapse that happened twenty minutes AFTER the 757 blew out or dmaged most of the support columns there. IMO of course.

Does the above picture really look like it came from a Boeing 757?

Yep.
the difference in the holes placed radially around the center mount: Both seem to have a symmetrical arrangement but a differing number – the Pentagon rim with eight, the intact gear sporting ten, it seems. This is not so odd though, as Russell Pickering found out with some research, the 757-200 series (which Flight 77 was) uses precisely two different types interchangably - "one with 10 slots and one with 8."

The below pictures are from a global hawk.

They look identical from the wreckage found in the pentagon.

Well, to be fair not quite identical...

But it is a bit sppoky, huh guys?

At least we finally have a theory here - but the RQ-4? R Q serious? Maximum loaded weight: 22,900 pounds. Did the tiny drone do this damage itself, or with the help of onboard missiles do you think?

I posted a picture of a Boeing 757 showing the wheel that looks nothing like what they found at the pentagon.

Your picture without a source of where you got the picture from is useless in my opinion. Could you please show me another picture of a wheel on a Boeing 757. I'm not being rude or anything but the picture below is totally different from your image.


Caustic Logics image:

Yep.
the difference in the holes placed radially around the center mount: Both seem to have a symmetrical arrangement but a differing number – the Pentagon rim with eight, the intact gear sporting ten, it seems. This is not so odd though, as Russell Pickering found out with some research, the 757-200 series (which Flight 77 was) uses precisely two different types interchangably - "one with 10 slots and one with 8."

Source please.

No, it shows the collapse that happened twenty minutes AFTER the 757 blew out or dmaged most of the support columns there. IMO of course.

I understand that picture is about 20 mins after but i still don't see how a Boeing 757 can hit dead on to the building without even damaging windows on the side with its enormous wing span.

The two photographs in question below were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck.




Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

BeZerK