Military Professionals Dispute 911

reply to post by Dramey


I think you make a very good point, if they have nothing to hide where are the 80 videos?

But from (see the other videos I've posted) what I've seen, the plane would have been as the German video puts it "obliterated" except for maybe the titanium parts... e.g. the black box.

I still want to know where the black boxes are!

This video does show why there is no/little damage to the lawn and explains the damage we do see very well.

I agree that the video within the video does seem suspicious and could be missing frames.

As to the other persons reply (sorry I'm a noob on here don't know how to reply to 2 people in one post yet) , you self contradict yourself... something from area 51 hit the pentagon... what? Sorry very confused by all that. This video though is the best evidence for what happened that I have seen yet. It explains every photo I've seen in this thread.

That does not negate there is still a cover up... where are the 80 videos and black boxes... and leaves open WHY they are not showing them!

Something I've not heard mentioned in this thread yet. Wasn't the person that piloted the plane just a year earlier in the navy and planning the exact same plane hit on the pentagon?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Dramey

 

yes you have but no one else has including the military officials who were quoted

I wouldnt say no one else has

www.fire.nist.gov...

Page 25. Unless of course seethelight was the photographer for the report and then he obliterated the marks before anyone else saw them.......

great website, for me pretty much

kind of reafirms what the video showed me, personally on that website i didnt see any picture that would suggest a airplane was there, maybe i missed it, if theres a pic with the damage or the plane at all id love to look closer at it


i did not read the site yet which i plan to do but even if there are several people saying they saw it, unless they were experts its still speculation in my opinion especially since the visual evidence i have seen doesnt lead me to believe a plain crashed there


and to respond to the poster after you

i understand you mentioned the germans said it would be obliterated except for the black box

my question is can anybody tell me why with details it would be obliterated in this case when in other plane crashes that isnt exactly the full case


is it because of an explosion in the plane? maybe from the fuel?

how come when all other planes crash the same thing doesnt happen, how come those arent obliterated beyond recognition, how does it seem that an aircraft ever existed there?

i am no expert but those are things i wonder about

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Dramey]

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Dramey]

[edit on 1-2-2010 by WarloriousCreed]

Btw the sky is not always blue.

So you guys have perfectly good reason to doubt each other on that point.

Critical thinking please!

Of course - but when Swampy tells me it's blue, I'll check for myself.

TV reporter Jamie Mcintyre changes his story:

Bill Crambo, Installation Support Division, HQUSACE:
We knew a plane hit the Pentagon; we could see none of it. Only boiling orange and black flames shot out of the Pentagon.We talked about the images that burned into our memories. We had to, there seemed to be no evidence of any plane. It seemed we had to convince ourselves we were really there and had witnessed this indescribable event that was too rooted in evil to physically see. We looked and asked, “Where is the plane?” “Did anyone see the plane after it hit?” What kind of plane was it?”

www.freedomfiles.org...





[edit on 1-2-2010 by EvilAxis]

Since we've veered toward the Pentacon thing,I'd like to add,there's an engine that went missing too.And landing gear struts and the huge tail support forging.These all would survive airplane "obliteration."

The wings are also the (mostly full) fuel tanks.Liquid doesn't just change direction,like zip into the hole!PS So not only would there be cuts into the building on either side of the hole,as well as above,which all photos show were not there,BUT in addition,there would be fuel,either in the form of an explosion or splashed,then burned,NO?

Holey Holey Holey,Good God Almighty,their story is so holey...we should start an OP religion.This is either an inside job or a MIRACLE.Believe in ALLAH much?

[edit on 1-2-2010 by trueforger]

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Sean48

 

Sorry, how many of these people actually examined the wreckage.

I have seen the wing marks on the Pentagon.

Like so much you truthers do I imagine that if I even scratch the surface we'll find people saying their words were taken out of context, of that many of these people have since changed their story.

Sure, we don't understand all the evidence, but when you see people saying, "I ALWAYS knew 9/11 was an inside job" you aren't taking about people reacting to evidence, but just people taking their own faith based assumption and projecting them onto the events of 9/11,

Every time one of these threads pops up its post after post of debunked evidence, and lie after lie from truthers.

I seem to remember you guys all jumping onto the LIE that the chief councel at the 9/11 investigation said, "the whole thing was a cover-up".

That was clearly a lie pushed by you guys.

I cannot, until you guys start being less faithy and more facty, believe a word you say.

I was going to stay out of this one, but I can't pass up these STATED FACTS. Not going to let that slide when it's pretty easy to see that there is NOTHING that is not controversial on the record because nothing was handled like a crime scene.

Is this not the 9/11 Commission?
en.wikipedia.org...

Are these not it's members?
Thomas Kean (Chairman) - Republican, former Governor of New Jersey
Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 9th District of Indiana
Richard Ben-Veniste - Democrat, attorney, former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office
Max Cleland - Democrat, former U.S. Senator from Georgia. Resigned December 2003, stating that the "the White House has played cover-up"[7]
Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel
Jamie Gorelick - Democrat, former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
Slade Gorton - Republican, former U.S. Senator from Washington
Bob Kerrey - Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska
John F. Lehman - Republican, former Secretary of the Navy
Timothy J. Roemer - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 3rd District of Indiana
James R. Thompson - Republican, former Governor of Illinois

Is this NOT Thomas Kean's (the Chairman) book?
www.randomhouse.com...

Is this not the title?
Without Precedent
The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission

Here is the topper;

I seem to remember you guys all jumping onto the LIE that the chief councel at the 9/11 investigation said, "the whole thing was a cover-up".

Maybe they were talking about the Chairman? But, essentially, you have people who were ON the Committee -- and it's about the only thing that runs a fresh scent over this stinking pile of propaganda --- that are saying they were stymied and blocked;

FTA: "In the book, Kean and Hamilton write that the 9/11 Commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration during their investigation that they considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials."

I never tire of this subject, frankly, it's not discussed enough. I have been bothered even more by it lately.
Among all the attrocities that 9/11 represents this one question stands out and frightens me more than anything; if our government is capable of doing this to it's own people what else is it capable of? I hope it scares us all into some kind of action, but I will be the first to admit, I have no idea where to begin.
seeashrink

What happened to Swampfox's pdf link?, Adobe says damaged beyond repair.

reply to post by seethelight


Sir, if you will explain away building seven and the "put options" and the "call options" at the NYSE surrounding 9/11, then I will no longer believe that it was a conspiracy. Please explain them away, please. I'd like nothing better and I would be in your debt. Here is your chance to convert a believer.
seeashrink

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Does that mean your reasons for not trusting her aren't civil/decent/reasonable?

No, it means I am not going to discuss it on a public discussion board you dont have the right (or need) to know. In a military courtroom, yes, OSI conference room, yes, military briefing room, yes, online discussion board, nope.

Sorry Swampy,
This is character assassination by default. Your remarks are hearsay without non circumstantial evidence to back it up, you have done the same with other people too, let's hope none of them are here in the forum for your sake. Better still, why can't you just guide people gently to your way of thinking with a reasoned take on things. You have great creedence on on people who were eyewitnesses, and so would I, yet time and time again in other situations an eyewitness's testimony is put down as mistaken or misleading..just like in a UFO sighting, or a court of law. Now if Donald Rumsfeld, who was there, had said it was a UFO that hit the Pentagon, (just like he said flight 93 was shot down) he would most likely have been taken to the funny farm, or maybe not..since he worked for the government. In either case he does not seem to be in the funny farm. Now could you tell me why he should not be there, (in the funny farm) or in social care of some sort, since he said flight 93 was shot down, you have to be careful though, he may be a member here.

Just some random thoughts...

Can a plane hit a structure and mostly disintegrate? Definitely, there are numerous tests that were done of flying planes into a wall and it does for the most part "go away". Planes are made to be as light as possible, so you would find no huge chunks of twisted steel as if a vehicle crashed. So I really don't have a problem with the "lack" of debris.

The skill required to dip down and skim over the lawn, I agree that is a crazy maneuver to pull off for even an experienced pilot (not like you can practice it beforehand). But honestly, I would consider that this approach was purely by accident or luck. For all we know, their goal was to strike the center courtyard area, or one of the inner rings, and they just came in too shallow. If even experienced pilots say they could not pull off that approach, then why shouldn't we consider that they were not doing it on purpose? Its like when a basketball player "casually" swishes the ball in from full court at the buzzer...he didnt think it would go in, nobody thinks he can make such a shot, but he just threw the ball and it went in, it doesnt mean he has any exceptional skill or can do it again.

The Pentagon Renovation Project. This was a public project to renovate the wedge that was struck. So if the attackers did any research at all, they would have to know that area would be mostly unoccupied, so why make it a target?

So again, I wonder what offices were on the inner wedge of the opposite site of the courtyard, if that was their true target and they undershot?

The time being off on the video, that is no surprise. While contracting sysadmin duties for various systems I have often found the system clock of even security systems to be out of whack. Without a periodic syncing the time, the clock drifts.

Again I am pretty sure we will not know all of the details until X decades from now when they declassify the event and release all of the video and pictures that they seized. If the "war on terror" continues indefinitely, they may never release the info.

reply to post by smurfy

This is character assassination by default. Your remarks are hearsay without non circumstantial evidence to back it up, you have done the same with other people too, let's hope none of them are here in the forum for your sake. Better still, why can't you just guide people gently to your way of thinking with a reasoned take on things.

Fine, call it what you want. There is absolutely no evidence I can give that you would accept anyway. As for the other people, I have offered the reasons why I dont listen to them and the evidence to back it up...feel free to dig into the ATS archives if you want.

Finally, guide people gently....now that is truly a laugher. Rarely does a day go by when I am not accused of being a murderer, a paid 9/11 shill or threatened with death on here. So if you cannot handle my blunt manner...dont read my posts and dont respond to them.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Finally, guide people gently....now that is truly a laugher. Rarely does a day go by when I am not accused of being a murderer, a paid 9/11 shill or threatened with death on here. So if you cannot handle my blunt manner...dont read my posts and dont respond to them.

Hell, I'm gold then

The worst I called you is a Blind Patriot.

Sometimes I say "Ole swampy", only when you irk me though

Originally posted by Blazer
Just some random thoughts...

Can a plane hit a structure and mostly disintegrate? Definitely, there are numerous tests that were done of flying planes into a wall and it does for the most part "go away". Planes are made to be as light as possible, so you would find no huge chunks of twisted steel as if a vehicle crashed. So I really don't have a problem with the "lack" of debris.

The skill required to dip down and skim over the lawn, I agree that is a crazy maneuver to pull off for even an experienced pilot (not like you can practice it beforehand). But honestly, I would consider that this approach was purely by accident or luck. For all we know, their goal was to strike the center courtyard area, or one of the inner rings, and they just came in too shallow. If even experienced pilots say they could not pull off that approach, then why shouldn't we consider that they were not doing it on purpose? Its like when a basketball player "casually" swishes the ball in from full court at the buzzer...he didnt think it would go in, nobody thinks he can make such a shot, but he just threw the ball and it went in, it doesnt mean he has any exceptional skill or can do it again.

The Pentagon Renovation Project. This was a public project to renovate the wedge that was struck. So if the attackers did any research at all, they would have to know that area would be mostly unoccupied, so why make it a target?

So again, I wonder what offices were on the inner wedge of the opposite site of the courtyard, if that was their true target and they undershot?

The time being off on the video, that is no surprise. While contracting sysadmin duties for various systems I have often found the system clock of even security systems to be out of whack. Without a periodic syncing the time, the clock drifts.

Again I am pretty sure we will not know all of the details until X decades from now when they declassify the event and release all of the video and pictures that they seized. If the "war on terror" continues indefinitely, they may never release the info.

Hi Blazer,
All salient questions, and it seems, you like me are assuming that the plane,(I believe it was a plane of some sort) zipped across the lawn and at as near as ground level as you can get, that's all I have and I stick to that assumption based on a fragment of video. On the other hand, we have people here, including a commercial pilot who say that the plane was in a dive and who base that assumption on an official CGI of the flight recorder, which shows a different flightpath from witnesses,(not all) on the ground. Two of those witnesses are police officers, and there are others who say that the plane went straight over the Navy Annex, which is not included on the official CGI, and would be in opposition to that CGI mockup. Just questions to be sorted.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by smurfy

 

This is character assassination by default. Your remarks are hearsay without non circumstantial evidence to back it up, you have done the same with other people too, let's hope none of them are here in the forum for your sake. Better still, why can't you just guide people gently to your way of thinking with a reasoned take on things.

Fine, call it what you want. There is absolutely no evidence I can give that you would accept anyway. As for the other people, I have offered the reasons why I dont listen to them and the evidence to back it up...feel free to dig into the ATS archives if you want.

Finally, guide people gently....now that is truly a laugher. Rarely does a day go by when I am not accused of being a murderer, a paid 9/11 shill or threatened with death on here. So if you cannot handle my blunt manner...dont read my posts and dont respond to them.

Hi Swamp,
The blunt manner doesn't bother me at all, and I will reply to anything if needed. It is the lack of any info that is the problem. You did post a link to a pdf file, but it didn't work, or has been corrupted before I saw it. BTW, name calling is not where I am coming from, and get this straight for once and for all, I do not have preconceptions on anything, but I am interested in the reality of events. If you were there say so, and tell us what happened in your eyes, that's all.

reply to post by seethelight


ummm.. can u post the photo where there are the wing entry holes in the Pentagon? and i just dont get hole the airplane punched threw 4 reinforced walls?

reply to post by smurfy


If its the NIST pdf file....the link works on my end. However, google "pentagon building performance report" and you will find it as well. No, I was not at the Pentagon that day, several people I know well, were. One of whom, it took three days to find out he was at Bethesda being treated for the injuries he suffered that day. He was maybe fifty feet from the impact zone and he knows full well what he saw heading at the building that day (a large twin engine jetliner)...and then he remembers waking up on a litter on the lawn.

My other friends, helped evacuate the wounded and pick up the pieces, they as well, know it was Flight 77.

oh and also?
explain this please?

blatanttruth.org...




[edit on 1-2-2010 by swiftyoung33]

Originally posted by WarloriousCreed
This guy (Aaron Russo) is dead right now (suspicious)... but his testimony lives on.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by WarloriousCreed]

R.I.P

any who has any one seen the movie loose Change? it brings up some interesting topics and questions....