Absolute proof: A Pentagon picture montage from start to finish

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
How do people reconcile, or deal with, issues like this??

SECURITY VIDEO: shows fireball.

GUY 100 YARDS AWAY: says he sees the plane go in, but doesn't see a fireball.

The can't both be right...

Why thank you for pointing out that eyewitness accounts can be testy things. Something I've been telling CIT for years. One eyewitness swears he saw the landing gear come down. You don't look at these things for details, you look for general themes and commonality. The inescapable commonality is that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
How do people reconcile, or deal with, issues like this??

SECURITY VIDEO: shows fireball.

GUY 100 YARDS AWAY: says he sees the plane go in, but doesn't see a fireball.

The can't both be right...

Check Capt Leiber's location and that might give you a clue....

It's not hard to understand....

that is not an answer.... he was right there and saw the plane fly in. Why didn't he see a fireball like shown in the Pentagon security video?

NEIT 405 - While exiting the Pentagon into the South parking area observed plane's final approach.

Originally posted by 911files
NEIT 299 - Sean Boger working in helipad tower. Saw plane approach and crash into building.

And guess what?

He verified the North of Citgo flyover. He did not see the actual impact because he dropped down and covered his head.

www.thepentacon.com...

As for the other witness they saw A plane, lots of people saw A plane. Still doesn't prove it was a Boeing and that it hit the pentagon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by 911files


I appreciate that someone took the time to interview these people, transcribe the interviews, post them online... that's a lot of work. I really wish they'd been asked for specific details - a few paragraphs about what each of them saw would be awesome, and would clear up a lot of the diverse details.

The thing I see as a commonality is that people saw a plane, many of them an American Airlines plane.

There are A LOT of issues though - a guy 100 yards away didn't see an explosion? a trained firefighter and marine comes up to see lots of pieces of an aircraft but those pieces somehow disappeared, a woman watches the plane from her office building and thinks she sees the plane speedup (she also didn't know what to do so watched CNN with her co-workers, and four hours later decides to check if her daughter was ok... I don't buy her story)

Some statements can be measured precisely, guy walks out of his shop and sees a plane fly over the Annex - the road is one direction, the plane is another - that's something that wouldn't be mistaken and therefore gives a precise location.

Another interview (videotaped) is Roosevelt Roberts, the Pentagon policeman on the South "East Dock" who very specifically said it was a commercial aircraft that flew past after hearing the explosion. A C-130 is NOT easily confused with a commercial aircraft, they look different in many ways especially to someone who works near an airport and is trained to notice detail. If I recall from FAA tapes the C-130 flew out at a 270 (West) for a loop around before being told no, which would not southwest.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by 911files
NEIT 299 - Sean Boger working in helipad tower. Saw plane approach and crash into building.

And guess what?

He verified the North of Citgo flyover. He did not see the actual impact because he dropped down and covered his head.

www.thepentacon.com...

As for the other witness they saw A plane, lots of people saw A plane. Still doesn't prove it was a Boeing and that it hit the pentagon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No, Craig Ranke says that Sean still claims to have saw the plane hit the building (watch the video you posted). Craig just says he could not have because the plane went NoC. So who do we believe? Sean or Craig? Sean was there, Craig was not. Reckon I'll go with Sean.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by 911files
NEIT 515 - Crystal City office worker watched an American Airlines plane fly into the Pentagon.

He does not state he saw the plane impact the pentagon.

He said he saw an explosion.

You keep misrepresenting what these witnesses are actually saying.

You can not find a witness that actually saw the impact. In fact there are very few places you could even see the impact point.

stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Reheat
he does not say he didn't see an explosion, he simply didn't mention it....

reheat - you are a master of lies.

Thermo Klein: "he sees the plane go in, but doesn't see a fireball."
reheat: "he does not say he didn't see an explosion, he simply didn't mention it...."
The interview, page 6: "People have said they saw a fireball. I did not."

reheat you should be embarrassed man - you have NO INTEGRITY WHATSOEVER. Shame on you for trying to purposefully spread lies...

seriously... you waste all our time, yet again. FAIL.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by 911files
NEIT 515 - Crystal City office worker watched an American Airlines plane fly into the Pentagon.

He does not state he saw the plane impact the pentagon.

He said he saw an explosion.

You keep misrepresenting what these witnesses are actually saying.

You can not find a witness that actually saw the impact. In fact there are very few places you could even see the impact point.

stevenwarran.blogspot.com...

edit on 3/23/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

actually the person in that interview, a woman, does say she watched it purposefully fly into the Pentagon, although she doesn't give any details whatsoever.

Originally posted by Reheat

So...............

Where was that concrete used? Inquiring minds want to know....

FACT: The exterior of the Pentagon is cut Indiana Limestone, same as was used for the Empire State Building....

edit on 23-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

TAP, TAP, TAP!

IS THIS THING ON??

For now the FIFTH time:

The one element of the Pentagon not constructed of reinforced concrete is the outermost perimeter wall. It is the limestone wall that everyone sees on the outside of the building. This article is primarily about the remainder of the 1,000,000 square feet of the lightwell walls which are now undergoing a complete Repair, Rehabilitation, and Protection program.

The Pentagon consists of five separate rings, each approximately 90 feet wide with approximately 30 feet between the rings. The space between the rings is known as the lightwells. Thus, we call the perimeter walls of each ring the lightwell walls. The lightwell walls, constructed of poured in place, reinforced concrete, are both bearing and shear walls.

www.structuremag.org...

reply to post by Thermo Klein


I don't think she did...

...So when the plane hit I told her, I said, "There was an American Airlines." I said, "That plane just hit something."...

...And my immediate thought was it hit the freeway, beacuse I couldn't judge how far it was around the building...

bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com...

All the witnesses saw a plane and they saw the fireball, no one saw the impact. Again the point of impact was hard to see from anywhere, other than the freeway where they staged the light poles and the taxi.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Thermo Klein

 

I don't think she did...

...So when the plane hit I told her, I said, "There was an American Airlines." I said, "That plane just hit something."...

...And my immediate thought was it hit the freeway, beacuse I couldn't judge how far it was around the building...

bluecollarrepublican.files.wordpress.com...

All the witnesses saw a plane and they saw the fireball, no one saw the impact. Again the point of impact was hard to see from anywhere, other than the freeway where they staged the light poles and the taxi.

It doesn't bother you at all that there is in fact no shortage of witnesses to a jetliner impacting the Pentagon :-

911research.wtc7.net...

But not a single witness to light poles or damaged taxi being staged ?

reply to post by Alfie1


the problem is that there are dozens of eyewitnesses that totally invalidate each other.... might be 12 people who saw a northern approach, one guy who saw a plane leave the Pentagon, another who saw the plane fly in but didn't see an explosion, while a video tape clearly shows an explosion... more people saw wreckage but it somehow vanished or was hidden for some reason.

Anyone can find myriad eyewitnesses to support their belief, whether the belief turns out to be true or not.

A LOT of people saw "a plane" flying near the Pentagon that day... not much agreement other than that.

One other thing is that there are some really messed up people who like to promote ignorange and mess with the facts, so some website might publish a faked list of people who were eyewitnesses to the taxi cab being hit by the pole... when in actuality they might not even exist.

Gotta stick to real, factual, verifiable evidence.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Gotta stick to real, factual, verifiable evidence.

edit on 24-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: relevant typo

Oh, you mean like easily photoshopped photographs? I posted the easily verifiable radar data from multiple ARSR long-range radars and 4 ASR short-range radars that tracked the plane all the way from Dulles into the Pentagon. Almost impossible to fake and backed up by as-it-happened air traffic control audios.

Yet even the photographs support an impact by a large (757) plane. The eyewitness accounts only support the objective evidence already in the record.

FAA Radar Records
84 RADES Radar CD

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
he does not say he didn't see an explosion, he simply didn't mention it....

reheat - you are a master of lies.

Thermo Klein: "he sees the plane go in, but doesn't see a fireball."
reheat: "he does not say he didn't see an explosion, he simply didn't mention it...."
The interview, page 6: "People have said they saw a fireball. I did not."

reheat you should be embarrassed man - you have NO INTEGRITY WHATSOEVER. Shame on you for trying to purposefully spread lies...

Only in truther world is a failure to read the 6th page of the Interview a lie. It wasn't merely a mistake, couldn't have been. Yes, I fully understand your need for projection. You've made several now and instead of readily admitting it, you've resisted and forced me to repeat the same thing over and over in multiple posts. Then the error is blamed on lack of finding a source when IN FACT, NO SOURCE EXISTS. That demonstrates INTENTIONAL EVASION.

If you persist with this kind of rhetoric, I will take the time go go back through the entire threads and post a detailed summary of your misdeeds in this area. One more projection and I WILL do it.

The difference is that I readily admit that I failed to read all the way to the 6th page of the interview and did not see that statement. Look back in the thread and see what you've done several times now. There is a distinct difference and it's not insignificant.

Lincoln Liebner stated that he had just parked in the South Parking Lot, obviously just coming to work. There are several obstacles in between that point and the impact point. Depending on exactly where he was perhaps even the corner of the building obstructed his view. That would not totally block the explosion, but it might explain why he didn't see it. Either that or you are attempting to imply there was no explosion. Or are you accusing him of inventing the whole thing?

I do suspect that some people who say they saw the impact only saw the aircraft until it was a few feet from the building and did not see the actual nose touch the limestone. Most folks know that fast moving aircraft don't levitate in mid air, so those witnessing an immediate explosion made a logical conclusion. There is no one anywhere remotely near the Pentagon who saw a huge aircraft fly under, around, or over the building.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


It simply isn't true that " there are dozens of eyewitnesses that totally invalidate each other " as you claimed.

There will always be differences when a large number of people witness a traumatic event but there is in fact a good deal of unanimity amongst the Pentagon witnesses as indicated by this analysis :-

911research.wtc7.net...

You will note, for example, that 23 witnesses identified the plane specifically as American Airlines and none identified any other airline.

The witnesses overwhelmingly testify to this basic story or parts of it. A large commercial jet came low and fast from the general direction of the Navy Annexe. It crashed into the Pentagon and there was a great fire-ball.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Gotta stick to real, factual, verifiable evidence.

Superficially, that is a correct statement. However, when examined in more detail verifiable evidence must be INTERPRETED to arrive at a logical conclusion.

In the case of the events of 9/11 there are far too many people attempting to analyze and interpret evidence who are NOT QUALIFIED to do so. Most of the events require some type of TECHNICAL EXPERTISE in a technical field in order to understand and properly interpret FACTS.

Then there is the problem of POLITICAL bias and a WORLDVIEW that interferes with the logical thought process. So even adhering to factual verifiable evidence is not the final answer. There are several other factors involved.

ETA: That's one major reason even after 9+ years many are still confused...

reply to post by Alfie1


your source is a 911 website with known bias toward the Original Story - the actual story you refer to is sourced to ONE website in the Netherlands which is not even operational any longer: 404 error.

a summation on some website, without sources, is worthless toward finding any proof in this.

reply to post by 911files


Just one more step in the possibilities (meaning I'm not stating this as fact, or that I have evidence, it is conjecture but definitely plausable) : if it were an inside job they would have put an electronic jammer of some sort and made the airplane invisible to radar. Remember I said conjecture - if they could plant explosives, they would have something as simple as jamming or blocking a radar signal.

Some theories are far-fetched and easily thrown out because they would take too many insiders, fantastical or ultra-complex ideas, mass projected-illusion, but adding an anti-radar device/method to a plane you would be using in a fly-by would not be a difficult thing for our military industrial insiders.

Conjecture and theorizing is a more valid attempt at reaching the truth than simply defending one original story without question.