Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I dont think the OP is making the case that there was no aircraft, his case is that it was an military drone rather than an airliner that strucked the Pentagon. So in the context of the opening post of this thread the testimony you provited is not disputed. Also there are ways to word an argument less venomously. That isnt directed at you exclusively.

edit on 29-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

I recognize that...but the problem is the same- we have eyewitness accounts of people specifically seeing a large passenger jet hitting the Pentagon, some of them specifically identifying the AA colors and seeing passengers through the windows. Moreover there are the passenger remains that were recovered, which would be rather difficult to explain using the cruise mussile/military drone/whatever scenario.

My point is that when such material is presented, the proponents of these alternative scenarios start inventing all sorts of absolutely ridiculous excuses for why they shouldn't have to believe it, such as everyone in a five mile radius of the Pentagon of being secret gov't disinformation agents, how gov't ninjas ran out onto the Pentagon lawn and planted aircraft wreckage in broad daylight, demands to see videos which they themselves admit may not even exist, and other far fetched accusations. I've caught TWO people here of deliberately manipulating eyewitness accounts to make it sound like they were sayign things they really weren't. Little children behave in this way.

If my frustration is leaking into my posts then this is my own human failing, but you should understand that my frustration isn't only simply out of trying to convince a bunch of mindless zealots that their conspiracy theories are (gasp) incorrect, It's also out of trying to stop them from dancing in the blood of the victims of 9/11 for their political agenda. Ted Olsen is lying to cover up his wife's murder, a taxi driver out in his cab is lying about a light pole hitting his cab, and so on. One poster here even claimed the govt murdered the passengers of 9/11, chopped up their bodies, loaded the body parts onto a cruise missile, and launched it at the Pentagon to plant the passenger remains.

You'll excuse me if I admit I am a human, and that I am thoroughly horrified at just how sick in the head this rampant conspiracy fantasia can get.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

YOU...yes, YOU...are making much ado about all these unreleased videos and we both know you're doing it becuase becuase you imagine they show something they don't want to reveal. It's repeatedly being proven the OTHER major reason why they're not being released is that they don't show anything worthwhile. Ergo, it's your responsibility to prove that isn't the case. If you can't do it then your "I want to see the videos" bit is nothing but a childish temper tantrum over not wanting to admit your conspiracy stories are wrong.

Again, along with being completely mistaken about many other things, you are pointing your finger at the wrong person. You claim Im making much ado, yet here is a link to my posts of the unreleased/unavailable camera footage.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and again here to which your last response was directed towards me.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, Dave, Im BEG you to show me where I am making such a huge fuss about this? The ball is in your court to make me look foolish and/or a liar.
Cause Im calling you out on your BS.

Good grief, stop the game playing already. I see right away you're manipulating and distorting what people saw for your own porposes. You say...

"Ken Ford? Saw a 2 engine prop plane hit through binoculars"

He didn't say a 2 engine prop plane. He said a 2 engine TURBOPROP plane.

My mistake. However, it just furthers along my point.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/319cf123fc60.jpg[/atsimg]

Cause this is a far cry from a 757.

I shouldn't have to tell you that arguing over the slight differences in their sillouettes is being frivolous, particularly when he would only have seen it for several seconds. I'm not going to waste my time on the remaining objections (I.E. people didn't see the actual crash itself) becuase it's patently obvious that you're pulling the exact stunt here too- when the plane banked down toward the Pentagon as it slipped out of view, the thing didn't just vanish into a rift in the space-time continuum. Like it or not, eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, and you cannot deny this regardless of how desperately you try.

So again I ask you Dave.
And which ones are we to believe?

Steve Anderson? He saw the wings hit the ground in front of the Pentagon.
John Bowman? He KNEW it was a bomb.
Mark Bright? He saw the plane hit
Lisa Burgess? She heard two blasts. One large and one smaller.
James Cissell? Claims the plane blurred past him yet saw faces of passengers.
Allen Cleveland? Didnt see 757 crash, but saw white cargo plane and then military jet (his testimony is quite curious all together)
Corley? Saw very little fire.
Steve DeChario? saw a small hole in the building. No tail. No Wings. Nothing.
Mike Dobbs? he didnt HEAR the crash
Penny Elgas? Saw the wings disappear INTO the Pentagon. And the tail 'slip' into the Pentagon.
Walker E Levy? Saw the nose of the plane come to a rest in the C ring. Crashed through the other walls in order to do so.
Ken Ford? Saw a 2 engine prop TURBOplane hit through binoculars
Gilah Goldsmith? Smelled cordite
Afework Hagos? saw the wings tilting up and down
Jerry Hanson? He heard a 'loud kathump'. Not what you would expect to hear.
Tom Hovis? saw the plane coming in from the North
Charles Krohn? saw a jet engine ricochet off the building into an adjacent parking lot. 10 minutes later heard a loud explsion.
William LaGasse? saw blinds down in the plane
William Middleton? saw the jet accelerate the last few hundred yards before impact
Terry Mitchell? claims the debris was NOT leftover aircraft
Peter Murphy? Heard the loudest noise he ever heard
Vin Narayanan? Pentagon walls held up like a champ. Plane nose curled up.
Obrien? Military plane
Mary Anne Owens? saw left wing clip the helipad. Saw fuselage hit ground and blow up
Steve Patterson? saw a commuter jet crash
Don Perkal? smelled cordite
Charlie Peterson? Two explosions
Frank Probst? saw starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blow apart
Ryan James? pilot tilted its wings, plane was moving slow
Noel Sepulveda? saw the plane drop its landing gear. Right engine hit high/ left-hit low.
Skarlet? airplane didn't crash. no debris. small hole in pentagon. seems plane banked up at last second
Mike Slater? seemed like a bomb went off
Jim Sutherland? saw a white 737
Tim Timmerman? saw the plane hit the ground
Keith Wheelhouse? saw plane similiar to C-130 flying directly above jet plane

NOTE: I CORRECTED KEN FORDS INFORMATION

I am not saying or implying anything other than the link to the witness's claims YOU provided, have inconsistencies. Some counter others. Some claim completely different things than the OS you so valiantly defend. Im ASKING, which of these testimonies do YOU WANT US to believe?

Its a pretty simple question.

I will ask again- which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites are you getting this crap from? You and I both know you're not coming up with this stuff on your own.

AGAIN. DAVE, Thanks for mentioning your catch phrase.

But to answer it....NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Get it, yet?

Thanks to Shure for highlighting this video of T. Carter from 2002. T. Carter was a Flight Attendant who regularly worked Flight 77 and was scheduled to fly on 9/11. She took the day off work to take her Father to hospital.

T.Carter also highlights that some of the hijackers had cased the flights before hand and had made video recordings.

Please watch the video in full.



Shure's original posting of this video.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some eyewitness accounts of the wreckage including a detailed account of what T. Carter revealed to friend
John Judge.

'She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane... She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell, an unpainted silver color that is unique to American Airline planes, and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white...
One area of fuselage had remaining window sections and the shape of the windows, curved squares not ovals, was also distinct to the 757's she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A logo, including parts of the tail of the plane. Smaller A/A logos and "American" logos are also on the planes and she saw parts of those...
She spent approximately 15 minutes in the crash area looking at parts of the wreckage, all of which she recognized as coming from a Boeing 757 American Airline plane, the same planes she flew regularly. She did not see any rubber, only metal pieces of fuselage, engine parts and sections of the inside of the plane"

From

www.911myths.com...

Also included in the webapage is an account from the Stonemasons who had to repair the damage.

www.masonrymagazine.com...

There was a memorial held on October 11 for the people who were killed," Bartram notes. "On October 12, we started taking the stone off the building. We took down approximately 2,400 pieces of stone, a lot of which had melted aluminum from the plane embedded in it. We took it all down in about 13 days.

TJ

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave, the trouble I'm seeing is that you repeatedly reference the 'hundred eyewitness accounts' in your own link. I read the testimonies in that link, and found them to be all over the board with their accounts. Some saw 737s, 747s, some saw a white plane, some saw silver, some saw it hit a helicopter, some saw it hit the pentagon, some saw an engine get torn off, some saw it glide in, some saw it yawing, some heard a rumble, some say it was quiet, some say the gear was down, some say the gear was up, some say it bounced off the pentagon wall, etc. Although the accounts are completely inconsistent, there is no question that a craft hit it. If it was indeed pitched to the left, then the imprint on the face of the pentagon does not line up. The 'line' of facial impact would have been at a 10-15 degree slant. If an engine was torn off, then it would have been located by other witnesses. But the witnesses who did not see the engine fall off, still saw it impact the pentagon and leave a phantom mark where the engine would have been. I'm not making this up or discrediting. I'm asking. This is not my testimony. It was in your link.
And if the plane assumably hit the pentagon at the 45 degree angle, then there would have been torsion and compaction, and a slight impact yaw since it was in a descent pattern. It follows the same principle as a racecar going 150 mph hitting a wall at a 45 degree angle. There would be impact rotation and more than likely, the tail section would have landed further away from the site of impact. Same with the left wing. Had the landing gear been down, the nosecone would be up near the 3rd floor and the tailsection would have hit higher. So, if the impact was located primarily at the 2nd floor, how does this explain the hole at ground level 3 rings in? I'm trying to fit the crash physics in with these testemonials.
I don't know if I'm a truther, a truster, or whatever. I don't feel the need to classify people into groups so they can be stereotyped. I'm just trying to find out. My questions are my own. I'm not a follower of Alex Jones, David Icke, or anybody else. I have a hard time understanding how half-truths and inconsistent eyewitness accounts add up.

Sounds like a reasonable presumption to me... Hell, if they can catch a thug doin his g thang in front of 7-11 with no witnesses except for a surveillance cam video reel.... Well, you just might think they're hiding something when one of the most highly surveilled buldings in the world gets PUMMELED BY A JUMBO FREAKIN JETLINER and has only one snippet to submit from one camera at one angle of what appears to be a missile. Geez think our tax dollars are goin to waste for their inferior cameras? Why couldn't they invest in the red light camera technology with images & video so clear you can't deny it was you runnin that light...Hmmm?

reply to post by OuttaTime
Congratulations on a good post. The OS is so weak it can't stand up under any scrutiny. Hope springs eternal.

I am afraid that 9/11 shares many things with the Kennedy assassination and other lies and deceptions that the U.S. government has perpetrated on the public.

The truth is out there but it is guarded and unless you are in the spotlight (to well known or famous) you will be discredited, made to appear crazy, labeled as a terrorist or simply eliminated if you can bring it to the masses.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Good grief, stop the game playing already. I see right away you're manipulating and distorting what people saw for your own porposes. You say...

"Ken Ford? Saw a 2 engine prop plane hit through binoculars"

But what he *really* said, and I posted the link so I know you've seen it, was...

"Ken Ford : One eyewitness, State Department employee Ken Ford, said he watched from the 15th floor of the State Department Annex, just across the Potomac River from the Pentagon. We were watching the airport through binoculars, Ford said, referring to Reagan National Airport, a short distance away. The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building. "

He didn't say a 2 engine prop plane. He said a 2 engine TURBOPROP plane. Here's what a turboprop plane looks like..

Typical turboprop plane

...and here's what a Boeing 757-200 series passenger jet looks like...

Boeing 757-200 series passenger jet

I shouldn't have to tell you that arguing over the slight differences in their sillouettes is being frivolous, particularly when he would only have seen it for several seconds. I'm not going to waste my time on the remaining objections (I.E. people didn't see the actual crash itself) becuase it's patently obvious that you're pulling the exact stunt here too- when the plane banked down toward the Pentagon as it slipped out of view, the thing didn't just vanish into a rift in the space-time continuum. Like it or not, eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, and you cannot deny this regardless of how desperately you try.

So Dave, Do you believe the story that WTC survivor EYE WITNESS Stanley Praimnath told?



Do you know who TIM TIMMERMAN is? Do you believe his testimony?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

What about this ? Beyond any reasonable doubt .

I am truly amazed that people still bring up CIT's stuff. What is it supposed to prove ? That people had different perceptions of the flight path of a jetliner speeding into the Pentagon ?

The central plank of CIT's theory, that the plane overflew the Pentagon, continues to be utterly unsupported.

and the central plank of the Governments OS that flight 77, 11, 175 and 93 were hi-jacked by muslims with box-cutters and crashed into anything, continues to be utterly unsupported as well... but since that is the Official Conspiracy THEORY that hasn't been proven, CIT's theory is really irrelevant for all intents and purposes even though as an alternative theory, it explains the evidence better than the OS.

The fact CIT alone has 13+ credible witnesses that agree on the NoC flight path prove beyond a doubt the governments OS flight path to be IMPOSSIBLE which also PROVES an intentional Deception of monumental proportions.

whats both sad and comical is you don't understand the significance or implications.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by TETRA.X

 

Thanks, Tetra. 25 pages and 'they' have not been able to derail this thread. Thanks to all of you other truthers for standing firm in your beliefs. The goon squad did all they could to derail us but impartial reasoning has prevailed. Dave's "over a hundred eyewitnesses" doesn't hold water against others who saw something quite different.

Give me an example of this, please, because up until now, you trusters who explicitely trust everything Dylan Avery and Alex Jones are shoveling out have either deliberately misrepresented the eyewitness accounts into making them appear they're saying things they're not, or, you simply say, "they're a pack of lies" before running away giggling. I'll make it easy for you. Here's a partial eyewitness testimony from Penny Elgas, an FDIC worker who was out on the highway next to the Pentagon as the plane passed right in front of her:

So go ahead, accuse Penny Elgas of being a secret gov't disinformation agent. I double dog dare you. In fact I TRIPLE dog dare you to contact her directly and accuse her to her face of being a secret gov't disinformation agent- she sits on the FDIC board in Washington, DC. A google search on her name reveals her telephone number over at the FDIC (which I won't post here becuase it's an ATS TOS violation).

It's one thing for you trusters to have great fun and slander honest people for the benefit of your conspiracy mongoring agenda, but it's another thing entirely to slander them directly to their face. You really have no credibility.

So DAVE, if witnesses used to sell the LIE about flight 77 are infallible, please explain why TED OLSENS story has been exposed and proven to have been a LIE. While your at it, please explain why he isn't in PRISON and the entire LIE about flight 77 continues with any re-investigation.

the implications of this ONE issue are profound and really all that one needs as EVIDENCE and PROOF that the OS is a LIE, Flight 77 didn't crash at the Pentagon, and 9/11 was an inside job.

only a fool or shill would attempt to deny the facts about TED OLSEN and continue defending the OS.

Originally posted by deviantamerican
Sounds like a reasonable presumption to me... Hell, if they can catch a thug doin his g thang in front of 7-11 with no witnesses except for a surveillance cam video reel....

If you ever see some thug "doin his g thang" at 500 mph and getting caught, do let us know since that will be the only way your example would ever be comparable.

That and I'm sure most of us would get some entertainment value of seeing the world's fastest thug.

Well, you just might think they're hiding something when one of the most highly surveilled buldings in the world gets PUMMELED BY A JUMBO FREAKIN JETLINER and has only one snippet to submit from one camera at one angle of what appears to be a missile.

Were any of the other cameras pointed at portions of the sky in that direction as the parking lot camera had to be? And if not, how in the world would you expect to catch a plane moving that fast otherwise? How do you know that the equipment the cameras used to record and the media it recorded to did not get destroyed in the explosion, fires, collapse, or the water from the fire trucks?

Why couldn't they invest in the red light camera technology with images & video so clear you can't deny it was you runnin that light...Hmmm?

As above, has a car ever been caught by a red light camera blowing through at 500 mph?

reply to post by Soloist

Were any of the other cameras pointed at portions of the sky in that direction as the parking lot camera had to be? And if not, how in the world would you expect to catch a plane moving that fast otherwise? How do you know that the equipment the cameras used to record and the media it recorded to did not get destroyed in the explosion, fires, collapse, or the water from the fire trucks?

Soloist, you do realize that all of your questions could be answered by a proper accounting from the Pentagon and the release of all the tapes.

You are essentially arguing the case for their release just as we are, even if unwittingly.

reply to post by Malcram


Let's say they DID somehow magically have footage of the plane, and it showed the terrorists flying it, while holding up their passports and waving to the camera....

Truthers would still not believe it. No matter what is done, no matter all the mountains of evidence that already exist, truthers will still keep chasing the non-existent rabbit down the hole. Excuses will be made, and "theories" will be changed, but it's still the same old same old.

Originally posted by mikelee

edit on 12/25/2010 by mikelee because: add pic and spelling.

why is it dated sept 12? from the footage of there own cctv?

reply to post by Ashyr


I suspect that someone has altered that image and changed the date. I don't ever recall the date stamp being on a white background on security tape photos.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Ashyr

 

I suspect that someone has altered that image and changed the date. I don't ever recall the date stamp being on a white background on security tape photos.

those who claim oh its just an error and simply and innocuous anomaly or "nothing to see here folks", only demonstrate the level of ignorance, lack of critical thinking skills and state of denial most are in which prevent the truth from reaching the masses more quickly and the perps being brought justice.

these images have been clearly tampered with and you'd think that alone would be enough to warrant a new investigation, but we're supposed to believe images from the PENTAGONs security system had the WRONG DATE time stamp? How convenient.

its just more evidence showing inside job from yet another mistake that was missed and how sloppy the Perps were with the logistical nightmare they thought could be explained away or suppressed.

Originally posted by Ashyr

Originally posted by mikelee

edit on 12/25/2010 by mikelee because: add pic and spelling.

why is it dated sept 12? from the footage of there own cctv?

It's the time stamp from the AVID used to edit the video footage the day after.

Also, notice the words "plane" and "impact" as well. Those could not have been on the footage (and weren't) at the time of the incident.

Originally posted by Soloist

Let's say they DID somehow magically have footage of the plane, and it showed the terrorists flying it, while holding up their passports and waving to the camera....

Truthers would still not believe it.

There have already been people in this thread who have said that they would accept the jetliner theory if they saw legitimate footage (as in footage which showed no signs of tampering).

No doubt some would still not believe, but you are wrong to generalize and claim no 'truther" would. I think that's just an excuse to claim there is no point in releasing the tapes.

Another point is that releasing the tapes would - if they showed a large jet plane - slow the rate at which people become "truthers". Their numbers are growing every day. More and more people are starting to question and reject the OS. Releasing footage of the plane - if they have it - would help prevent this, something you would surely welcome, seeing as you have such contempt for "truthers".

reply to post by mikelee


There are several youtube vids that show the head guy on the 911 commission flat out say it was a missile,,then switches real fast to plane.................good post,,,where is the damn plane in all the videos from convenience stores to their own?