IT'S OFFICIAL: Even conspiracy web sites acknowledge it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by backinblack

 

Stupid...yes!.. Caused by arrogance.. yep!

Well for obvious reasons, they are not going to tell us how many or where the camears are..

But I would bet they had cameras in multiple locations..

Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

This is your second picture you linked to.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eb25c38e99c2.jpg[/atsimg]


I suppose this camera saw nothing, either.

reply to post by weedwhacker

The actual TIME at that height above the ground was only a matter of fractions of seconds. It was a constantly changing vertical path....and a shallowing descent path, near the final moments.

It flew very low long enough to take out 5 lamp poles..
That's more than a fraction of a second.....

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


Those aren't cameras... Now your going to tell everyone that lights are cameras.

Really? So cameras on bent pipe leaning out over the roof of a building, is a surveillance standard... Show me another application.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dr whatever , the facts are clear, no wreckage larger than that, that could have been carried into place, even at the cemetery, plus the hole size, plus the perfect hole threw many feet of concrete, go learn how a plane is made its paper thin , the fuselage no way could penetrate that much reinforced concrete, no way, plus the engines photo graphed plus , the trejectory, plus plus plus plus etc, this post is dis info, use your common sense. cruise missile or missile drop from plane, period.

reply to post by Resurrectio


Lights on bent pipe are normal applications ?? You could be right but your logic is lacking.

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Resurrectio

 

Lights on bent pipe are normal applications ?? You could be right but your logic is lacking.

I've seen many lights on bent poles..
But you'd expert the cameras to be partially hidden, or atleast some of them,,

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


Seeing as the actual impact spot is off to the right, chances are, that camera wouldnt show Flight 77.....IF the camera was actually in working condition.

reply to post by believeyoume


Just how much reinforced concrete do you think there was? Cannot wait to see your answer.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Tallone

 

I can only say....you seem to have put much thought into that post....BUT...

It completely ignores, yet again, the VAST mountains of evidence that support the Boeing 757.

The Flight Recorder (which, BTW, is at the heart of Mr. Legge's collaboration with Mr. Stutt).

And, of course.....all the rest, as already cited, in this thread. Eyewitnesses (ONE ATS member even contributed....with their PERSONAL eyewitness account!).

FAA radar.

FAA ATC.

Victim (crew and passenger, onboard the airplane) DNA.

Personal effects (of crew and/or passengers) recovered on scene.....

....etc.....


DENYING this evidence? What is it called?? I call it a "delusion". Is there a better term, to apply?

edit on 8 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Yes, a better term is knowledgeable! Unfortunately it doesn't apply to your position. Here's why.

It is good you bought up the flight recorder. That piece of evidence completely demolishes the currency aspect of Legge's 'paper' for me. By 'currency' I mean how up to date with the most current publications is his research.

The FDR data supposedly from flight 77 has been available via FIOA for a long while. It is totally useless as worthwhile supporting evidence because it cannot be verified.

You can read what FDR expert Dennis Cimino says for yourself here
pilotsfor911truth.org...

But very basically too much of the data needed for verification is missing. It could be related to a different plane entirely. That alone completely undermines the worth of data as supporting evidence. Legge knows this anyway. He fills in for the missing bits with conjecture.

"Another group which studied the FDR data claimed that it would have been impossible for the plane to pull out of the dive which was needed to arrive at the light poles and then level off to hit the Pentagon, as the g-force would produce a wing load greatly exceeding the structural strength of the plane. They assume the data finished close to the Pentagon and argue that the data file proves the official description of the flight false, apparently ignoring the alternative view that the many reports of the plane hitting the building might be indicating that there was a defect in the data."

What group precisely? and why exactly would anyone seeking a rational explanation not toss aside the data since as he admits there is a "defect" in it. A bloody big one! Look, the last sentence of the bit I quote from Legge constitutes a circular argument. That in itself can prove nothing at all. If the plane hit the building and that caused a defect in the data then the data would have a defect because the plane hit the building…. Inane.

Actually what has been claimed and what the learned Legge does not mention is that the data also can show is that it terminates when the plane was above the Pentagon! And anyway its a strawman argument, because he never refers you to who the "they" are. Basic stuff, to cite your source! He doesn't do that. Because I would guess it is he who has made that counter argument up just so he can shoot it down. Its college kids stuff for goodness sake. Anyway check my post above again to see Legge is consistent in applying fictitious counter arguments just so he can shoot them down and give his own inane conjecture a bit of leg up,

An example of exposed rump insurance engaged in by Legge is this.
"Three more subframes were recorded, one second each, bringing the time of the last recording to 9:37:52, 6 or 8 seconds later than the two official times of impact. We do not assert that this accurately represents the time of impact as the clock in the aircraft may have been incorrect."

Clearly Legge's 'science' allows him to prune the bits of evidence not fitting into his frame of perspective. If this flight recorder is indeed the centre piece of his evidence for his argument if you can call it that then he has to account for what it actually shows him.

I call it as I see it. He is a charlatan or a shill. Again, take your pick.

reply to post by weedwhacker


ME THINKS THEE PROTEST TOO MUCH !!!

end of line.

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


LOL...now how did I know you would mention him. So, do you want to maybe do some research on what he actually said that day....or should I burst your bubble??

Ah the heck with it, here goes....

This is the transcript where Mr McIntyre said.

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

transcripts.cnn.com...

One tiny little problem....its not the full quote, nor is it in its proper context. Here is the full quote, including the question that he was answering....

WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

So, Mr McIntyre was being asked about the report that the jet had hit the ground prior to hitting the Pentagon, his reply...

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

In other words, Mr McIntyre is stating that from his observation, Flight 77 did not hit the ground prior to hitting the building, but that its inital impact was the building itself.

Now, if you take a look at the beginning of his report, he makes this statement....

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy.
A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

Mr McIntyre clearly believes it was an airliner that hit the Pentagon. So back to my original challenge, name ONE reporter that was there who does not believe it was an airliner????

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by believeyoume

 

Just how much reinforced concrete do you think there was? Cannot wait to see your answer.....

They don't talk specifics for security reasons but they reported that the Pentagon was built very well..

Several structural features, including steel-reinforced columns, helped the 60-year-old Pentagon withstand the Sept. 11 attacks relatively well, a team of engineers said Thursday.


The Pentagon's strong structural features would be especially easy, and relatively cheap, to include in construction plans for new buildings, Mlakar said. They are not only important in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack, he added, but would also help prevent damage in a less serious scenario, such as a car crashing into the outer wall of a building.

www.govexec.com...

reply to post by leftydave


If you're going to MIS-quote Shakespeare....

Oh, what's the point????

Sorry if the neatly-pre-packaged (former) "conspiracy" dream vaporizes in front of you, as it was such an (apparently) long-cherished dream and delusion.

Hey, it is YOUR nightmare!! Enjoy! Savor it!!

Meanwhile, rest of us will continue in reality, and stay alert to actual dangers, not the ones imagined......

I think we are just moving into a new phase of 9/11 truth. We have now entered the era of the limited hangout, or half-truth. Yes thermite in a situation where there is still a lot of ambiguity and the possibility of scapegoating to shield the government, but a firm stand on Flight 77, where the slightest slip puts the government in the prisoner's dock in court.

Also, the idea of GoodOl'Dave, the OP, looking out for the best interests of the truth movement is not reassuring to anyone familiar with his "body of work".

reply to post by vipertech0596


From your quote it doesn't sound like he believes a 757 hit the pentagon at all..!!

The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Before the Pentagon Collapsed... The hole was 14 to 16ft wide. Windows on either side were NOT busted out! In front of the HOLE a spool of cable lay perfectly where it was laid to begin with. The missile that went threw the RINGS of the Pentagon is the only object that could inflict the damage that was done. Had a plane hit...well... at this point I'm hoping most of you can use your heads!!

People that still believe the official story are dis-info Agents. They actually get paid to troll around boards and try to confuse you! People that sit and argue with these people all day long, especially after
YOU realize who they are is just ridiculous!!! Your just as bad and annoying as the trolls.
The others that still believe the official story are not on the Internet trolling sites to argue with you. They're trying to find out if Lindsey's going down for Grand Theft!

For those that can't make a point without plummeting us with ALL YOUR cold hard facts... wow.. take a short head course or something... learn how to cut... learn how to keep it *simple* stupid... k? lol

reply to post by backinblack


Pentagon building performance report, discusses the composition of the exterior wall.

www.fire.nist.gov...

In addition, I would recommened "The Pentagon: A History by Steve Vogel". It encompasses the original construction through the reconstruction following Sept 11. Has a couple of interesting tidbits that they discovered about the brick wall that was behind the limestone. Tidbits that show the exterior wall wasnt as strong as originally thought.

reply to post by tracehd1

People that still believe the official story are dis-info Agents. They actually get paid to troll around boards and try to confuse you! People that sit and argue with these people all day long,

Simple head count....Count the flags...Only 15 of them here..

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by backinblack

 

Pentagon building performance report, discusses the composition of the exterior wall.

www.fire.nist.gov...

In addition, I would recommened "The Pentagon: A History by Steve Vogel". It encompasses the original construction through the reconstruction following Sept 11. Has a couple of interesting tidbits that they discovered about the brick wall that was behind the limestone. Tidbits that show the exterior wall wasnt as strong as originally thought.

So you disagree with the report I quoted??