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

reply to post by weedwhacker

It is a 15-page PDF document, with a great deal of corroborating EVIDENCE and FACTS....and includes a thorough contribution of facts from the more accurate (and additional last seconds) of the SSFDR decode.

They also made quite a few "assumptions" to reach their conclusssion..
Not all was fact...

If the government has NOTHING to hide, then why havnt they shown the security footage from ALL the posted cameras.

Come on, people. The damage fails to show ANY signs of impact where the wings flew in.

A pilot with novice training could of NEVER accomplished such a rapid decline, then perfectly leveling out just inches above the groud without EVER leaving any marks or other signs of ground damage. Go ahead, watch all the footage you want of 757 landings at airports.. Whenever a 757 lands, the nose is tilted up higher then the back wheels.. BUT.... this plane leveled out perfectly even with hardly any room to do so.

AGAIN... If they have NOTHING to hide, then why wont they just show us the footage?! JUST SHOW IT AND WE WILL ALL SHUT UP!!

reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO


You seem to be laboring under a number of misconceptions, regarding flying.

A pilot with novice training could of NEVER accomplished such a rapid decline....

I guess you mean "descent". NO, the rate of descent was perfectly normal. Nothing unusual about it at all. In fact, last time you flew on a commercial jet, odds are you experienced pretty much the same conditions About the only thing he (Hanjour) did that a professional wouldn't was over-banked a few degrees...to about 35 degrees, but only momentarily. Doesn't matter, airplane can handle it just fine...professionally, we just use 30 degrees as a limit, for passenger comfort.

.... then perfectly leveling out just inches above the groud...

Huh? You make it seem as if he flew level and low for a couple of miles, or something??

NO...it was a constant descent.....he levelled at just fractions of seconds before impact. A few/several feet above the ground, but still on a slightly downward trajectory to intersect the building at just about the first floor.

... without EVER leaving any marks or other signs of ground damage.

Because....henever HIT THE GROUND!! Hit a few obstructions....

Go ahead, watch all the footage you want of 757 landings at airports.. Whenever a 757 lands, the nose is tilted up higher then the back wheels..

? Yes, and know why? I'll see if you can figure it out, for yourself...if you think on it for a while......

BUT.... this plane leveled out perfectly even with hardly any room to do so.

There was plenty of room...obviously.

reply to post by weedwhacker

I guess you mean "descent". NO, the rate of descent was perfectly normal. Nothing unusual about it at all. In fact, last time you flew on a commercial jet, odds are you experienced pretty much the same conditions About the only thing he (Hanjour) did that a professional wouldn't was over-banked a few degrees...to about 35 degrees, but only momentarily. Doesn't matter, airplane can handle it just fine...professionally, we just use 30 degrees as a limit, for passenger comfort.

So was it a hoax that some at air traffic control thought it was a military craft judging by it's movements on radar??
And as I stated before, he was flying very low for more than a fraction of a second to take out 5 lamp poles..

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by Tallone

 

look.. Between the 2 of us, I am the only one that CAN produce any evidence.. All you can do is regurgitate "facts" you have swallowed from "truther" sites!

Whoa, right there stop. You mean you think you are having a private debate no one else is privy too? '' You mean between you and the potentially rational ATS readers. And no. You are not the only who can produce evidence.

Regurgitating facts is precisely what you do as evidence in a supported argument, that is, when your facts are derived from sources people trust.

Now if you don't trust my sources then that right there is a good place to counter my argument. However, the sources I use be they from "truther sites" or not are all verifiable, (1) because of their professional standing pilots and engineers affiliated with the official professional national organisations and (2) they actually present logical arguments based on empirical facts.

My argument in my three posts above is logical. To show it is not you would have to cite the illogical bit you take exception to.

Now lets look at your argument. Let me paraphrase you.

I am worked at 'X'. I was an eye witness on the day."I don't need to prove anything…"

I worked for Blackboard.com .. Our office was in the golden triangle of DC. 19th and L. I drove that route every day for 6years... I was there.. I saw it.. So did 2 others with me.. I dont need to prove anything to you.. NOTHING!
...
Admit it, you have far to much invested in denying a plane hit the Pentagon.

edit on 2/9/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)

Firstly, the place you worked at is only significant only if you can actually provide evidence you did infact work there. Ditto for the rest of your post. So you argument lacks logic.

Yes, you do need to verify you were actually there. Otherwise, to put it frankly, your argument is total BS. Now if a third party we could recognise said yes you were there on the day, that would go a long way to verifying your story. You don't have any verification and don't see the need to find any. You think that is good enough to convince. Your argument is not rational.

Your argument is not logical or rational. You are not doing too well there.

If I was to adopt your argument I could add this post note. I was actually in the Pentagon on the day it was supposed to be struck by flight 77. I can guarantee you that was no plane. How because I know.

How does that work for you? Convincing enough?

Or would you rather we go back to rational arguments supported by evidence from verifiable sites?

Now how about you actually reading the PDF by the chalatan /shill Dr Legge, and you come back here with something he actually states and we debate that.

The debunkers here like to claim all this garbage about being something they are not without providing any proof. Don't play into their little games.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by NWOwned
Yes but what if the evidence, 'the actual evidence in front of us' is Tainted, Planted and/or Missing? What then?

...then you need to show why it's tainted, planted, or missing, rather than just making up excuses that it's tainted, planted, or missing and then run away giggling.

We have hordes of eyewitnesses all saying it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, from motorists, people working in nearby buildings, and even an immigrant frm El Salvador tending the lawn across the street. Please point out how these people are "tainted, planted, or missing".

Then you might get a bunch of people examining Boeing 757 plane parts in a burned out cavity of the Pentagon thinking that indeed, "the evidence shows" a 757 crashed here! When really it only shows there were Boeing parts in the cavity.

Then you'd need to show an alternative reason how the aircraft parts...as well as the remains of the passengers...suddenly showed up in the middle of the Pentagon all in a blink of an eye.

Many have recounted the moment when they realized, suspected or were made to first question and wonder about 9/11.

Those in construction industries for instance with a working knowledge of steel towers watching the WTC collapse like that and thinking it was strange. Others knowing about aviation and the military wondering where NORAD was with 4 planes hijacked, why no interceptions? Still others hearing about a plane hitting the Pentagon and then finding out the government was withholding (or didn't have) video of the "attack".

For me, because I am a photography buff, it was the first pictures taken at the Pentagon after the 'impact'.

I've taken thousands and thousands of pictures, I carry a camera with me at all times. I have two that I use mainly and both are digital, have good batteries, and large SD memory chips. I've photographed a lot of things, people places and events. I have not only taken all these types of photos I've even constructed some. I sometimes, for bread and butter, do corporate type promotions, company picnics, golf tournaments etc., and as well, those 'employees gathered around another employee with his finger pointing at a whiteboard, monitor, prototype or product' type stuff.

I get the people to take the standard staged people poses you normally use for that type of thing etc.

So like, I not only know that type of thing when I see it (involving groups of individuals) I've actually directed and shot those very type of things.

Now, I looked at those Pentagon pics and they were very strange to me, very strange, yet very familiar.

Guess what I detected? Ya you guessed it - Staged Photographs!

I got my first digital camera in 1990, I literally have taken thousands of photographs, I'm not a professional photographer but I'm really really into it and I can tell that those group Pentagon photos right after the "crash" are 'doctored', as in - THEY'RE STAGED.

Those shots of 20 plus people on the lawn doing different stuff or just standing around (usually bending over, looking away, looking unnatural etc.) all staged.

You bet they're looking away too. Why? Because if the 9/11 Pentagon attack didn't involve a plane and people inside the Pentagon actually died and then you have these 100 'photographic actors' all out there milling about looking all official then they are involved in it and then that starts looking and sounding like Accessories to Murder. I'd look away too. You wouldn't find MY minivan up on the roadway - no sir. If that's the case.

The whole thing at the Pentagon was staged. In fact if you pull back and look at it it even looks LIKE a stage! I'm like put up some bandstand there in the middle and get like ACDC to come out and sing "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap!" Yeah.

So I go out to events with 2 cameras and I always try to get a lot of shots, the best shots, I always worry about not getting the best, I always taken an enormous amount too. But on 911 there was that guy Steve who 'happened' to be there on the ramp with his camera and like guess how many shots he got from that far away and in TOTAL? 13. And then he said he left because he "feared further attacks".

The point I'm trying to make here is - if a plane really did hit the Pentagon on 9/11 then why the elaborate photographic deception? Surely if it did happen you wouldn't need to 'stage' any kind of rescue attempt.

But one was staged and so, here we all are...

Cheers

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by loagun

 

You seem to me to be saying that you can't actually come up with any evidence that stands up but you just know in your "gut" that the US gov. was involved.

Well, I may be a sheep, as you say, but I need something more substantial than your gut instinct and I haven't seen it yet.

\


And where exactly is any of YOUR evidence??? You have none. You do not have one piece of evidence concerning anything to do with 9/11. All you have is your agreement with the folks that came up with the 9/11 Commission, the same people that sold your country right out from under your feet. You don't have anything except your agreement with George Bush.

And you say I have no evidence... Why don't you take your lazy degenerate eyes back some pages and compare my points to your 'NO I AGREE WITH WHATEVER IT SAYS IN THE 9/11 REPORT'. While you are right about my last post, I did offer no hard concrete evidence(much like the 9/11 Commission fails to hold either...), but I did offer theory of flight 77 being blown up just prior to hitting the Pentagon, to which you replied I can't bring I missile into this, and blah, blah, blah.

I still haven't read this supposed new evidence you said has now surfaced that puts flight 77 at the Pentagon. Why? Because as I said this topic is tired, and it's like arguing with 5 year olds. The "truther's" offer opinions, theories, and bring in facts to support their ideas, and 67 pages later are still being rebuttal with inhuman responses like 'if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon where did the hole come from?' 'how do YOU know how big a crash should BE??!' (hmmm I don't know, why don't you youtube an airliner crash genius....) 'there is new evidence that says in worlds flight 77 was at the Pentagon, and the fact that it's taken the government 10 years to write post it on line for me makes me believe them even more!'.

10 years later, 'yes the plane was there we have evidence'. 'SEE I TOLD YOU IT WAS THERE!' oh okay.....
bye.

reply to post by NWOwned
Great post! THE photograph that strikes me the most, is the one right after impact. I'm sorry I don't have the means of posting it, but that picture shows zero evidence of an airplane.

why is it all of you skeptics on ats like to say pics or it didn't happen, yet when it goes with your argument you guys cling to it. they can supposedly find dna evidence but the jet vaporized? same as shanksville minus the dna.


photographic evidence or it didn't happen the way the OS is reported.


and don't give me that "feds are carrying pieces away" crap. where are the engines, black boxes etc....

they have over 60+ angles and footage yet they give us only one that shows an explosion.

wake up people

reply to post by NWOwned


I think we had a heads up on the attack.. I dont think we stepped aside as a country, but believe that someone in a high position made it easier by inaction.

My cousin was on the USS Roosevelt and says, people on the ship talking immediately after 9/11 think there was a "strange delay" getting planes in the air. They also agree that we shot down 93.

I think we shot 93 down... What is easier for the public to stomach "We had to shoot it down" Our brave citizens took a stand and brought it down.

I don't get into the subject much, and most of my doubts are just opinions..

I think our Govt. used 9/11 as a stepping stone to go to war... I dont think Bin Laden had any Major roll in 9/11

reply to post by Tallone




Lets start here... How about this.. Lets start with Verifying I am who I say I am.. What do I need to produce to you, to prove this to you? What ever it is, within reason I will do..

THEN - This is where you will have to find someone with some intelligence to assist you.. Have your "handler" call Blackboard, I will supply the corporate #... They will act like they are doing a job reference call.. Human resources can then verify my position and employment dates..

I don't need for you to believe me, because like I have stated before, when we do prove I was exactly where I said I was that day, you will then call me a Govt. agent, or tell me I confused a missile with a jet plane..

I wonder how long before the Psych wards in hospitals are going to fill up to capacity, from folks that just can't take it anymore... Searching the internet, grasping at anything that resembles new "facts"... Grouping together, forming groups with no common end goal, just the desire to prove their dark little suspicions.. It's a growing problem that is only going to get worse.. I will bet the farm, in the coming years, this "problem" will have a name, treatable with meds.

I haven't read the whole thread, but it's original premise is one of the best I've seen on ATS. It asks why you might trust Legge's work in one area if you are so keen to discredit it in another. And in doing so it shows how shallow much of the TM's thinking is.

One can see Legge called a shill and a government agent on this very page. A man who co-authored one of the most significant documents in the Truher canon. And yet because he breaks from the Officila Truth Story by one degree he is cast out, unclean.

The same was true of Assange. A shining knight when it was thought he might corroborate 9/11 Truth. A pariah when he didn't. From clean to unclean in a matter of weeks.

These are not the actions and processes of a considered and thoughtful movement of enquiry, but of a cult.

Originally posted by NWOwned
I got my first digital camera in 1990, I literally have taken thousands of photographs, I'm not a professional photographer but I'm really really into it and I can tell that those group Pentagon photos right after the "crash" are 'doctored', as in - THEY'RE STAGED.

Those shots of 20 plus people on the lawn doing different stuff or just standing around (usually bending over, looking away, looking unnatural etc.) all staged.

You bet they're looking away too. Why? Because if the 9/11 Pentagon attack didn't involve a plane and people inside the Pentagon actually died and then you have these 100 'photographic actors' all out there milling about looking all official then they are involved in it and then that starts looking and sounding like Accessories to Murder. I'd look away too. You wouldn't find MY minivan up on the roadway - no sir. If that's the case.

Talk about a major WTF moment. Are you genuinely trying to tell me the photos of the Pentagon were staged because "people were doing different stuff or just standing around"?? Dude, you're not looking at the photo and seeing signs that it was staged. You want to believe the photo is staged so you look at it and make up excuses for why it was staged. It doesn't matter what the people were doing, you will still interpret it as a sign that it was staged regardless. The conversations would go like this:

-"The people in the photo are suspiciously looking a little TOO long at a hole in the building that isn't doing anything. The photo is obviously staged"

-"These people are looking at something on the ground rather than at the hole in the building. These people should have been staring at the hole nonstop even though it wasn't doing anything, so the photo is obviously staged."

-"These people aren't looking at the camera, but rather than at the hole. Forget what I said about staring at a hole nonstop- these people should have mentally picked up the fact they were being photographed by ESP and they should have turned around the moment the photo was taken. The photo is obviously staged".

-"These people are facing the camera when the photo was taken. Forget what I said about forgetting what I said about staring at a hole nonstop that isn't doing anything. They should have been staring at the hole that wasn't doing anything nonstop rather than facing the camera. The photo is obviously staged"

"And why are these people just suspiciously standing there staring at the hole that isn't doing anything? They should be moving around, tap dancing, anything than simply standing there. The photo is obviously staged".

"Why is that guy walking away from the hole that isn't doing anything? Forget what I said about forgetting what I said about forgetting what I said about staring at a hole that isn't doing anything. He should be standing there motionless staring at the the hole that isn't doing anything. The photo is obviously staged."

"The people at the Pentagon should have been staring nonstop at the hole that wasn't doing anything AND walking backwards while still staring nonstop at the hole that wasn't doing anything. When they mentally picked up the fact by ESP someone was taking their photo from behind they should have spontaneously held up a mirror for the camera to see the images of their faces, to prove they're real people. The photo is obviously staged.

"Hey, why is that guy suspiciously holding up a mirror to show the camera what his face looked like while walking backwards from the hole that isn't doing anything? It's almost as if someone conveniently knew we were going to question whether these people were real or not. The photo is obviously staged."

"Other than that, the photo is perfect in every way. That only means the photo is obviously staged."

If this, "The photo was obviously staged because [fill in the blank]" bit is the children's game you want to play, by all means, whatever floats your boat, but the rest of us need to rely on the facts, and the facts show that even your fellow truthers like Dr. Legge wants to present the evidence showing it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon...and you STILL don't want to believe it. You keep seeing "secret conspiracies" in everything you see like a Rorschach test.

I don't know what your intention was, but all you managed to do is provide me with yet another example for why what I'm saying is correct.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I haven't read the whole thread, but it's original premise is one of the best I've seen on ATS. It asks why you might trust Legge's work in one area if you are so keen to discredit it in another. And in doing so it shows how shallow much of the TM's thinking is.

One can see Legge called a shill and a government agent on this very page. A man who co-authored one of the most significant documents in the Truher canon. And yet because he breaks from the Officila Truth Story by one degree he is cast out, unclean.

The same was true of Assange. A shining knight when it was thought he might corroborate 9/11 Truth. A pariah when he didn't. From clean to unclean in a matter of weeks.

These are not the actions and processes of a considered and thoughtful movement of enquiry, but of a cult.

Good on you for not bothering to read the whole thread. A very large amount of it is made up of posts attempting to defend some well argued, and not so well argued attacks on Dr Legge's contribution to the Pentagon 9/11 debate on whether or not flight 77 crashed into the building.

You do need to read through the PDF though. Otherwise you are one more screaming supporter of Dr Legge with no argument other than he is right and no one should have the temerity to disagree with him, with no evidence to support such a position, and no argument of any kind whatsoever.

Its not entirely your fault. If ATS is to work as a peer review then contributors need to realise what that means. You need to point out what is wrong with the content of the contribution, in your case the content of the rebuttals to Dr Legge's PDF. You need to argue rationally and logically even if you don't supply evidence. A peer review can include requests to simply take the opinion of the writer as evidence enough, but then the writer does not hide their identity, they are verifiable as an expert source of information on the topic and so their word is enough.

The problem with Dr Legge's investigation is that it purports to be scientific but it is not. It has some science but consists in the main as an opinion piece. And furthermore and worse he purports to base his argument on evidence. In fact it is a provable misuse of data as evidence, in other words false evidence.

Here are more recent words from Dr Legge in response to the rebuttle to his article.
www.scienceof911.com.au...

A quote from that paper on that link.
"10. They are using an FAR to corroborate their claims of “Altimeter Error”… which is completely wrong. If they understood why it was wrong they would understand why their paper is garbage. It is true we referred to the wrong FAR. We used this to confirm the altimeter was working within its permitted error margin when the radio height system started working at about 2500 feet above ground on descent. Had we used the correct FAR we still would have found the altimeter was working within its permitted error margin, and the paper would have come to the same conclusion. Clearly this is a trivial error which we would have appreciated having pointed out, if it had been done in an appropriate manner. It will be interesting to see whether Balsamo ever admits that he was wrong in asserting that this error proved the paper to be rubbish.
My advice to Pilots for 9/11 Truth is that they should review their calculation of g-force and publish the findings that result. The hope would be that this would pave the way for establishment of a good working relationship with the many researchers who say there is no proof that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon."

Now not only did he not examine and test the counter arguments in the original, of which the missile is cited as the main counter argument which in fact it is the most convincing of the counter arguments, but he used evidence that was to be generous, a wee bit shonky. I pointed out where in my early post above. Here is another case in the quote. He admits in response to rebuttal issued by the experts (the real experts, the pilots and engineers) that he purposefully made up evidence to the extent he mislead about the nature of the data which is something you do not do unless you are a charlatan banking on the reviewer and reader accepting as fact your little lie. Its not actually a little lie. It is quite a large one and linked to several more in his PDF.

Dr Legge is a charlatan at best, and likely a shill which is worse in my book because he is paid to mislead you.

reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO

this plane leveled out perfectly even with hardly any room to do so.

AGAIN... If they have NOTHING to hide, then why wont they just show us the footage?! JUST SHOW IT AND WE WILL ALL SHUT UP!!

I don't get it - you've never seen footage of the plane impacting the building yet you seem to be able to describe it to a tee. You know everything - why do you need to see it?

PS - "They" won't show you the footage for the same reason "they" won't send you a purple Martian, it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Tallone

Its not entirely your fault.

Why thanks.

If ATS is to work as a peer review

I stopped reading at this point because I was bent double with laughter.

See, but this is actually all about peer review. You don't get that?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Tallone

If ATS is to work as a peer review

I stopped reading at this point because I was bent double with laughter.

Interesting.

I would have thought defenders of charlatans such as Dr Legge would at least try to avoid coming off on the thread as a snake oil seller themselves. Otherwise why the effort pitching a defense of Legge in the first place if you just end up looking like a huckster yourself?

I suppose apart from not reading the Dr Legge PDF before attempting to defend the charlatan and shill by attacking posters pointing to the indefensible fraud it is, you also never bothered to read the creed of the community you chose to become a part of.

"The simple yet effective motto of our membership is "deny ignorance", which signifies an effort to apply the principals of critical thought and peer review to the provocative topics covered within. More than a slogan, our members have embraced the motto as our collective cultural standard, demanding all to aspire to a higher standard."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

(The bold text added by me).

That's the creed fellow ATSrs who you apparently want to convince all follow whether they know it or not, simply by joining the community.

edit on 10-2-2011 by Tallone because: Added the bold text and reference to it.

Originally posted by g146541
my biggest problems are tht the hole and debris pile are still not big enough.
Have they increased in size from growth over 10 years by chance??
No??? Then i still smell rat.

Let me ask you... how many B757 aircraft crashes have you seen that hit granite construction blocks built to withstand bomb attacks? How can you make such an uninformed statement? The plane was screaming in at high speed and disintegrated on impact. Do you really think jet engines are built like diesel engines? There is a long solid shaft running through the jet motor (several) with light weight tubing, fans, condensers, etc. No engine block to knock a hole through the building. Airplanes are mostly aluminum and plastic which would vaporize when it hits rock at that speed, along with all the people (my bosses husband was on that plane and he's gone. He's not in some government detainment camp somewhere in Nebraska. He was VAPORIZED along with 99% of all the other people's bodies).
I don't think the american people were told the entire truth about all that transpired that morning. We probably never will be told (Go Wikileaks!) but it's time maybe to think about letting some of this go... You might sleep better.