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

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by DIDtm

 

How is it possible for you to claim that if Ressurectio saw the plane impact the Pentagon he was the only one that did ? Surely you can't be unaware of all the other witnesses who have said just that :-

911research.wtc7.net...

Because the witness testimony of what they saw or think they saw is all over the board.
Im not going to repeat it, as it has been mentioned in this thread and other threads countless times, both by me and by others.
With so many conflicting viewpoints, its hard to know who to believe.
Therefore, the only person, I am speaking/writing to directly that actually saw the plane supposedly hit the building is Ressurectio.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DIDtm

 

??? Well, perhaps you "conspiracy" theorists need to have another meeting, and get your agendas back in line....

....youre not going to like what you see...or what you dont see.
No singed grass, no debris.

How does that mesh with NWO's post, top of page #17?? The claim that ALL of the Pentagon exterior photos were "staged"? Which "side" are you on, anyway? Trying to sabotage your fellows??

In any case.....no, the grass wasn't "singed"? (Whatever difference that would make....how far do you think the heat of the fire would extend, anyhow?? Or, do you ALSO deny there were fires ???)

Secondly....again, with the "no debris" lies?? When does this end?? NWO claims the debris that WAS PHOTOGRAPHED was "staged" (somehow...invisible garden gnomes??) ... yet, here is the continued lying meme and mantra of "no debris".

Someone's been skipping meetings, I wonder......

edit on 12 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Dude, get off your horse and drink some water and eat some common sense.
Does NWO speak for me? No, he doesnt.
Although I respect his viewpoint and theory, I do not, nor do I have to go along with anyone elses statements.
I am of sound, rational, mind and can think for myself.
You know this, have been told a hundred plus times before that not everyone agrees with everyone elses theory.
The only people that dont follow this rule, are the 'TRUSTERS'...YOURSELF, GOD, etc...
You believe the rubbish the gov tells you and blindly follow it.
You like to post diagrams that your wholeheartedly believe tell the whole story...I dont follow your lead either.

However. NWO is speaking about the pictures that were taken in FRONT of the Pentagon.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, I guess his theory backs up mine as in...
now read slowly....not that I think your dumb (I dont by any means....I respect you and your theories, I just dont agree with them)................
The picture of the Pentagon was taken from afar. Not right up in front. So we are talking about two different photographers.
The one I am speaking of, show no debris,etc.
The picture I am comparing it to, is taken from up close...probably from the guy who shot 13 said pictures, that NWO is speaking of.
So, yes.....it most likely was either 'staged'...ORRRRRR...something else happened in between the two pictures being taken.
You tell me.
Oh...and answer my question............where is all the debris in the first picture...the one taken from afar....the one with the light posts still standing....
Im sure you will evade this in your response....Just making a note.

reply to post by NWOwned


We talked to a group of 5 people. The guy directly behind us in a work van and a husband,wife and 2 kids, until they allowed us to do a u turn back toward 395. None of the folks we talked to were taking pictures. And I couldn't tell you their names. My passengers were Eric R. and Rob H. and I am Shaun. Do you know this Steve personally? If he was in our area, at the time we were there, he would surely remember us..The guy behind us had Howard Stern show turned up so we could listen to what was happening.

reply to post by NWOwned


Looks as if you really haven't done any real in-depth online research (or any other kind, either?)

Is everything you judge this event by only what you have encountered from (mostly, I presume) "conspiracy" IX/XI sites?

But how come there is no video of the inside cavity? Or like 4 hours of tape of someone having shot the damage up close?

Well. funny you should ask! Sometime back, not sure if six or eight months (might be longer) a thread was started here on ATS that DID have some newly released videos....of exactly what you want. High quality, professional cameras (you can see them, in some scenes) as they documented the interior and exterior damage....al done BEFORE re-constriction and demolition were begun...but, AFTER some re-inforcements to stabilize were added, to make it safe to enter for that purpose. SOME of the FBI agents' faces are obscurred.

(Guess that will just increase your suspicions??) You mentioned the TV show :CSI"....as if you think THAT is "realty"?? You need to think about the real world...and the fact that occasionally some people in such duties will remain anonymous. As part of airline and aviation security training sessions we are sometimes shown videos of actual Federal Air Marshals conducting their mock drills, in mock airplanes, etc.....and THEY are wearing ski masks....because those training videos are distributed to many places, not just to us, who are serious about security. Of course when they with us, WE meet them...but they're undercover to the public....REAL world, man.


Sorry you can't tell the difference from an actual "staged" scene, and random candid shots of people in action.....

How come the pictures at the Pentagon are either from 200 feet or 2 feet? Where are the 15 foot photos?

Keep looking....they are there. You may have to look for some books, too....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by NWOwned

 

Looks as if you really haven't done any real in-depth online research (or any other kind, either?)

Is everything you judge this event by only what you have encountered from (mostly, I presume) "conspiracy" IX/XI sites?

But how come there is no video of the inside cavity? Or like 4 hours of tape of someone having shot the damage up close?

Well. funny you should ask! Sometime back, not sure if six or eight months (might be longer) a thread was started here on ATS that DID have some newly released videos....of exactly what you want. High quality, professional cameras (you can see them, in some scenes) as they documented the interior and exterior damage....al done BEFORE re-constriction and demolition were begun...but, AFTER some re-inforcements to stabilize were added, to make it safe to enter for that purpose. SOME of the FBI agents' faces are obscurred.

(Guess that will just increase your suspicions??) You mentioned the TV show :CSI"....as if you think THAT is "realty"?? You need to think about the real world...and the fact that occasionally some people in such duties will remain anonymous. As part of airline and aviation security training sessions we are sometimes shown videos of actual Federal Air Marshals conducting their mock drills, in mock airplanes, etc.....and THEY are wearing ski masks....because those training videos are distributed to many places, not just to us, who are serious about security. Of course when they with us, WE meet them...but they're undercover to the public....REAL world, man.


Sorry you can't tell the difference from an actual "staged" scene, and random candid shots of people in action.....

How come the pictures at the Pentagon are either from 200 feet or 2 feet? Where are the 15 foot photos?

Keep looking....they are there. You may have to look for some books, too....

What do you mean? Didn't I just ask Resurrectio if he had seen 'Steve'? There you go. Research Baby.

My thing is this. I just started looking into 9/11 again after like 3 or 4 years. I left it alone, I come back, and nothing is any different. Well, in Here I mean. There are plenty of changes and developments 'elsewhere' though.

But apart from that and apart from any 'real in-depth online research' which I may not have done and I might find dubious at best even when done at times by *others* from either camp. I will tell you I haven't really looked into it much no. I looked at the photos of that day by various photographers, the ones apparently legit enough to be present taking photographs, and in those instances, multiple instances, I detected staging.

A further note on 'staging'. I'm really only talking about the overall look of the photos themselves not necessarily a 'planted' piece of plane being in them that could also be a form of staging, of parts etc.

I've "staged" photos with people in them and had crowds 'acting' at things they weren't really doing to just "look busy". That's how these shots look to me. I've taken shots like that and I know it when I see it shot by others.

'random candid shots of people in action.....' OR 'deliberate staged shots of people looking busy....'

It's one or the other.

You may not want to exactly call that 'research', but it's looking at 'the evidence' and applying my extensive experience and common sense to them and reaching some specific kind of conclusion. The fact that you or others like you who share your 'take' on things may not like that doesn't matter to me in the least nor does it alter in any way my conclusion.

People being adamant about it not being staged and engaging me in posts, having perhaps done their own looking and their own "research" (which I don't question or argue with) and coming to the opposite conclusion to me, namely, that there is no staging there, and indicating that to me repeatedly, well, I have duly noted that already, that *some* don't think it's even a possibility etc.

Been there, noted that - not changed my mind though TYVM for your input.

Perhaps your 'research' is wrong or like, when you think about it, if you accept the OS then why even 'research' anything? What would be the point? It's the people who have done even a little bit of critical looking and thinking about 9/11 who would be expected to do more research. What real world 'research' was done on the WTC? I'll tell you, get ready, you might want to write this down, here it is: "19 muslim hijackers with boxcutters crashed 2 planes into the WTC, one plane per tower, the resulting fire and weakening of the steel structures plus gravity brought the whole thing down..." Got it? So, apparently, all the research necessary to explain 9/11 was already done on 9/11 by "Harley Guy."

As for me, I haven't really done any 'real in-depth online research' yet, except for what I note above, which any OS supporter type would, I expect, deride and dismiss out of hand as not being "real world" enough to even qualify.

I don't care.

I don't care if a plane hit the Pentagon, I don't care if one didn't. It makes absolutely no difference to me one way or the other.

Amazing isn't it?

I just looked at the photos post "crash" and they looked staged to me. That is all.

This I think is significant, in that, a lot of the 9/11 material gets bogged down by these opposite notions. Like did a plane hit or not? Did gravity or thermite bring down the WTC?

You know, paper or plastic?

You could say, "Yeah well, the whole staged or not staged is one of those things too."

Ah but see, the pictures we can look at. I did. And in doing so I determined to my satisfaction that they were staged.

Who knows what brought down building 7? There are differing theories, and we have slight clips but no photos of the damage alleged to exist that explains the official story of its collapse. So we have expensive state of the art professional cameras around but only long shots of the Pentagon that don't show much because there is obstruction from firehoses and smoke machines and we have alleged damage that there exists no professional photos of, just some "far away" (sound familiar) video clips of a building collapsing that wasn't even hit by an airplane.

Where are all the 'professional photos' of the extensive damage to WTC 7? Where indeed.

Obviously, you and I disagree. Who am I going to believe and take one's word for it? You, whom I do not know citing 'research' and pictures I've already determined are suspect, or me with my background and experience having already determined that the photos are suspect?

Well you can see, I expect, that it would be, and is, the latter.

Basically, the "look" of the photos is 'staged'. And I haven't even gotten into comparing two different photos from different angles, photographers, or the things each contain in them. YET. That assessment is not even based on comparison of the photographs and what may or may not be different between them. I'm firstly just talking about the 'look' of *some* photos. That was enough for me to come to the conclusion that YES, something funny was going on.

As for the FBI guy, your covert 'undercover' we don't tell anyone what we're doing scenario... lol. Look, the guy is wearing an FBI jacket in that photo and he must obviously know there's a photographer around!

I don't think he's trying all that hard to be undercover! Do you?

I never said I thought 'CSI' was reality, I said anyone can wear a jacket they can buy at the mall with big yellow letters on it. How do we, how do YOU, know the guy wearing the FBI jacket actually works for the FBI? You don't know he does even though he has a nice new jacket on.

Btw, the fact that you seem to twist and misinterpret what I wrote that I thought was fairly clear, makes me wonder a little about you.

Though, of course, my 'wondering' probably doesn't count at all toward being 'real evidence' about you, you know, in your world.

Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned


Weed:

'SOME of the FBI agents' faces are obscurred.'

---

Oh really? Gee, that's convenient... nice save attempt though with the whole covert undercover thing!!

Cheers

Originally posted by weedwhacker

(Guess that will just increase your suspicions??) You mentioned the TV show :CSI"....as if you think THAT is "realty"?? You need to think about the real world...and the fact that occasionally some people in such duties will remain anonymous. As part of airline and aviation security training sessions we are sometimes shown videos of actual Federal Air Marshals conducting their mock drills, in mock airplanes, etc.....and THEY are wearing ski masks....because those training videos are distributed to many places, not just to us, who are serious about security. Of course when they with us, WE meet them...but they're undercover to the public....REAL world, man.


Sorry you can't tell the difference from an actual "staged" scene, and random candid shots of people in action.....

Was thinking about what you said above and want to expand on it.

You see, of course I know about covert undercover Air Marshall activity that goes on now in the "Real World", man.

What you're failing to grasp though maybe is that it's just like you're saying, you're actually making my case for me and you don't even realize it.

For here we have a guy (Dave's pic) standing on the lawn of the Pentagon with his back to us wearing a nice FBI jacket with big yellow letters on it while he's photographed and while *others* around him 'appear' to be working mindfully on their appointed tasks... just like, um just like... JUST LIKE ON TV!! Just like on, wait for it... C-S-I.

That's basically what I'm saying, that the whole Pentagon thing looks way too CSI man.

Hey, try this little thought experiment right now, look at the picture again and imagine the letters don't say FBI but really say CSI instead, go on try it, now do you see what I'm saying? You want me to dig up a 'Staged' CSI crime scene image and compare?

So I'm sorry YOU can't tell the difference between "Reality" and what is likely Staged as per a film set or a TV show......

I live in a town that is aways filming something. I can't tell you how many times my route to work is cut off and I have to wait or go around because some damn fool film crew is filming some scenes for a movie or Hallmark special. All with lighting and cameras and food service and directors and oh ya - Actors and Extras!! Hmmm.

There is at least one TV show that films regularly here and they often use the streets and businesses for their production, hell they use the local people etc. I could be in their show! The point I'm making is that you don't know if the Pentagon scene post "crash" isn't just another episode of: 9/11 America - The Pentagon Episode! "Watch as agent Douglas surveys the crime scene and collects 'the evidence' and see how he gets an important tip from an anonymous poster on a mysterious conspiracy site... coming up next!"

Cheers

reply to post by weedwhacker


"It's staged baby. It's Staged!" That's like my, "9/11 was an inside job!" line.

Though I just want to note that by saying "it's staged" I'm not necessarily saying it's an 'inside job'.

You follow?

In Dave's signature line he quotes Clinton as saying 'It wasn't an inside job it was an Osama bin Laden job', by me saying "it's staged", all I'm really saying is it's 'staged' and that bin Laden is likely not the one who staged it.

Why? Because HE WOULDN'T STAGE IT.

Believers in the OS are always saying and thinking that there's no way it's an "inside job" because the U.S. Government wouldn't just up and kill 3000 of its own citizens. Ok. Let's go with that. I just want to point out that saying "it's staged" doesn't mean the government of the U.S. staged it...

I think 9/11 was used not for wars or the Patriot Act necessarily but for New World Order making.

Those people behind half a dozen conspiracies on the web about killing damn near everyone (Georgia Guidestones etc.), well THEY would think nothing, I'd expect, of killing 3000 Americans etc. Right? They want to reduce the population to 500 million. (Among other things.) So 7 Billion minus 500 million, er, so hey, 3000 is nothing when you do the math. What kind of agenda would you have to have, what would you have to be up to to just go ahead and stage an attack on America where Americans, some 3000, die in the scenario? (Btw, I don't know the validity or origin of the Georgia Guidestones, I'm just using it as an example of a group with a massive potentially nefarious agenda.)

Think. But Think Big. And I mean BIGGER than you have been thinking.

What would the government truly gain from doing it? We start wars and vote in lousy Acts and Laws all the time we don't need to stage anything to do it. No. Whoever did 9/11 has much much bigger fish to fry. 3000 to THEM is just a drop in the bucket. Whoever did 9/11 is EVIL with a capital E. Are you with me?

9/11 was a New World Order Operation Job.

So look at the 'staging' area again, look at the FBI guy, you sure he works for the FBI? You sure he's a U.S. Government employee? He looks like a plant to me in the center of that photo with that jacket on. It 'looks' like someone wanted to reassure us that they were on the case... then there's the firemen on the lawn spraying a big OBSCURING spray parallel to the hole in the Pentagon wall.

Boy I'm sure reassured there are firemen there. There was no real wreckage, move right up to the building with your fire truck and hose and I dunno - SPRAY DIRECTLY IN!

Keep in mind, I'm not a fireman though, just a civilian photography nut.

There's a shot of what looks like a pipe spewing fire on the ground behind a damaged car, on the left, firemen, on the right, more firemen. For all the fire behind the car, with it being on the ground and very near the gas tank, there is not the slightest hint of agitation or action demonstrated to being worried about that fire or any immediate effort to put the thing out. Strange for firemen. No? Are you sure they're really firemen? You think maybe they don't look agitated or worried because they know the fire is SAFE because it's coming out of that pipe/machine thingy there?!

Hey, don't you worry, the "firemen" there, why they got it all under CONTROL.

Peace

reply to post by NWOwned

Boy I'm sure reassured there are firemen there. There was no real wreckage, move right up to the building with your fire truck and hose and I dunno - SPRAY DIRECTLY IN!

Keep in mind, I'm not a fireman though, just a civilian photography nut.

Well I am a FF....

You do not shoot water directly into building unless have evacuated the building and are writing it off as total loss!

Called "exterior attack or operations" aka "surround and drown" where simply wetting down debris to reduce
sparks/embers and radiant heat to protect adjacent structures

FF try to work from the inside out pushing fire back over burned area to protect unburned area and extinguish the
fire.

Shooting water into a building pushes the fire deeper into the building and into the crews working inside

Been in structure when someone did this (at restuarant fire, someone saw fire shooting out roof . put nozzle of
ladder in hole and let 'er rip) we were inside when fire came down on me and rest of crew - had to beat it out
fast.

Get hold of book FIREFIGHT which goes into detail about Fire/rescue operations at Pentagon

Interviewed 150 FF - I suppose they were all actors? Right?

reply to post by NWOwned

So look at the 'staging' area again, look at the FBI guy, you sure he works for the FBI? You sure he's a U.S. Government employee? He looks like a plant to me in the center of that photo with that jacket on. It 'looks' like someone wanted to reassure us that they were on the case... then there's the firemen on the lawn spraying a big OBSCURING spray parallel to the hole in the Pentagon wall.

Police officers wear jackets with POLICE or FBI to identify them. Tells everyone else they are authorized to be
there, not some doofus wandering in off the street.

Its called scene control where permit only authorized personal on scene, dont want everyone wandering
around, getting in way, contaminating scene and destroying evidence

reply to post by thedman


It's true, as I state, I'm no fireman, and so I googled some info, turns out firefighters are supposed to use FOAM to put out aviation fuel fires... isn't that right?

So why do the Pentagon firefighters appear to be using only water?

Peace

reply to post by NWOwned


If not a FF why are complaining about how they fought the fire?

Foam is effective on pool fires where fuel is pooled and burning. the foam floats over the fuel smothering fire

Not effective if fuel is dispersed and burning in small pockets or on inclined surfaces where foam will run off

In this case water fog (mist of water droplets) to cool fire to below ignition points or dry chemical
(Purple K - potassium bicarbonate) is used

Notice big yellow fire apparatus parked in front of hole



That is ARFF (Aircraft rescue fire fighting) from Reagan National airport - ARFF are equipped with foam tanks
to mix foam/water solution and direct it on fire, Also contains large dry chem tanks in addition to normaL
fire hoses

Aricle on Arlington FD responding to Pentagon 9/11

arlingtonfirejournal.blogspot.com...

As said earlier get copy of FIREFIGHT and READ IT ! Will explain much of went on that day

reply to post by Tallone


Interesting that you make a distinction in your post between "peer review" and "real peer review".

Apparently ATS is capable of peer review, but only certain journals are capable of real peer review? It goes without saying, but I was actually only discussing the latter, since I'm not fully aware of what an unreal peer review might resemble.

I think you're a little confused about this. Which suggests you might be confused on other issues. Reader be aware.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

How do you trusters who explicitely trust everything these conspiracy web sites are putting out explain this?

what i do not understand is why the disbelievers of every theory they come up with believe something they wrote when it suits and then use 'it's official' in the title, why believe now?

it's easily explainable, people pick and choose what to believe based on their already made up belief.
that's why truster's trust and disbelievers don't but do if it agrees with their made up conclusion before hand.

Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by thedman

 

It's true, as I state, I'm no fireman, and so I googled some info, turns out firefighters are supposed to use FOAM to put out aviation fuel fires... isn't that right?

So why do the Pentagon firefighters appear to be using only water?

Peace

They are going to use what they have. Foam fire retardants are really only used on ships and airports, not commercial (or government) buildings unless the local fire departments have chemical plants in their area. There was a lot more stuff on fire than just fuel...

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by NWOwned

 

If not a FF why are complaining about how they fought the fire?

Foam is effective on pool fires where fuel is pooled and burning. the foam floats over the fuel smothering fire

Not effective if fuel is dispersed and burning in small pockets or on inclined surfaces where foam will run off

In this case water fog (mist of water droplets) to cool fire to below ignition points or dry chemical
(Purple K - potassium bicarbonate) is used

Notice big yellow fire apparatus parked in front of hole



That is ARFF (Aircraft rescue fire fighting) from Reagan National airport - ARFF are equipped with foam tanks
to mix foam/water solution and direct it on fire, Also contains large dry chem tanks in addition to normaL
fire hoses

Aricle on Arlington FD responding to Pentagon 9/11

arlingtonfirejournal.blogspot.com...

As said earlier get copy of FIREFIGHT and READ IT ! Will explain much of went on that day

Thanks for the info, in fact your post reminded me of Weedwhacker's in terms of style and data, (except lacking the many diagrams), very informative etc. So I find it comforting we seem to have aviation and firefighting covered in here in case I have any more questions or am wondering about some specific aspect.

Me, I don't fly or fight fires, I take pictures.

I'm not complaining, it's just as I said, I looked at the Pentagon post "crash" photos and, from an extensive photography background, they looked 'staged' to me.

Now as I said this is just the 'look' of certain released images. So that's my starting point.

Of course I realize many might just call that a mere conspiracy belief but I feel it's more based on knowledge and experience and instances over the course of time in my own life when even I have been involved in so called 'staging' scenarios and jobs for different businesses and promotion like stuff. I also have many photographer and film friends who have also done the same kind of work (so I've seen when others do it) and I generally am very comfortable in that area etc. I detect 'staging' in some photos and I would be very surprised if it turned out that I was wrong in that apprehension. Very surprised.

It's POSSIBLE I could be completely wrong in this, but so far, to me that seems UNLIKELY.

So the look of some photos is 'staged' to me. And that's one of those "Hey wait a minute... something is not right here..." things. It might occur to you on the job or seeing a fire on tv news where a FF grabs the wrong tool or just goes at it in the wrong way and you might be there or be watching and think, "Hey, something's not right." Or like Weed might be flying with a co-pilot and say, "Here you take over and land," And the guy starts pushing all the wrong buttons like he only knows how to 'fly' and never studied landings!! Hmmm.

So what exactly does my little 'Aha!' moment give me? It gives me the license, right and impetus to look even closer and to queston even more things.

In the photo I mention, the early one with the FF on the left spraying what 'looks like' water completely across the entire impact zone, two questions. Is that water? And, is that necessary, like IYO, that the spray be such as it is in extent and direction? Like if say, that was you in the photo and you "just got there" and a plane crashed there would you spray water like he is spraying in the same way that he is spraying it and for the same length of time? (Especially since most, if not all, of the 'plane' is reported to have actually entered the building?)

Is it water? Is it right? And is it necessary? IYO.

And would that be 'correct' procedure in the Pentagon's case?

I ask that because I am moving into 'Aha! Moment 2.0'

As in, if I detect there's apparent (to Me) staging in the look of some photos might there also be telltale 'errors' that might help to confirm the realization? Or to even prove it's all FAKE?

I dunno, let us have a look see.

When I talk about 'staging' I'm mostly talking about certain group photos. But it leads me to wonder see, were some of the pictures 'doctored' at all as well? And the stuff going on in the pics, is it "right"? And how would I even know you know?

I'm not a FF or a pilot for that matter. I'm not a member of FF's for 9/11 Truth or Pilots for 9/11 Truth, heck, I'm not even a member of Photograpers for 9/11 Truth if there even is such an organization. (Maybe I'll start one!)

How would I know what's right if I see it on my TV and it involves planes and firefighting? Or "terrorist attacks"?!! How many full blown terrorist attacks we seen on TV? How many have you seen? What should it even look like? You follow? Who would know that? Right? NOBODY.

And hey, well, that's convenient isn't it? Just saying...

I've been on a plane and I've seen a couple house and apartment fires and I've heard various news stories of terrorist attacks and suicide bombings on the news but that's it you see?

So I could have an 'Aha!, this ain't right' moment with some group photos and I could take that, take that 'suspicion' and start to look at and break down the rest of the pictures and even VIDEO shot that day and in the following days at the Pentagon.

But I have to be very very careful, for while I might be convinced initially, there's a danger of seeing something and coming up with an explanation for it, like the FF using the spray 'suspiciously' to cover the impact zone (We can't go on together with 'Suspicious Spray...' :@@ and it turning out to be or have a simple logical explanation for it. (Like you have to, in a fire, spray laterally first or something etc. Who knows? The public? Not likely.)

Like I related to Dave, who seemed to be proposing that I first had some damn fool conspiracy idea and that I was using that, or looking through that to make all the pictures and evidence 'fit' like. No, it's not that way at all. I looked at the pics First and they looked 'staged' and so second comes all the conspiracy material because if it's true that any of those photos are staged and/or faked and/or 'doctored' and/or the people in them are doing weird things or the wrong things or not what they should be doing, then that would effectively, in my mind, discount the Official Story about what happened.

To be honest, right NOW, I don't really know who did 9/11. But how would bin Laden and his Crew manage to 'stage' Pentagon lawn group photos? I ask myself over and over again. And an answer needs to be found for this question IMO because, I looked at the photos and they are 'Staged.'

For if Real Terrorists, traditional terrorists did 9/11 there would be no need for staging and trickery of any real sort. Or at all. Now would there? So I began to wonder is there more evidence of staging and photo trickery than I am even currently aware of?

So I started doing, like Weed suggested, some 'online in-depth research', I started using Google and typing things into it. And I got to tell you one thing, YOU DON'T, and I mean you really don't want to do any damn fool thing like type 'Fake Pentagon Firemen' or 'Fake Pentagon Photos' into Google or Youtube.

Don't do it you'll be Sorry! Because now I got a week or more of stuff to look at and sift through.

Looks like I got to get me out of this 'a plane officially hit the Pentagon' thread and go chat with some other people a bit closer to that of my personal specialty - photography.

Yes, I will look for and order FIREFIGHT and I will carefully examine it and get back to you.

Peace

well of course conspiracy websites say it was flight 77, with people like you, Dave, on here there is an ample vote for the official fairy tale. However everyone whose done the research knows it wasn't a plane that hit it. All you have to do is review the pentagon's own security video they released.

I will admit up front that I am not an expert in aviation.

I am not an expert in photography or much of anything else.

I am just a guy who keeps finding questions and seeking answers.

When I tried to point out a video at the bottom of the the web page of serendipity, I was told they were wrong on all counts.

My contention was the idea that they were showing "what we should have seen".

Since then, I have read some of those on these pages discuss how the plane "leveled out" within the last few feet of it's approach before stricking the penetgon.

O.K. Let's at a picture of a 757 ( I wish I knew how to do this ).

Does anyone else notice the engines being behind and below the nose of the plane?

I don't know exactly how far behind and below these engines are, but I don't see any "evidence" of them touching the ground.

If the hole in the wall of the pentegon is what I see at ground level, then the engines should have been below and behind whatever part of the plane made the hole in the wall.

I am sure some one can fully explain exactly how this could be, but I just can't figure it out.

reply to post by hdutton


Here:

I don't know exactly how far behind and below these engines are, but I don't see any "evidence" of them touching the ground.

If the hole in the wall of the pentegon is what I see at ground level, then the engines should have been below and behind whatever part of the plane made the hole in the wall.

I am sure some one can fully explain exactly how this could be, but I just can't figure it out.

Have a look:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2203e0b6b4c2.jpg[/atsimg]

As you see, they really don't project much below the belly of the fuselage. The airplane was almost level, but nevertheless had a slight downward trend, in the trajectory...to intersect as near the bottom of the ground floor, as it did. Furthermore, at those speeds, the airplane pitch attitude would be much different that you see at slower speeds....especially as seen on landing approaches.

There are good image diagrams of the facade of the Pentagon, with an outline superimposed....I didn't have it in my ATS Images album, so will go look for one to illustrate.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thank you. I really was not aware the bottom of the engines were so far off the ground.

I also suppose the speed of the plane would account for the 44+ foot tail section not even
showing up as a blur on the video.

Oh, I am not trying to cloud the discussion with details. I am just trying to learn to accept
some points which have so far escaped my fairly limited reasoning abilities.

I was not there so I am limited to making sense of those things which have been reported as
"evidence" and the conjecture of others much more learned than myself. I am well aware of
those, on both sides of every discussion, who would interject "red herrings" to further their own ends.

This makes for more work on my part, but it also makes the search for truth more interesting.