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

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Resurrectio

 

Good grief! Another one, I was there, I saw the plane, I have all the facts?
Probably never went on public record. That is no different than me stating I was there, I saw a missal fired into the pentagon, I was sitting in a car looking out my window on the interstate. Your statement is not proof enough we are seeking physical evidence such as serial numbers of crashed debris to prove they belong to said plane. Anyone can make a claim. Most people searching for truth have little faith in “hearsay information,” the fact is ALL people tell lies when it is convenient to them.

You're saying it's harder to fake a serial number than a whole chain of dna testing?

Because they have the latter, and that isn't good enough for you. So it's difficult to see why serial numbers would be sufficient.

reply to post by Resurrectio


Allow me to say; thank you for sharing your story with us.

This is closest contact I have had with a first hand witness.

It is not my place to disagree or discredit your words in any manner.

I was not there, so I have to accept the words of the witnesses and media as to the events which took place. All the previous accounts seemed to be some how less personel.

Again, let me express my personal appreciation.

reply to post by hdutton


My intentions are not to convince anyone... I just like to explain why I get so angry about the pentagon "no plane" theory. In my mind, you can question, motive, and cause, but I know what my September 11th was, and no amount of "You must have mistaken the missile for a plane" will change my Sept. 11th.

When people are so positive about "no plane" it makes me question their detective skills on the rest of their theory, simple because I KNOW what I saw on Sept. 11th.

reply to post by Resurrectio


Resurrectio, just a few other questions... thanks.

That van in the pic, you claim it's yours, isn't that right? Like I would expect, having been there then seeing a photo, and like knowing your door was open, that you could be pretty sure of identifying your own van in the pic. Right? That's YOUR van right?

Or like, let's say I have the license plate numbers for several of the vehicles there on the ramp that day, if I were to run the plates of the van, it would come up with your name right and not Lady Gaga or something?! Right? That van was registered to you right? 'Shaun' right? Would you be ok with me running those plates?

You know, IF I had the numbers?

Now I'm just trying to visualize it as if I was there too, or like in the passenger seat even.

You say the plane went in front of the van left to right, seen first from the driver's window, across the windshield? (or not seen due to roof?) and then seen out passenger side window... again, just to be clear, sorry for the clarifications, but you are saying that not only did you see a plane cross in front of you, you and two friends, but that you actually saw the physical frame of it, nose, fuselage, wings and engines, all of it actually TOUCH the exterior of the building?

Touch it like if you went over there with your hand and slapped the concrete. Is that right? Yes?

Ok, about the light poles and plane trajectory.

Since you drove there a lot you knew there was an airport over yonder, it's probably not the first time you seen planes flying around around there right? Ok. So the van was moving at the first sight of the plane? You were driving, heard a sound, looked left, plane passes 40 yards in front over the roadway you are on yes? Ok.

What were you thinking? Was it like, "Man that plane is some low! Too damn low!" or "Hmm that's weird..." or Had you heard on the van radio about New York and knew there was an 'attack' underway? How good a look did you get of the plane? Was the gear up and did you think that was funny if it was just soon to land? Was the gear up? Was it going too fast IYO? Or was it rocking or banking or was it flat and straight in totally level?

About the light poles. The plane crossed the highway you were on right in front of you. Did you see it hit anything? Hear it hit anything? Did you have to swerve to avoid any light pole debris as you kept going coming to a safe stop? Did you see any light pole debris on the roadway?

Did you drive by Lloyd and his taxi cab? Did you see anything weird or damaged concerning light poles or other cars?

Sorry I'm just trying to visualize where you were in like relation to the light poles and the taxi cab. I have to dig up a photo and get out a ruler like you say and try and understand the topography of the roadway where the poles were damaged in relation to your stopped van and which way you were heading and the damaged taxi was heading... Like I'm trying to visualize... you kept on going a ways after the plane went in front of your van left to right? So you crossed the path of the plane (40 yards) and stopped beyond that? 80 yards? 200 yards? How far exactly did you travel after the plane went past?

Were you aware that there was damage to light poles and at least one car on the roadway that day, before you left the scene?

So anything at all about the light poles? Were you anywhere near Lloyd and his cab? Did you see any damage on the road or to other cars, or any light poles on the roadway? You got any weird strange related detail you could give me if you were giving an account? Anything?

Cheers

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

You're saying it's harder to fake a serial number than a whole chain of dna testing?

I never made such a ridiculous claim? You did.

DNA to what? From where, matched to whom?

reply to post by Resurrectio


There is no real evidents that a plane hit the pentagon. All we have is a bunch of photos posted on the internet, which could have been taken anywhere in the world and the governments word as if they don’t lie.

On record? If I did go on record, you and your fantasy friends would pick me apart and call me a liar, or tell me I don't know what I saw.. frankly, I am glad I never spoke to the news... Last thing I need is a bunch of fruit loops harassing me like they do to anyone, that has an account that differs from their delusion!

Wow! Everyone who doesn’t supports your story is a “fruit loops,” liars, "flash" phrases, "truth" super hero... and delusional. These are your words, am I correct? No wonder no one takes you seriously.

You are allowed to spout off BASELESS theories, but a witness, is not allowed to tell their story?

No one on ATS told you, that you cannot tell your story.

Tell me why, I should trust you? Tell me why I should believe you? Give me a good reason to believe you?
For all I know, you could be a paid disinformationist. paid to shill the OS, or you could be a person who has his own agenda perhaps, a belief system that my government could do no wrong. Perhaps you could be working for our government monitoring all of ATS discussions concerning 911 and could be paid to shill the truth.

Canadian Government Pays Organization To Troll Political Chat Forums

www.prisonplanet.com...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

BULLoney!!

I'll translate for the people at home..

Weedwhacker posted a video to prove the OS but when it is proven to the video is clearly WRONG.

There is nothing "wrong" with the video. Intelligent people can comprehend its point.

Weed, if it was a truther video you'd be doing your usual rants and about how it is crap and all wrong..

It IS crap and YOU know it....
Stop the BS and atleast admit it is WRONG.!!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by NWOwned

 

Off the top of my head....and from reading many different sources....(NOT just what is available online, on the InterWebz....there is a big, beautiful world out there, beyond your home office or (gag) basment....)...

From various sources....the best impression I glean from that exchange between Veep Cheney, and the unnamed "aide", witnessed by Sec. Mineta is.....Cheney had issued (absent Bush's presence, but possibly, I don't know, authorized) to the Secret Service an edict to "protect the House at all costs".

The "House", in that short hand context, of course refers to the White House.

MY take on all of this, from reading and putting pieces together, is the feeling of Cheney was of a desire that a target (which....I will get too....he HAD been briefed was approaching....AND he was well aware of the events that had just occurred up in NYC)....an incoming hijacked airplane towards Washington...BUT, there was absolutely NO WAY to determine its target.....out of so many obvious potentials?? Think about it.....

Cheney felt that, no matter what, the WH was NOT going to be hit on his "watch" (since POTUS was, technically, out of the loop, so to speak, at that moment...CHENEY was "on scene", if you will....

(This is how I see it...with me so far??)

I think what is LOST in that exchange that Mineta relates is the tension....unspoken, unknown (unless one could dip into Cheney's mind....ooooh!! Ugly idea!! I wouldn't even send my best friend Spock in there!!) ....


Anyway.....Cheney was as clueless to the actual intent of the inbound (AND, yes...it gets confusing here....I have to check the times. Because, I am NOT an expert regarding timelines....only other details. There are a lot of aspects to this, and a LOT of misinformation to sift through...).

The preceding, IF the Mineta account took place AFTER the reports of AAL 77 impacting the Pentagon....then, Cheney would have, obviously, expected any other hijacked rogue airplane headed towards DC as a possible WH "bomb". I happen to think that the Capitol Building was more likely....only because it would be much easier to spot from the air. BUT the WH does have an iconic target on it's back too....


NOW....foregoing (hopefully) understood....from Cheney's and Mineta's point-of-view, hot in the action, and lacking vital to-the-minute info (stuff we can only get from Monday Morning Quarterbacking, after the fact)....I thin that Cheney took it upon himself (and later, when they had the chance, "backed up" by the POTUS) to order the secret Service to authorize NORAD to communicate to ANY interceptors that would manage to actually engage any rogue airplanes (which NEVER occurred)....that "all necessary means" be employed to "protect the House"...(the White House)....to include deadly force. (AKA, a shoot-down), if necessary.


Of course.....ALL of the above is moot, isn't it??? The interceptors didn't have time....it was confusing and chaotic, in the beginning, and that ate up many minutes of uncertainty.

Added to the true fact that the USA defenses, at that time, were NOT directed nor geared inward!!! It took a great amount of personal effort on the part of those involved to modify the established "rules" (the 'ROE', too) in order to adapt to the ever-changing, and sometimes confusing, sequence of events.

Do you HONESTLY and TRULY believe this garbage of a fallacy?
Seriously.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

ON EDIT:

I see the computer depicted the very tippy-tip-tips of the wings continuing inside....sheesh! Is THAT your complaint???

There is no way the video recreation is expected to be 100% accurate to the EXACT circumstances.....not sure there is any computer in today's world capable of that. The "modeling" there may not have included the EXACT parameters for the buildings' facade, and columns and windows....and heights, etc.....the MAIN focus was on the central path of the primary mass, and the destruction there.

But, as in many other things....those who wish to nitpick, will pick nits....

edit on 15 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

So you want us to believe something that is not accurate?

---that was a rhetorical question.
Of course you do. Along with the OS.

reply to post by NWOwned


Again... I do not have a burning desire to make you believe me. Like I told the previous guy that was asking his loaded questions, I can prove where I worked and lived at the time. I can also prove that is my van in the pictures.

You need to ask yourself this question.... If I proved I lived just south of the pentagon, and worked just north of it...Then I prove that route is the most sensible route, and the one I took daily. Then I proved that was my van... What would that prove to you? Would that change anything for you? It wouldn't change anything for me, thats for sure... So what would be my motivation for going through this vetting process? To win a pissing match on ATS?

With that being said, you guys can go back to asking all of your questions about 9/11 that you'll never get a satisfying answer to. I hope one day you find the answer that will give you closure, though I doubt that will ever happen.

Assumptions:

“The harder you fight to hold on to specific assumptions, the more likely there's gold in letting go of them.”

reply to post by impressme

There is no real evidents that a plane hit the pentagon.

STOP Lying!!!! You should say "All the evidence in the world will not change my delusion"


They matched your deductive reasoning to that of a single cell organism! Dramatic much? Truthers seem to have this desperate need to be told "If you don't believe the OS your ...this and that....

NOBODY SAID THAT !!!!

Did I use the words Delusional, superhero, fruit loop and others? YES!!! Did I say "If you dont believe the OS you are ... blah blah blah?? Nope!
Get over yourself and learn to comprehend what you read.

reply to post by backinblack


Sorry....be specific and point out what YOU think is BS in the Purdue video.

Seems you're unable to comprehend its point? Using computer calculations to model what could be depicted, to the best of its ability....in a simplified manner, for ease of visualization. Events like that impact are incredibly chaotic, and every square centimeter of material can't be completely described down to the last millimeter.

In any case, I have an image of the impact area for the RIGHT wing outboard section:



IN fact, there are enough breaches to intuit a possible entry of some of the wing fragments.....in the case of the left wing I didn't have that image handy in my ATS Media...but, it really doesn't matter. The MAIN brunt and major breaching was in the central area....which Purdue tended to focus on most.


Here's another way to put this into real-world perspective:

If you took two identical cars....imagine them perfectly identical in every detail.... and set them up for a crash demonstration...high speed cameras running to capture every last bit of fragmented debris....and you arranged it to occur twice, with the speeds and angles and impact area exactly the same each time....do you honestly think that upon review of the footage, from both incidents, that the motion and pattern of debris fragmentation would be identical??

If not, can you think of reasons why?? It isn't hard to come up with rational explanations, when you think about it.

Furthermore....let's program a computer model, with all the details of this car crash example. Is there ANY computer (I'm guessing maybe a military grade, top secret, ultra-super computer isn't involved in this test) that can predict EVERY little piece with 100% accuracy, in each occurrence?

IF your computer model shows something different than the SAME real car impact, on film....would you then argue that the crash never happened, merely based on the differences??

reply to post by Resurrectio


Look man, I don't give 2 flying squirrels if a plane hit the Pentagon or not (though the way it was handled seems like not to me) ok? And if you been following along my posts I have said it's my observation that the Pentagon lawn group photos are 'staged'.

Now, I wasn't there, you claim to have been, so I mean no disrespect really, and I asked twice about the light poles and whether or not you actually saw plane metal impact Pentagon concrete. I mean the plane, by your own account, passed 40 yards in front of your van!! Did it hit any light poles that you noticed?!

So, it's YOU, check, it's your van, check, did you see the plane clip any light poles? And did you see it actually impact the wall?

Just answer those other two and I'll drop it.

I don't care about the plane, no plane thing, it's a distraction. What was Cheney saying to that aide... maybe he was ensuring the plane was enroute and was targeted to hit, I don't know yet. It could be elaborate disinfo or he could be preventing the air force from shooting it down and it could've been the one heading to the Pentagon.

It doesn't matter to me because the photos are clearly staged.

No plane hitting that largely emptied controlled access building area makes sense to me, having a plane hit there even makes sense to me. The fact that it was a controlled construction area and largely empty at the time is already plenty suspicious for an impact zone, plane or no plane, combined as I said, with all the later 'staging' etc.

So there could've been a plane etc. I'm up in the air about it lol. Did you see the plane hit any light poles though and did you and your friends see it actually impact the building?

Also how long did you stick around and how long before the traffic on that road got going again?

Like I said before, a simple truck driver carting away debris might not be "in on it". Right? So I'll give it to you, a random actual citizen on the road going to his regular job might not "be in on it". That's why I asked about Steve? I think 'Steve' is "in on it". So did you know, think, suspect or realize you may have been an average joe citizen in the middle of some kind of massive staged event for regular Joes and Janes everywhere to consume and recoil in horror over?

Just help me man with these few things as I try to visualize a plane hitting there since I know for a fact I wasn't there that day myself. (For had I been, there would've been way more pictures.)

Thanks.

Cheers

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by hdutton

 

My intentions are not to convince anyone... I just like to explain why I get so angry about the pentagon "no plane" theory. In my mind, you can question, motive, and cause, but I know what my September 11th was, and no amount of "You must have mistaken the missile for a plane" will change my Sept. 11th.

When people are so positive about "no plane" it makes me question their detective skills on the rest of their theory, simple because I KNOW what I saw on Sept. 11th.

"Not to beat a horse to death!"; and I read and understand what you wrote in your last reply to me. The only other question which I have relates to a video I had seen some time ago.

I am well aware that anyone can put anything the want to on youtube. I would just like to know from someone who was present on Sept. 11, 2001 and watched as the plane struck the pentagon, if this is the same plane which you saw?

I am, of course, aware that your vantage point was very different from that of the camera used here, but it should still be possible for you to confirm, that this is or is not what you were witness to on 9/11.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

The first vid is more explainatory than the second but they show essentially the same thing.

I would appreciate your most civilized reply.. If you don't mind.

reply to post by NWOwned


Sorry....but it seems a bit delusional to keep going on about this so-called "staging" of the images. They are random shots, of people in action!

Take any film....rent a movie, with a crowd scene....and freeze-frame at random points. Take a look at any newscast of train/car/airplane/bus crashes, etc. Freeze frame randomly.


Here....just one image of an airplane crash. (If we had more, we could then compile a sort of sequence of activity, in site). ANYONE could claim that the people, in this shot, appear "staged"! See? they are obviously "posed".... (sarcasm):




Look here, at another....the guy in the white shirt!! Obviously, he was "coached" and told to "point up at nothing" to make it look "convincing"!:



The kid in the red/white striped shirt isn't even looking the right way!!!

(more sarcasm...)

Sorry, but your claims of "staged" are ludicrous.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by NWOwned

 

Sorry....but it seems a bit delusional to keep going on about this so-called "staging" of the images. They are random shots, of people in action!

Take any film....rent a movie, with a crowd scene....and freeze-frame at random points. Take a look at any newscast of train/car/airplane/bus crashes, etc. Freeze frame randomly.


Here....just one image of an airplane crash. (If we had more, we could then compile a sort of sequence of activity, in site). ANYONE could claim that the people, in this shot, appear "staged"!

See? they are obviously "posed".... (sarcasm):




Look here, at another....the guy in the white shirt!! Obviously, he was "coached" and told to "point up at nothing" to make it look "convincing"!:



The kid in the red/white striped shirt isn't even looking the right way!!!

(more sarcasm...)

Sorry, but your claims of "staged" are ludicrous.

edit on 18 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Ha ha, you know Weed, I'm glad you think this is all pretty funny, tell you the truth I find discussing all this rather amusing too.

But you want to know what I find even more amusing? The fact that you used two photographs in your post there that don't look staged to me really, and not only that, they EACH have very clearly recognizable plane parts in them!!

I know, I know, what I'm saying about *some* Pentagon post crash group photos being 'staged' may seem ridiculous to you but think about this, if I were gonna "Stage" a fake crash at the Pentagon - at least my effort would include some visible plane parts!!

Just like the Real Thing clearly does!!!

I haven't learned how to post pics yet, but if I knew how I'd post some of the first shots of the Pentagon wall next to your two and then we could all play that Sesame Street, 'One of these things is not like the others, two of these things are kind of the same' game. Wouldn't that be fun!

Cheers

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

You're saying it's harder to fake a serial number than a whole chain of dna testing?

I never made such a ridiculous claim?

You did.

DNA to what? From where, matched to whom?

Whoosh, over your head as usual. It gets tiring having to explain stuff all the time, it really does.

What I meant was that there is a full record of DNA matches from the Pentagon. You must surely know this? And if you don't, I'm afraid your ignorance of it is not "evidence" of its lack of existence.

Obviously if you're aware of it you think this is fake. Which means that a powerful organisation was able to create false evidence of a chain of custody, lab work, match ups and papers written in conclusion.

You think it's easier to do that than fake up some bits of plane with serial numbers on? If you do, then I've no idea why. And if you don't, then why are you so keen on getting the serial numbers? Surely the conspirators would - in your reading of events - simply fake them?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Like I said:

DNA to what? From where, matched to whom?

Obviously if you're aware of it you think this is fake. Which means that a powerful organisation was able to create false evidence of a chain of custody, lab work, match ups and papers written in conclusion.

What I think doesn’t matter, and you do not know what I think?

You have not presented any evidence to back your allegations, except to make assumptions to what I “think.”

Originally posted by impressme

What I think doesn’t matter, and you do not know what I think?

I infer what you think from what you write. This isn't exactly an extraordinary piece of deductive reasoning. but I'll take you through it anyway.

- you want serial numbers for the plane parts that will match with flight 77

- you reject the thorough dna evidence that exists from the Pentagon. Either that or you're pretending it doesn't exist. I'm not sure which

- if the former, I don't understand why you would be comfortable with the provision of serial numbers when you believe that something as complex as dna testing can be faked. It would surely be easier to fake plane parts?

You have not presented any evidence to back your allegations, except to make assumptions to what I “think.”

I'm not making "allegations". And my assumptions are simple and logical. They're based on what you say you believe.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

What I think doesn’t matter, and you do not know what I think?



I infer what you think from what you write. This isn't exactly an extraordinary piece of deductive reasoning. but I'll take you through it anyway.

Again, you do not know what I think, unless you are a physic.

Like I said:

DNA to what? From where, matched to whom?

Your answer below:

you reject the thorough dna evidence that exists from the Pentagon. Either that or you're pretending it doesn't exist. I'm not sure which

I asked you a simple question from a past statement you made and you cannot, or will not answer it.

You, have demonstrated like many OS believers do, that your opinions are the facts based on assumptions and hearsay presentations from the main street media.

I asked you to what were the FBI comparing DNA to? This is a very simple question yet, you cannot give an answer.

Your only replies in the past two posts to me consist of what you think “I think” and nothing more.