Aircraft in Pentagon security camera video

[wizard61]

...I am not going to indulge this childish I-run-the-site-so-every-argument-must-go-my-way-or-else type posturing.

Shame on you!

Editor does not behave like this, your claim underscores your lack of argument.

Abuse of power is common, and so when a false accusation such as this one is made good people need to speak out. You are incorrect and you show poor taste as well.

But please continue in other places, conspiracy theories are very effective, in a negative sort of way.

 

[WouldBe]

There are questions of much harder evidence such as impact hole size/identifiable debris/missing wings which are of much greater import to me.

What about the fact that the black blob with the airplane outline is way too big to be an A3 fighter aircraft?

What about the fact that the mystery object being carried away from the pentagon, being about 5' square, is way too big to be from a cruise missile?

If a cruise missile had hit the pentagon just how much of the missile do you think would be left to be identifiable?

 

[1927]

Can't you see how much of a bully editor is? Just look at his last post... Jeez...

the thing is 1927, we've been over the eyewitness reports at the Pentagon many, many times. They differ substantially and as such, I don't base my belief on what happened there on any them. There are questions of much harder evidence such as impact hole size/identifiable debris/missing wings which are of much greater import to me.

But this is editor's tactic, he will keep hammering exactly the same point over and over again, and demand that you answer him, forgetting that you already have perhaps fifty times already. The result is, unsurprisingly, an entirely meaningless thread.

This time however, I've spun it around by producing a fantastic eyewitness account of basement devastation in the WTC, so he is getting uptight much faster than usual.

That wasn't a firefighter - but here is one, Louie Cacchioli, of twenty years experience

1.I dont think the editor is being a bully at all,just using his editorial authority to attempt to ensure that this website,which is after all his baby,does not become weighed down with the rantings of fruitloops.

2.As has been pointed out to you several times in this thread,you started the debate about the plane/miisile in this thread but have not been prepared to accept any of the posters whpo have shown that there ARe eye witness accounts to suggest it was a plane.But not one eye witness account to suggest any other cause of the explosion at the Pentagon.OK so you believe that the hole is far too small.thats as maybe but considering the overall evidence that it was a plane and the total lack of eveidence of anything else I think you just have to accept that it was a freak event that somehow didnt have the effect one would expect,it happens!

3.You produce an eye witness whixh you claim is a firefighter to events at a totally different location,which has nothing to do with the thread in question and expect us to believe that,even tho it transpires that your witness is not a firefighter after all,which u subsequently admit.

4.These threads are only meaningless because as far as I can see you dont have any actual evidence of anything other than the accepted official view of what happened but continue to bang away with your ideas and refuse to answer satisfactorily any questioning that posters subject you too .

 

[Jazzz]

What about the fact that the black blob with the airplane outline is way too big to be an A3 fighter aircraft?

What about the fact that the mystery object being carried away from the pentagon, being about 5' square, is way too big to be from a cruise missile?

If a cruise missile had hit the pentagon just how much of the missile do you think would be left to be identifiable?

1) I don't think it is too big at all.

2) You can't see what's under the blue cover, so how do you know it's 5ft square?

3) Not much, but perhaps some. Or perhaps it could be identifiable aircraft debris. My point is that something was brought out under wraps - what? Meanwhile we don't have a single piece that has been officially identified as coming from a 757.

 

[Stigmata]

Meanwhile we don't have a single piece that has been officially identified as coming from a 757.

Explain this then. And yes, the second one IS from the Pentagon wreckage.

 

[Jazzz]

1927

fruitloops?

Fruitloops such as the distinguished lawyer Stanley Hilton whose lawsuit against Bush is on behalf of 400 family members of 9-11 victims?

Fruitloops such as Andreas Von Buelow, German cabinet minister and parliamentarian of nineteen years experience who was in charge of overseeing their secret services?

don't make me laugh.

How many times do I have to point out that many eyewitness reports at the Pentagon are inconsistent with the official story?

I don't cherry pick the ones I like and post them ad infinitum.

Nor do I threaten to bin threads because someone has me on their ignore list.

 

[WouldBe]

1) I don't think it is too big at all.

2) You can't see what's under the blue cover, so how do you know it's 5ft square?

1. Simply compare the size of the 'aircraft' with the height of the pentagon wall. It works out at about 55ft high. The height of a 757 is only 44ft and an A3 must be a lot smaller than that.

2. Unless the blue cover is floating over the object rather than draped over it, it is nearly as large as the people carrying it and appears to be squareish. Hence my estimate of 5' assuming the people are around 6' tall.

 

[Jazzz]

1. Simply compare the size of the 'aircraft' with the height of the pentagon wall. It works out at about 55ft high. The height of a 757 is only 44ft and an A3 must be a lot smaller than that.

To me, the supposed aircraft looks at most a quarter of the height of the Pentagon wall. Which would rule out it being a 757.

2. Unless the blue cover is floating over the object rather than draped over it, it is nearly as large as the people carrying it and appears to be squareish. Hence my estimate of 5' assuming the people are around 6' tall.

As it looks very neat, I would presume the blue cover is indeed around a frame.

 

[Jazzz]

Explain this then. And yes, the second one IS from the Pentagon wreckage.

I'm interested in this, can you supply the article from which you taken the pictures? Thing is, they are from whatreallyhappened.com - a site that generally runs counter to the official story of 9-11.

 

[Stigmata]

I'm interested in this, can you supply the article from which you taken the pictures? Thing is, they are from whatreallyhappened.com - a site that generally runs counter to the official story of 9-11.

Funnily enough, that's where I got them from. Their conspiracy theory is that it was an Israeli plot or some bollocks. However, they don't dispute the existence of the Pentagon plane. What agenda could they have for denying it?

 

[Jazzz]

Funnily enough, that's where I got them from. Their conspiracy theory is that it was an Israeli plot or some bollocks. However, they don't dispute the existence of the Pentagon plane. What agenda could they have for denying it?

I don't dispute the existence of a Pentagon plane either. Do you have their source article for those pics? I haven't seen them before.

 

[laptop]

For anyone who feels like a serious dose of wierdness, here's one conspiracy theorist bitterly attacking the rest - including Stanley Hilton - for promoting (differently) odd theories to distract attention from his odd theory...

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

* Unsubscribes from reality *

 

[editor]

4.These threads are only meaningless because as far as I can see you dont have any actual evidence of anything other than the accepted official view of what happened but continue to bang away with your ideas and refuse to answer satisfactorily any questioning that posters subject you too .

You've got it in one there.

DrJ constantly dismisses any hard evidence he doesn't like and simply keeps on repeating his wild claims. And when pushed for an answer on a tricky question, he changes the subject.

He started this tedious thread and still won't answer these entirely reasonable and highly relevant questions:

"I'd like you to explain why you think it wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon when there's a host of credible, independent eye witnesses saying that's exactly what they saw.

But if you're going to insist that it was a missile, perhaps you might elaborate as to why not a living soul saw either the jet fighter or the missile, explain who the suicidal pilot was and offer an opinion as to what happened to the original American Airlines plane, its passengers and flight crew and how they faked the phone call from that plane".

If he can't produce anything approaching credible evidence to support his claims or add anything new to the festering pile of equally fact-free speculation currently sitting in the bin, there's not much point continuing this (non) debate.

 

[Jazzz]

Eyewitness reports are not 'hard' evidence, editor

Since this is the first 9-11 thread I have started for quite some time, and seeing as you love eyewitness reports so much, it's perfectly reasonable to produce the account of the WTC worker who heard explosions and then saw the WTC basement reduced to rubble. Which has not been posted before on these boards.

I'll happily concede that a pink elephant hit the Pentagon if you would likewise concede that there were underground detonations in the WTC.

 

[Jazzz]

there's not much point continuing this (non) debate.

Amazing chutzpah considering that you bang on demanding that I answer your questions

 

[editor]

Eyewitness reports are not 'hard' evidence, editor

Compared to the fanciful, fact-free fluff you've produced, the independent eye witness reports add up to a 1,000 ton block of lead.

Are you ever going to answer my questions, or was starting this thread simply an exercise in evasion and self delusion?

 

[Lock&Light]

Amazing chutzpah considering that you bang on demanding that I answer your questions

It is my impression that the editor has, for sometime now, been demanding that you stop starting these fruitloopy threads. If you insist on doing so, then don't make any demands on the editor.

 

[1927]

Ladies and gentlemen I have discovered some bad news for DrJ,but sure he wont admit that it rather pisses all over his theory! But it comes from a source I believe he is usually quite happy to accept as fact.
Apologies if this goes against the rules but hope you all wont mind if I c&p as i thought this was too good to be true!!

eye witness accounts of passenger plane hitting Pentagon even whatreallyhappened concludes "we might just consider this case closed"

It goes on to say "In response to the question of "where is the wreckage of the plane", the answer is that much of the wreckage slid into the ground floor of the Pentagon. It slid INTO the building, into the first floor space, starting a fire in the first floor, whereupon the upper floors later collapsed down onto the remains of the aircraft. Most of the aircraft wreckage is therefore under the collapsed roof section ....
Only in Warner Brothers cartoons does the Coyote leave a cookie-cutter outline of himself as he crashes into the rock face. In the real world (someplace that the "pod people" need to spend more time in) collisions are more complex. Airplanes do not make clean outline holes in buildings they collide with any more than cars make clean outline holes in walls they collide with. The Pentagon, built mostly of wood and concrete, and in that one section having been recently reinforced, is a heavy and solid object. Jet aircraft, designed to be able to fly, are very thin and lightweight. They are, if you think about it, mostly filled with air, like an aluminum balloon. They are not designed to penetrate other objects or to remain intact while doing so. "

You can find that little lot and morehere


Maybe he will shut up now,but somehow I doubt it!But we might just consider this matter closed!

 

[editor]

eye witness accounts of passenger plane hitting Pentagon even whatreallyhappened concludes "we might just consider this case closed"

With even conspiracy sites no longer backing his bonkers claims, I wonder if DrJ will now admit - once and for all - that his invisible missile/fighter jet theory is indeed a complete load of old cobblers and will now desist from starting any more tedious threads on the topic.

Well, I can dream....

 

[1927]

With even conspiracy sites no longer backing his claims, I wonder if DrJ will now admit - once and for all - that his invisible missile/fighter jet theory is indeed a complete load of old conspiracy cobblers and will now desist from starting any more tedious threads on the topic.

Well, I can dream....

If nothing else I think an immediate visit to the bin is more than justified if this crops up again!

 

[Jazzz]

Ladies and gentlemen I have discovered some bad news for DrJ,but sure he wont admit that it rather pisses all over his theory! But it comes from a source I believe he is usually quite happy to accept as fact.
Apologies if this goes against the rules but hope you all wont mind if I c&p as i thought this was too good to be true!!

1927, I will always have time for well argued pieces from whichever side and there are elements to that article (based on the Purdue university simulation) that have caused me to reevaluate some arguments, such as the missing debris.

At present though, that article has not caused me to change my mind. I will address it tomorrow as it's late and I've been playing scrabble. Note that I have never been a 'no plane' person. The questions as to whether there was a plane, or whether flight 77 hit the Pentagon, are not the same at all.

But consider this - what does it say when you are producing 9-11 conspiracy sites to make your argument for you? Who are the ones trying to piece together to truth here?

Yes, there are different factions within those trying to ascertain to truth of what happened on 9-11. The only way that they can help each other out is in the spirit of open discussion.

Unfortunately, that is something that one rarely gets here on Urban75 where 9-11 is concerned.

 

[editor]

Yes, there are different factions within those trying to ascertain to truth of what happened on 9-11. The only way that they can help each other out is in the spirit of open discussion.

Unfortunately, that is something that one rarely gets here on Urban75 where 9-11 is concerned.

And that's because you're rarely interested in 'discussion' - you're only interested in having your conspiracy-tastic world view affirmed, and you're not even slightly fussy about where you get your 'evidence' from.

In this thread you've asserted that it wasn't Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon but an invisible missile fired - apparently - by an invisible suicidal jet fighter (have I got that right?).

Without a single shred of credible proof to support this wild alternative theory, you've dismissed the mass of independent, eye witness reports, refused to discuss any details that contradict your claims (like what happened to the original plane and its passengers, how did they fake the phone call from a passenger etc) and - bizarrely - offered no credible explanation why not a living soul managed to see this missile blazing fighter jet roaring across the skies in broad daylight.

And that's what's so frustrating about your conduct here. You post up wild, reckless theories and simply ignore all debate that rubbishes your claims or try and change the subject.

The topic under discussion is whether the Pentagon was hit by an invisible (to everyone on the ground) missile-firing fighter jet manned by a suicidal pilot (or was it remote control? You tell me).

To date, you haven't produced a single molecule of evidence to support this assertion or bothered to explain why no one on the planet saw this mysterious fighter jet despite there being plenty of eye witnesses who saw an American Airlines passenger jet.

So is there any chance of you actually debating the topic you brought up, or are you going to keep on obfuscating, complaining and changing the subject?

 

[Jazzz]

Of course, there's no chance that you would comment on very credible eyewitness reports who reported explosions and devastation in the WTC. A shame, because I spend much time answering your questions, editor.

 

[editor]

Of course, there's no chance that you would comment on very credible eyewitness reports who reported explosions and devastation in the WTC.

And there you go again, trying to change the subject.

You started this thread. It's called "Aircraft in Pentagon security camera video".

I've posted to this thread and tried to get you to debate the issues - but that's something you seem strangely unable to do. Instead, you keep on trying to change the subject. Why is that?

What's the WTC 'explosions' got to do with your Pentagon fighter pilot/missile claims?

If you don't wish to discuss the 'aircraft in the Pentagon security camera video', why start a thread on it?

A shame, because I spend much time answering your questions, editor

You've refused to answer these questions.
So here they are again:

"I'd like you to explain why you think it wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon when there's a host of credible, independent eye witnesses saying that's exactly what they saw.

But if you're going to insist that it was a missile, perhaps you might elaborate as to why not a living soul saw either the jet fighter or the missile, explain who the suicidal pilot was and offer an opinion as to what happened to the original American Airlines plane, its passengers and flight crew and how they faked the phone call from that plane".

 

[Jazzz]

And there you go again, trying to change the subject.

You started this thread. It's called "Aircraft in Pentagon security camera video"

That's something that's never bothered you before, though mister. Whatever a 9-11 thread is entitled, you will be talking about 1) the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon and 2) the telephone calls

If you like, I will be happy to start another thread on the subject of the WTC. There's other new stuff there. However, I thought YOU might prefer it if I kept it to one thread.

The unpalatable thing for you is that, having placed so much credence in eyewitness reports, you must now accept the reality that there were explosive detonations in the WTC. That is extremely relevant to the discussion of 9-11 and your incessant posturing on this thread.

And it's not as if you have ever been averse to crying 'Huntley' or 'Kelly' on any other sort of conspiracy thread, now, is it?



Oh.... except you aren't crying 'Kelly' any more, are you?

 

[editor]

If you like, I will be happy to start another thread on the subject of the WTC.:

Why don't you just answer the fucking questions in this thread first?

 

[Jazzz]

Because I already have! Many times. And if I keep answering them, that won't stop you repeating them, perhaps with slightly different wording, claiming that I haven't answered them. Just as you are doing now.

The thing is, you aren't actually looking for an answer. You are simply looking for an excuse to form a non-productive and meaningless thread, so you can then point out how terrible 9-11 threads are.

Well I'm fed up with that tactic. You should accept that you have no right to dominate threads in such a way.

 

[Loki]

Because I already have! Many times.

Have you? where?

And by the way do you have any regrets about your disgraceful Huntley thread Dr J? I've asked several times but every time met silence.

 

[laptop]

Have you? where?

Moved that if the answer references another thread, this one is noted as utterly pointless and binned immediately.

 

[Jazzz]

Moved that if the answer references another thread, this one is noted as utterly pointless and binned immediately.

what the fuck?

I've answered the point about the eyewitness reports loads of times on this thread (starting in post #12, again in post #102, again in post #113, perhaps many more), and countless times on others.

If you lot are all too brain dead to to take account of it, well there is little point in me attempting to engage in any meaningful dialogue.