Aircraft in Pentagon security camera video

[Loki]

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.

Those posts have already been rubbished.

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.

Fine by me!

 

[Jazzz]

Those posts have already been rubbished.

Now that you have accepted I have answered the point, I don't see that they have been rubbished at all. They have simply been ignored.

 

[Loki]

Have I?

The eyewitness reports seem impeccable to me, comprising both local residents and experienced journalists - none with any reason to lie that they saw a passenger plane hit the Pentagon.

 

[Jazzz]

Read post #102 and #113 and take a look at the link Loki. Many of the eyewitness accounts do NOT support the official story.

 

[Loki]

The vast majority of (reliable) ones DO.

 

[Jazzz]

I'm not sure about that Loki. Scroll down that link, and there's as much red as purple. What we can agree on is that there was a plane (I've never been a no-plane person). And it would seem that you base your opinion of 'reliability' depending on whether they support your preffered theory. Very unscientific!

What do you think about the very detailed report of the WTC worker Mike Pecararo in Chief Engineer which, if believed, proves that bombs devastated the basements?

 

[Loki]

The editor's posted up a whole load of witness statements, which you have chosen to ignore, presumably because they don't fit your theories.

One of the many clinchers:

USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away....

 

[Jazzz]

No that's not fair at all, because I am basing my opinion neither on the eyewitness supporting the official line nor the ones that conflict it. If I wanted, I too could post up a ream of eyewitness reports to support a missile theory. I am not cherrypicking.

 

[Loki]

So you think the eyewitness statements by local residents and creditable journalists are wrong? You don't get to be a senior journalist by misrepresenting the evidence.

 

[Jazzz]

Again, you are cherry-picking. But it's interesting to hear journalists quoted as beacons of respectability who would most definitely never parrot an official line to be printable. Only on 9-11 threads!

 

[NuTbAr]

That website is selling "2005 UFO art", some wierd book entitled "THE LOVESONG OF THE UNIVERSE" and an even wierder book titled "STARPEOPLE:
THE SIRIAN REDEMPTION" -




says one bonkers reviewer.





Thanks but no thanks.

well who cares what shit they are selling on the website???

i'm interested in what the guy has to say. the article is posted there - doesn't mean it should be dismissed out of hand. they sell products for impotence in the wall street journal - i think that's kinda strange and weird being as it's not my problem and i have no interest however it doesn't mean everything in the paper is bollocks.



besides...we read your posts, and there's no weird books for sale to keep us amused...i'd dare say the freakin' ads for weird books are more innerestin' than your posts

 

[NuTbAr]

So you think the eyewitness statements by local residents and creditable journalists are wrong? You don't get to be a senior journalist by misrepresenting the evidence.

well no actually, it's decided by who ever writes your pay cheque.

 

[editor]

No that's not fair at all, because I am basing my opinion neither on the eyewitness supporting the official line nor the ones that conflict it. If I wanted, I too could post up a ream of eyewitness reports to support a missile theory.

Thus far, you haven't posted up a single molecule of proof to support your missile theory, neither have you answered any of my questions about the whereabouts of the original plane and its passengers and how the phone call was faked from one of its passengers.

No matter how much you keep on repeating your lies, anyone looking through this thread can see that you have NOT answered these questions.

Similarly, you haven't produced a single satisfactory answer that explains why not a living soul saw the missile-firing fighter jet (your "it was going too fast" answer is embarrassing nonsense), you've yet to offer an opinion as to who was flying this suicidal jet and you've yet to to come up with a single credible reason why all the eye witness testimony should be discounted.

This thread is perfect proof why it's a pointless exercise hosting your wild claims. Despite a complete absence of any proof whatsoever, your mind is clearly made up that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, so it's absolutely pointless discussing the matter here ever again.

 

[editor]

well no actually, it's decided by who ever writes your pay cheque.

Are you suggesting that the eye witnesses - all of them - were paid to lie? Why? By whom?

Could you provide some proof to support this astonishing claim please?

 

[editor]

And here's a few more independent eye witness accounts:

For one employee with Wedge One's mechanical subcontractor John J. Kirlin Inc., Rockville MD, "lucky" is an understatement. "We had one guy who was standing, looking out the window and saw the plane when it was coming in. He was in front of one of the blast-resistant windows," says Kirlin President Wayne T. Day, who believes the window structure saved the man's life

Lagasse, William: I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground, 400 miles an hour. The reason, I have some experience as a pilot and I looked at the plane. Didn't see any landing gear. Didn't see any flaps down. I realized it wasn't going to land. . . . It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it.

"I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low," said Army Captain Lincoln Liebner. "My first thought was I've never seen one that high. Before it hit I realised what was happening."

As he ran to an entrance, he heard jet engines and turned in time to see the American Airlines plane diving toward the building. "I was close enough that I could see through the windows of the airplane, and watch as it as it hit," he said. "There was no doubt in my mind what I was watching. Not for a second. It was accelerating," he said. "It was wheels up, flaps up, engines full throttle. "

I believe that marks this end of this moronic conspiracy theory.

 

[Jazzz]

What it shows is that you will spam the same thing over and over again, regardless

But as an aside (which I have mentioned before) is that I believe it was a smaller jet, with 'American Airlines' painted on it. This would fool most into believing they had seen a jumbo, and there is evidence for it in the form of the twisted wreckage where the lettering is too small. I have taken note of your earlier comments editor about contre jour.

 

[tarannau]

What it shows is that you will spam the same thing over and over again, regardless

How do multiple eye witness reports, eminently relevant to the thread, constitute spam in any way?

My gosh, if only you could come up with half as much plausible evidence to support your latest theory (no. 334 in a neverending series) then we woul;d be in this repetitively bitter pickle.

In brutal terms, the weight of evidence is very much against you. The vast majority of witness statements support the commonly held theory that a passenger plane flew into the Pentagon. On your behalf, you seem to have an (invisible) missile that a handful of people 'might' have heard. And your 'expert knowledge' (derived from sketchy websites rather than real world experience) that you don't believe that the collision forces would have made such a impact hole. It's not exactly a convincing case on your behalf is it - you'd be laughed out of any court in a few seconds.

Perhaps you would do better building a more convincing set of arguments before you start getting your knickers in a twist agaain...

 

[editor]

But as an aside (which I have mentioned before) is that I believe it was a smaller jet, with 'American Airlines' painted on it. This would fool most into believing they had seen a jumbo, and there is evidence for it in the form of the twisted wreckage where the lettering is too small.

That still doesn't answer these questions:

(a) where did the original 757 plane go?
(b) what happened to the passengers and crew?
(c) how did they fake the call from a passenger on the 757?
(d) who flew this 'smaller jet'
(e) where did it take off from?
(f) who built it?
(g) why did so many eye witnesses - including a pilot - clearly said that they saw a full sized American Airlines 757 jet, and not mention this 'mini-me' version?
(h) why would they go to all this bother of building fake planes, covering up hijacks and hiring suicidal pilots anyway? Wouldn't it have just been easier to smash the full size plane into the Pentagon seeing as it had already been reported as hijacked?

And what's happened to your fighter jet/missile claims? Are you now abandoning them in favour of your latest evidence free theory No 4,555?

 

[cynical_bastard]

why would they go to all this bother of fake planes anyway? Wouldn't it have just been easier to smash the full size plane into the Pentagon seeing as it had already been reported as hijacked?

Because after collapsing both WTC towers they were worried about saving American lives. Obviously.

 

[editor]

Because after collapsing both WTC towers they were worried about saving American lives. Obviously.

WTF?

The plane hit the Pentagon at 9.38am.

Neither of the WTC towers had collapsed then (The south tower collapsed at 9:59, the North tower at 10:28).

 

[Stigmata]

For the benefit of latecomers to this thread, the compelling evidence so far:

Item: Fuzzy picture that might be a military jet if you squint just right.
Item: Some unverified eyewitnesses say it was a missile, or a jet disguised as a passenger plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Obviously they're both right.
Item: Someone heard funny noises at the WTC.
Item: There is no plane wreckage whatsoever at the site of the Pentagon.
Item: The Plane wreckage at the site of the Pentagon is too small.
Item: Some people carried out an enormous object under a tarpaulin after the crash. This is presumably lots of little itty bits of missile in a humorously oversized box.

Is there anything i've missed, or is that it?

 

[cynical_bastard]

WTF?

The plane hit the Pentagon at 9.38am.

Neither of the WTC towers had collapsed then (The south tower collapsed at 9:59, the North tower at 10:28).

Erm. It was intended ironically, agreeing with your point (h). ie why bother using a fake jet etc when they've already set in motion the events that would kill 3000 in NY.

 

[editor]

Erm. It was intended ironically, agreeing with your point (h). ie why bother using a fake jet etc when they've already set in motion the events that would kill 3000 in NY.

Ah gotcha. Sorry.
With all the bonkers claims of mini-jets, invisible, missile-firing fighter jets and mass delusions being made in this thread it can become difficult to work out when someone's joking!

 

[Jazzz]

For the benefit of latecomers to this thread, the compelling evidence so far:

Item: Fuzzy picture that might be a military jet if you squint just right.
Item: Some unverified eyewitnesses say it was a missile, or a jet disguised as a passenger plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Obviously they're both right.
Item: Someone heard funny noises at the WTC.
Item: There is no plane wreckage whatsoever at the site of the Pentagon.
Item: The Plane wreckage at the site of the Pentagon is too small.
Item: Some people carried out an enormous object under a tarpaulin after the crash. This is presumably lots of little itty bits of missile in a humorously oversized box.

Is there anything i've missed, or is that it?

No there's more, but concentrating on the Pentagon crash

1) Hani Hanjour was an utterly hopeless pilot, described as 'dumb and dumber'. He was not allowed to fly a single-engine cessna. It is practically inconceivable that he could have picked out the Pentagon with a horizontal approach.

2) The impact hole is way too small. There appears to be no gash where the huge wings and tail went in. This is a pretty big objection.

3) there was some wreckage, but nothing that has been officially identified as coming from flight 77. In particular there are pieces which apparently show 'American Airlines' lettering - but the curvature on the letters is three times too small.

4) The gas station footage would show exactly what hit the Pentagon; however FBI agents turned up within minutes to seize it. We haven't seen it. What are they hiding? In fact there should be plenty of other video sources. The pentagon has surely got more cameras around, there's the Sheraton Hotel footage, and perhaps cameras too on the interstate which flight 77 supposedly flew over (without blowing any cars around). Why do we not have a single still showing flight 77? And what does it say that they couldn't intercept a passenger plane waltzing into Washington airspace for at least 40 mins - yet when it comes to suppressing evidence they are there within minutes?

The 'fuzzy picture' is all we have to go on. It certainly doesn't look like flight 77. It should do. If it isn't flight 77, then where is flight 77 in the photo?

5) Initial media reports were uncertain and did not report a passenger airliner crash. If it was, why should there have been any doubt?

 

[editor]

No there's more, but concentrating on the Pentagon crash

...and you still haven't answered my questions!

 

[1927]

Is there anything i've missed, or is that it?

Yeah u missed the fact that even the 9/11 conspiracy supporting site whatreally happened.com does not dispute that it WAS a 757 that hit the Pentagon,a fact that DrJazz seems equally to have missed and would in all probability be considered a fruitloop by this site for proposing such a preposterous idea.
So thats the conspiracy theorists and the anticonspiracy theorists that think he's a nutter!!

 

[wizard61]

Yeah u missed the fact that even the 9/11 conspiracy supporting site whatreally happened.com does not dispute that it WAS a 757 that hit the Pentagon,a fact that DrJazz seems equally to have missed and would in all probability be considered a fruitloop by this site for proposing such a preposterous idea.
So thats the conspiracy theorists and the anticonspiracy theorists that think he's a nutter!!

So, even conspiracy theorists employ a grading system? Reading this thread, I suppose they must!

 

[Stigmata]

1) Hani Hanjour was an utterly hopeless pilot, described as 'dumb and dumber'. He was not allowed to fly a single-engine cessna. It is practically inconceivable that he could have picked out the Pentagon with a horizontal approach.

2) The impact hole is way too small. There appears to be no gash where the huge wings and tail went in. This is a pretty big objection.

1) Landing an aircraft of any size isn't really all that hard with some basic training. once the aircraft landed it could simply coast into the building. And who said Hani Hanjour was stupid, or even that he was the pilot?

2) http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
These people have managed to simulate the crash. They don't mention any inconsistencies. Check it out.

 

[editor]

4) The gas station footage would show exactly what hit the Pentagon;

And from that site:

# The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack.

So have any of these employees who saw the attack footage declared that it wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon YES/NO?

 

[editor]

2) http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
These people have managed to simulate the crash. They don't mention any inconsistencies. Check it out.

Sadly, I doubt if he will.

After all, it's a credibly-sourced, academic study created by a team of suitably qualified engineers, computer scientists and graphics technology experts at Purdue University - and it completely rubbishes his fact-free conspiracy theory.

DrJ prefers 'evidence' that comes in the shape of dodgy, fuzzy images with wild, toytown 'analysis' from bedroom 'investigators'.