IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Did a 757 hit the Pentagon?, I'm curious what everyone thinks...

calcas
post Oct 17 2006, 10:58 PM
Post #1





Group: Guest
Posts: 29
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 98



I'm new here and still checking things out. I'm curious about what everybody believes about this. If it didn't, what is your theory?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthseekers
post Oct 17 2006, 11:13 PM
Post #2





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Outside the sheep pen.
Member No.: 66



QUOTE (Calcas @ Oct 18 2006, 02:58 AM)
I'm new here and still checking things out. I'm curious about what everybody believes about this. If it didn't, what is your theory?

JDX posted the FDR data from AA77 and as this was supplied to him from NTSB? I think, JDX is the best man to ask about it. Anyway, the FDR shows inconsistancies with the official story. The official version is miles off from what the FDR information provides. And it is this information which provides evidence that AA77 did not hit any poles. Again, JDX is the best one to ask.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 17 2006, 11:15 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



All the information is provided in the AA77 forum.

The FDR shows AA77 too high to hit the poles. The recording stops prior to impact. I wont be 100% convinced that AA77 hit the pentagon till i see a clear video of it and it has been analyzed by an independent video expert.

Right now the only people with a theory is the Govt. It conflicts with the Flight Data Recorder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HotDogBun
post Oct 17 2006, 11:19 PM
Post #4





Group: Guest
Posts: 70
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 15



I Don;t know what happened at the pentagon, but i am compelled to believe it wasnt the airplane with the black box that these people have been working with. Also, the fact that the hole in the pentagon isn't much larger than one left by the Kool-Aid Man in one of his commercials is cause for confusion.

This post has been edited by HotDogBun: Oct 17 2006, 11:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Oct 18 2006, 02:16 PM
Post #5


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



No evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon. Hell, a retired US general whose job it was to identify Soviet and Russian planes and missiles has come out and said that the hole in the Pentagon from the strike was from a missile, and that there was no evidence of a 757 hitting the building.

CNN reporter, Jamie McIntyre, was at the Pentagon early after the strike. He was saying there was no evidence of a 757 or ANY plane that hit the Pentagon. No tail, wing fuselage sections or either of the 6 ton, 9 ft. high, 12 ft. long jet engines. And now there are Pentagon employees who were in the section of the Pentagon in question saying that bombs went off before anything struck the building.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
calcas
post Oct 18 2006, 10:22 PM
Post #6





Group: Guest
Posts: 29
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Cary @ Oct 18 2006, 06:16 PM)
No evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.  Hell, a retired US general whose job it was to identify Soviet and Russian planes and missiles has come out and said that the hole in the Pentagon from the strike was from a missile, and that there was no evidence of a 757 hitting the building.

CNN reporter, Jamie McIntyre, was at the Pentagon early after the strike.  He was saying there was no evidence of a 757 or ANY plane that hit the Pentagon.  No tail, wing fuselage sections or either of the 6 ton, 9 ft. high, 12 ft. long jet engines.  And now there are Pentagon employees who were in the section of the Pentagon in question saying that bombs went off before anything struck the building.

I don't care that much what a "couple" of people remember as reality.

How do you discount this? There are LITERALLY hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the 757 either DIRECTLY hit the Pentagon or fly directly towards it and not recover.

Here are some.

http://unauthorized link.com/ksnb9

Read them.

They are mostly civilians who were either near the Pentagon, on the beltway, or in high rises nearby. Do you honestly think they are all shills or are lying?

Here are more.

http://unauthorized link.com/ojcwl

Why don't you guys interview THEM?

And, alas, there is not ONE...NOT ONE...statement from anyone on the 'no plane theory' that can account for what happened to the 757 after it 'supposedly' passed very low OVER the Pentagon and then dissapeared.

What, exactly, is your theory again?

And don't bother with "it couldn't have happened like that."

Tell me what, then, did happen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 18 2006, 10:31 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Please count how many describe a 757. The last i ckecke3d out of all the "official govt reports" were 3.

Next... count how many saw the actual impact and post them here. Actually seeing a 757 hit the pentagon..

After that, please get us the part serial numbers so we can work fro mthere (with pictures of the serial numbers on the parts).

Finally, have the NTSB/FBI contact the people at pilotsfor911truth.org and explain why the Flight Data Recorder is in direct conflict with the official story with all FDR parameters cross checking to confirm the conflicts and comment on it before it goes to press. So far we havent been able to get any response. We will have to put it down as "No Comment".

Edit to add - our Eyewitness research team has pulled apart most of the "official" eyewitness testimony. I'll make them aware of your post so hopefully they can chime in here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
calcas
post Oct 18 2006, 10:39 PM
Post #8





Group: Guest
Posts: 29
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Oct 19 2006, 02:31 AM)
Please count how many describe a 757. The last i ckecke3d out of all the "official govt reports" were 3.

Next... count how many saw the actual impact and post them here. Actually seeing a 757 hit the pentagon..

After that, please get us the part serial numbers so we can work fro mthere (with pictures of the serial numbers on the parts).

Finally, have the NTSB/FBI contact the people at pilotsfor911truth.org and explain why the Flight Data Recorder is in direct conflict with the official story with all FDR parameters cross checking to confirm the conflicts and comment on it before it goes to press. So far we havent been able to get any response. We will have to put it down as "No Comment".

Edit to add - our Eyewitness research team has pulled apart most of the "official" eyewitness testimony. I'll make them aware of your post so hopefully they can chime in here.

Please read through all of the eyewitness accounts.

HUNDREDS saw it happen.

And you want to worry about FDR's????

They won't respond to you any more than they will to someone who says they know a UFO landed on the White House lawn.

Ludicrous claims are ignored.

And, again, if it DIDN'T happen that way, your theory is what again????
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 18 2006, 11:03 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Ridicule is not welcome here. Fact of the matter is that the Flight Data Recorder is from the NTSB and it conflicts with the official story. They refuse to address it and it will only get bigger till they do.

Warn 1 for you.


I dont have a theory.. the govt has a theory.. how about you prove it to us.

I have read ALOT of eyewitness testimony and we have an eyewitness research team who will address your issues. They have been notified. Not sure when they will be able to get to you..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post Oct 19 2006, 12:12 AM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



....like someone said; Facts are stronger than theorys.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post Oct 19 2006, 11:29 AM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



...but about the eyewitness... it is so strange the when someone read what they are saying then... well, it is very often some weird part in theirs story... and after someone read it very carfully... he will think: What exactly did they see??

For example:
...
She would have been eating breakfast right where the plane hit. But because she was running late that day, Wanda Ramey, a police officer at the Pentagon, was sitting outside in a security booth when the plane swooped out of the sky. She tried to say something, but no words came out.

"It was like the building had sucked the plane inside it," she said. She wasn't sure whether she had seen what she had seen. Seconds passed, and then there was a boom.

"That's when I knew it was definitely happening," said Ramey, 38, of Waldorf. "I wasn't quite here anymore after that."
...
www.baltimoresun.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Oct 19 2006, 11:38 AM
Post #12


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



QUOTE (Calcas @ Oct 18 2006, 09:22 PM)
QUOTE (Cary @ Oct 18 2006, 06:16 PM)
No evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.  Hell, a retired US general whose job it was to identify Soviet and Russian planes and missiles has come out and said that the hole in the Pentagon from the strike was from a missile, and that there was no evidence of a 757 hitting the building.

CNN reporter, Jamie McIntyre, was at the Pentagon early after the strike.  He was saying there was no evidence of a 757 or ANY plane that hit the Pentagon.  No tail, wing fuselage sections or either of the 6 ton, 9 ft. high, 12 ft. long jet engines.  And now there are Pentagon employees who were in the section of the Pentagon in question saying that bombs went off before anything struck the building.

I don't care that much what a "couple" of people remember as reality.

How do you discount this? There are LITERALLY hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the 757 either DIRECTLY hit the Pentagon or fly directly towards it and not recover.

Here are some.

http://unauthorized link.com/ksnb9

Read them.

They are mostly civilians who were either near the Pentagon, on the beltway, or in high rises nearby. Do you honestly think they are all shills or are lying?

Here are more.

http://unauthorized link.com/ojcwl

Why don't you guys interview THEM?

And, alas, there is not ONE...NOT ONE...statement from anyone on the 'no plane theory' that can account for what happened to the 757 after it 'supposedly' passed very low OVER the Pentagon and then dissapeared.

What, exactly, is your theory again?

And don't bother with "it couldn't have happened like that."

Tell me what, then, did happen.


Who are you, and have you read the eyewitness acounts you linked?? LOL Some of the witnesses talk about a bomb going off. Most didn't see the plane hit the Pentagon, they heard a plane(s) going by and saw the explosion at the Pentagon or the smoke and fire afterwards.

Hell, one guy says he saw the plane bank left and then one wing drag across the Pentagon lawn before the plane hit the Pentagon. He's lying or imagining things, as witnesses tend to do, especially with traumatic events. Nothing touched the Pentagon lawn.

I'll let one of the pilots tell you what would have happened if a wing of a plane that large moving that fast would have "drag across the Pentagon lawn."

Show me pictures of a wing section, tail section and engines that are consistent with a 757 from the Pentagon on 9/11. You can't because there are none.

As far as what happened to the 757, I have no idea. The govt. knows but they aren't talking are they? How are we supposed to know what happened to the 757? We didn't pull this caper off. But what's obvious is, the Pentagon did not get hit by a 757.

And the two people I quoted were 1) a retired US general who has expertise in identifying aircraft and missiles. He'd know what a 757 impact vs. a missile impact would look like. I'll post a short video later if I can find it. And 2) a CNN reporter who hadn't been coached yet about the 757. He was there and the cameras were rolling. Like he said at the time, no wing sections, tail sections, engines, fuselage consistent with a plane.

And don't be so combative. Nobody jumped your ass and your response was a bit aggressive. You don't want a fight here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 20 2006, 06:06 PM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Here is my take on the eyewitnesses:

I believe a plane flew over the area in the approximate official flight path and then flew over the pentagon while the damage was simulated.

Here is how I catagorize the witnesses:

1. Most were regular honest people that saw a plane and not the impact.

2. Some were regular people that simply embellished their account to claim they saw the impact or the AA markings to make their account more important or tell the reporters what they expected to hear. This is typical eyewitness behavior and would probably be even more prevelant during an event like 9/11.

3. Others are straight up planted witnesses that are lying through their teeth. (PNAC member Gary Bauer? GOP USA founder Bobber Eberle?)


Bottom line.......most eyewitnesses were interviewed after the fact and already knew what the media said happened so very few were interviewed without a predetermined mindset.

Anybody on the other side that saw a plane fly over would not be published as an eyewitness and their report of what they saw would be confused with the C-130 and blown off as unimportant and therefore never published.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 20 2006, 06:35 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (lyte trip @ Oct 20 2006, 06:06 PM)
Anybody on the other side that saw a plane fly over would not be published as an eyewitness and their report of what they saw would be confused with the C-130 and blown off as unimportant and therefore never published.

Or a departure from DCA since DCA was taking off to the north all morning...


Everyone say hi to Lyte Trip... one of our wonderful eyewitness experts that has been to DC and interviewed eyewitnesses.


Good to see you here buddy... cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Oct 20 2006, 06:37 PM
Post #15


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Yo, Lyte Trip. Good to see you here pal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
calcas
post Oct 20 2006, 06:53 PM
Post #16





Group: Guest
Posts: 29
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (lyte trip @ Oct 20 2006, 10:06 PM)
Here is my take on the eyewitnesses:

I believe a plane flew over the area in the approximate official flight path and then flew over the pentagon while the damage was simulated.

Here is how I catagorize the witnesses:

1. Most were regular honest people that saw a plane and not the impact.

2. Some were regular people that simply embellished their account to claim they saw the impact or the AA markings to make their account more important or tell the reporters what they expected to hear. This is typical eyewitness behavior and would probably be even more prevelant during an event like 9/11.

3. Others are straight up planted witnesses that are lying through their teeth. (PNAC member Gary Bauer? GOP USA founder Bobber Eberle?)


Bottom line.......most eyewitnesses were interviewed after the fact and already knew what the media said happened so very few were interviewed without a predetermined mindset.

Anybody on the other side that saw a plane fly over would not be published as an eyewitness and their report of what they saw would be confused with the C-130 and blown off as unimportant and therefore never published.

Well, since LT doesn't mind pasting his exact same comment from the LC forum allow me to do the same with my response.


"Anybody on the other side that saw a plane flyover would not be published as an eyewitness and their report of what they saw would be confused with the C-130 and blown off as unimportant and therefore never published."


Wrong.

"Anybody on the other side...."

Who's side?

How about ANYBODY period who didn't have a dog in this fight?

ANYBODY? Joe Citizen. Anybody.

You're telling me that not one media outlet would print anything that wasn't the Gubmints official story?

And this would have been immediate...without time for any official spin doctors from *censoring* anything.

It boggles the mind to think that there were hundreds who witnessed the plane flying at a very high speed, very low, directly at the Pentagon (while few, admittedly witnessed the actual impact) then heard or saw the explosion but NOT ONE saw the same plane fly past it.

Come on...there are better, more intriquing and possibly true scenarios surrounding what may have happened that day.

But I still say that sticking to the "No plane at the Pentagon" theory undermines one's credibility.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 20 2006, 06:58 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I see someone is not too familiar with the speed of sound.. sound barriers (such as a big wall), or DCA departure procedures combined with mass Chaos during that period of time in Downtown DC.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Oct 20 2006, 07:03 PM
Post #18


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



QUOTE (Calcas @ Oct 17 2006, 09:58 PM)
I'm new here and still checking things out. I'm curious about what everybody believes about this. If it didn't, what is your theory?

You know, what's interesting is your first post here Calcas. You started the thread in the guise of a fence sitter or newbie to the whole Pentagon thing. Your responses since then show that you're an "official story" apologist. Like your last past quoted below.

QUOTE
Well, since LT doesn't mind pasting his exact same comment from the LC forum allow me to do the same with my response.


"Anybody on the other side that saw a plane flyover would not be published as an eyewitness and their report of what they saw would be confused with the C-130 and blown off as unimportant and therefore never published."


Wrong.

"Anybody on the other side...."

Who's side?

How about ANYBODY period who didn't have a dog in this fight?

ANYBODY? Joe Citizen. Anybody.

You're telling me that not one media outlet would print anything that wasn't the Gubmints official story?

And this would have been immediate...without time for any official spin doctors from *censoring* anything.


It boggles the mind to think that there were hundreds who witnessed the plane flying at a very high speed, very low, directly at the Pentagon (while few, admittedly witnessed the actual impact) then heard or saw the explosion but NOT ONE saw the same plane fly past it.

Come on...there are better, more intriquing and possibly true scenarios surrounding what may have happened that day.

But I still say that sticking to the "No plane at the Pentagon" theory undermines one's credibility.


There was a guy who was initially hailed as a hero from the WTC. Willy Rodriguez. He tried to tell the MSM what he experienced in the North Tower - that bombs went off before and after the plane hit the tower. Guess how much air time he got? ZERO. You think the MSM is still the "free press"?? LMFAO! Keep drinking the Kool Aid pal.

The only whose credibility being undermined here is yours for your obvious "official story" apologist stance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 20 2006, 07:17 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I thnik i ran across a few posts from Calcas at the govt loyalist site.

He says he is ATC. I PMed him asking for which facility hoping we can ask him some questions.. he said he preferred not to answer... surprise. .surprise..

Yet i get chastised for not revealing my background..

Well.. now all the JREFers know.. and soon they'll have my full name too... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
calcas
post Oct 20 2006, 07:18 PM
Post #20





Group: Guest
Posts: 29
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Cary @ Oct 20 2006, 11:03 PM)
QUOTE (Calcas @ Oct 17 2006, 09:58 PM)
I'm new here and still checking things out.  I'm curious about what everybody believes about this.  If it didn't, what is your theory?

You know, what's interesting is your first post here Calcas. You started the thread in the guise of a fence sitter or newbie to the whole Pentagon thing. Your responses since then show that you're an "official story" apologist. Like your last past quoted below.

QUOTE
Well, since LT doesn't mind pasting his exact same comment from the LC forum allow me to do the same with my response.


"Anybody on the other side that saw a plane flyover would not be published as an eyewitness and their report of what they saw would be confused with the C-130 and blown off as unimportant and therefore never published."


Wrong.

"Anybody on the other side...."

Who's side?

How about ANYBODY period who didn't have a dog in this fight?

ANYBODY? Joe Citizen. Anybody.

You're telling me that not one media outlet would print anything that wasn't the Gubmints official story?

And this would have been immediate...without time for any official spin doctors from *censoring* anything.


It boggles the mind to think that there were hundreds who witnessed the plane flying at a very high speed, very low, directly at the Pentagon (while few, admittedly witnessed the actual impact) then heard or saw the explosion but NOT ONE saw the same plane fly past it.

Come on...there are better, more intriquing and possibly true scenarios surrounding what may have happened that day.

But I still say that sticking to the "No plane at the Pentagon" theory undermines one's credibility.


There was a guy who was initially hailed as a hero from the WTC. Willy Rodriguez. He tried to tell the MSM what he experienced in the North Tower - that bombs went off before and after the plane hit the tower. Guess how much air time he got? ZERO. You think the MSM is still the "free press"?? LMFAO! Keep drinking the Kool Aid pal.

The only whose credibility being undermined here is yours for your obvious "official story" apologist stance.

Well, I don't believe most of the whole LC story. I was hoping this forum might be somewhat more open to alternate ideas.

But, I do believe in LIHOP...maybe MIHOP.

I would like to continue to participate but if you guys don't want to hear other viewpoints then I guess it's adieu.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd June 2020 - 02:57 PM