911 Truth International Conference in Tokyo
This video is little bit old but I just found it so I just wanted let you know in case some of you have never seen this.
She saw a missile coming on TV.
This video is little bit annoying because of translation for Japanese. But she is pretty sure that a cruise missile punched through Pentagon.
Leuren... / Zap
Full Version: Leuren Moret Video
Depleted Uranium part 1
I found the other her lecture. She is saying scary thing.
I found the other her lecture. She is saying scary thing.
I'm going to Google the woman, but wondered if anybody here knows anything about her? Conflicting spelling on the name, Lauren or Leuren?
Thanks
Thanks
QUOTE (shoon @ Sep 26 2007, 06:43 PM)
She saw a missile coming on TV.
She did not see a missile coming. Did she actually say this?
My mistake. I knew her name is Leuren but I typed wrong.
I hope somebody can fix it.
I was wrong about what she said again.
A woman, who was working at Pentagon and right above the missile, watched the object coming on internal TV @ 7'40" of this video. I am sorry Japanese translation confused me.
The problem here is they do have good videos other than the famous frames.
I hope somebody can fix it.
I was wrong about what she said again.
A woman, who was working at Pentagon and right above the missile, watched the object coming on internal TV @ 7'40" of this video. I am sorry Japanese translation confused me.
The problem here is they do have good videos other than the famous frames.
QUOTE (shoon @ Sep 27 2007, 02:24 PM)
My mistake. I knew her name is Leuren but I typed wrong.
I hope somebody can fix it.
I was wrong about what she said again.
A woman, who was working at Pentagon and right above the missile, watched the object coming on internal TV @ 7'40" of this video. I am sorry Japanese translation confused me.
The problem here is they do have good videos other than the famous frames.
I hope somebody can fix it.
I was wrong about what she said again.
A woman, who was working at Pentagon and right above the missile, watched the object coming on internal TV @ 7'40" of this video. I am sorry Japanese translation confused me.
The problem here is they do have good videos other than the famous frames.
There was no missile.
Here is a transcript that I made. If you find any mistake, please let me know. I only wrote down the part that is directly related to Pentagon.
On the morning of 9/11, at 5 in the morning the subway at Pentagon was full of military personnel and guard dogs.
This is not normal.
When the object hit Pentagon, it impacted in area called Naval intelligent which has just been retro fitted.
And we know now that the object hit Pentagon was a cruise missile.
The missile also went through the department of accounting.
It killed 85 people and destroyed computers with much data on it.
This is very important because when Doug Zakaim(?) who is a joint Israel and American citizen was working in Pentagon, 3 and half trillion dollars disappeared form Pentagon.
So the cruise missile, which destroyed accounting department, made it impossible to trace the money that disappeared.
Doug Zakahim, when he left Pentagon, went almost directly to Israel.
And Donald Ramified and other people involved in 9/11 and White House administration have ignored 3 and half trillion dollars that disappeared.
The object, the missile, hit Pentagon left a round bullet hole through Pentagon.
That was no plane that impacted Pentagon.
It went through 4 layers of very, very strong walls cement walls before exited Pentagon.
And it left very large bullet hole or punch out at the exit hole.
Right after the object hit Pentagon, I found a medical doctor living twelve miles from Pentagon.
I told her to call FBI and emergency response agency and get all of the emergency workers in full protective gear and air tank on their back.
At that time, I thought a plane that hit Pentagon and depleted uranium is used in commercial aircraft. I did not want to emergency workers get poisoned.
Depleted uranium burns and forms radio active poison gas.
It goes everywhere and very long distances.
I also told the medical doctor to take Geiger counter out of her purse. I knew she had Geiger counter in her purse into do air monitoring.
Within five hours after the missile hit Pentagon she called me back and she said the radiation levels of 8 to 10 times higher than normal.
Two day after the cruise missile hit Pentagon, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, called and confirmed that Pentagon crush site was contaminated with depleted uranium.
The bullet hole fourteen-foot bullet hole through the Pentagon is the signature of kinetic energy penetrater in other words depleted uranium warhead was in cruise missile.
In the military magazine for officers, a woman working in the floor above the hole described watching the object on television hit Pentagon one floor below her. And when it was over she and other workers walked out of the building.
It was on television.
Yeah, they were in the office.
Internal TV.
Nobody even had scratch because it was bullet hole through the building.
There was no other damage. Yes.
It seems that explosion and all of the fire out side Pentagon came from a workers hut, temporary building right in front of Pentagon or perhaps a truck.
It was an explosion before the object hit Pentagon.
Jimmy Walter has just given information of clock.
Clock stopped at 9:32 am in Pentagon.
Missile hit the building 9:35 am.
In order to hide the bullet hole, which would have been obvious to the public if it would have been broadcasted on national television, the military collapsed that part of the building with cookie cuter demolition. Cookie cut straight up and down.
On the morning of 9/11, at 5 in the morning the subway at Pentagon was full of military personnel and guard dogs.
This is not normal.
When the object hit Pentagon, it impacted in area called Naval intelligent which has just been retro fitted.
And we know now that the object hit Pentagon was a cruise missile.
The missile also went through the department of accounting.
It killed 85 people and destroyed computers with much data on it.
This is very important because when Doug Zakaim(?) who is a joint Israel and American citizen was working in Pentagon, 3 and half trillion dollars disappeared form Pentagon.
So the cruise missile, which destroyed accounting department, made it impossible to trace the money that disappeared.
Doug Zakahim, when he left Pentagon, went almost directly to Israel.
And Donald Ramified and other people involved in 9/11 and White House administration have ignored 3 and half trillion dollars that disappeared.
The object, the missile, hit Pentagon left a round bullet hole through Pentagon.
That was no plane that impacted Pentagon.
It went through 4 layers of very, very strong walls cement walls before exited Pentagon.
And it left very large bullet hole or punch out at the exit hole.
Right after the object hit Pentagon, I found a medical doctor living twelve miles from Pentagon.
I told her to call FBI and emergency response agency and get all of the emergency workers in full protective gear and air tank on their back.
At that time, I thought a plane that hit Pentagon and depleted uranium is used in commercial aircraft. I did not want to emergency workers get poisoned.
Depleted uranium burns and forms radio active poison gas.
It goes everywhere and very long distances.
I also told the medical doctor to take Geiger counter out of her purse. I knew she had Geiger counter in her purse into do air monitoring.
Within five hours after the missile hit Pentagon she called me back and she said the radiation levels of 8 to 10 times higher than normal.
Two day after the cruise missile hit Pentagon, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, called and confirmed that Pentagon crush site was contaminated with depleted uranium.
The bullet hole fourteen-foot bullet hole through the Pentagon is the signature of kinetic energy penetrater in other words depleted uranium warhead was in cruise missile.
In the military magazine for officers, a woman working in the floor above the hole described watching the object on television hit Pentagon one floor below her. And when it was over she and other workers walked out of the building.
It was on television.
Yeah, they were in the office.
Internal TV.
Nobody even had scratch because it was bullet hole through the building.
There was no other damage. Yes.
It seems that explosion and all of the fire out side Pentagon came from a workers hut, temporary building right in front of Pentagon or perhaps a truck.
It was an explosion before the object hit Pentagon.
Jimmy Walter has just given information of clock.
Clock stopped at 9:32 am in Pentagon.
Missile hit the building 9:35 am.
In order to hide the bullet hole, which would have been obvious to the public if it would have been broadcasted on national television, the military collapsed that part of the building with cookie cuter demolition. Cookie cut straight up and down.
She has no idea what she is talking about. There is no evidence of a missile.
Now I ask myself. I wonder where she was. She seemed to be at Pentagon. I wonder if she saw the object that punced out.
Please let me know if you find any articles or her lectures that shows where she was.
Please let me know if you find any articles or her lectures that shows where she was.
Aldo Marquis CIT,
She sounds that she was directing at that moment. So she knows what she is talking about.
She seems to know more than you unless you are the one who wants to conceal the facts.
She sounds that she was directing at that moment. So she knows what she is talking about.
She seems to know more than you unless you are the one who wants to conceal the facts.
QUOTE (shoon @ Sep 27 2007, 04:22 PM)
Aldo Marquis CIT,
She sounds that she was directing at that moment. So she knows what she is talking about.
She seems to know more than you unless you are the one who wants to conceal the facts.
She sounds that she was directing at that moment. So she knows what she is talking about.
She seems to know more than you unless you are the one who wants to conceal the facts.
Shoon,
She was NOT there. She is some lady who wrote up some kind of environmental assessment report that von kleist used in his In Plane Site. She claims she or someone she knows went to the Pentagon and used a radioactivity detector or whatever in her purse and thinks a missile hit.
She has no idea what she is talking about.
I am a researcher who speaks with witnesses, first responders, rescuers, bystanders, reporters, cameramen, photographers, victims. See my signature.
If you haven't seen our evidence, perhaps you should stop posting irrelevant info and learn.
Question for the CIT team.
If nothing hit the Pentagon, where did all the small parts of "something" come from? I'm not saying anything hit the Pentagon. I'm just wondering how all those small pieces of whatever come from. Could they have been planted on the Pentagon lawn? Sure, but that would have required some serious maneuvering right after an explosion. I know it's speculation, but that's all we have right now.
If nothing hit the Pentagon, where did all the small parts of "something" come from? I'm not saying anything hit the Pentagon. I'm just wondering how all those small pieces of whatever come from. Could they have been planted on the Pentagon lawn? Sure, but that would have required some serious maneuvering right after an explosion. I know it's speculation, but that's all we have right now.
QUOTE (Cary @ Sep 27 2007, 06:00 PM)
Question for the CIT team.
If nothing hit the Pentagon, where did all the small parts of "something" come from?
If nothing hit the Pentagon, where did all the small parts of "something" come from?
We believe they were blown out of these construction trailers that were completely obliterated:
Craig
I assume those photos are from something like Google Earth for a time period preceding 9/11? What you say sounds plausible.
Leuren Moret is a scientist and investigator, and apparently well-respected, specializing in the matter of DU. I am sympathetic to her cause. DU poisons the earth and any and all humans, including our guys in uniform, once it is used. It should be outlawed by international convention, IMO.
Apparently she was certainly NOT at the Pentagon that morning, but was concerned about the possibility of DU dust for the first responders.
Her information about the Navy part, and the auditors and missing $ is what I've read elsewhere. She confirms that much, but I wonder where she got her information about that.
I assume those photos are from something like Google Earth for a time period preceding 9/11? What you say sounds plausible.
Leuren Moret is a scientist and investigator, and apparently well-respected, specializing in the matter of DU. I am sympathetic to her cause. DU poisons the earth and any and all humans, including our guys in uniform, once it is used. It should be outlawed by international convention, IMO.
Apparently she was certainly NOT at the Pentagon that morning, but was concerned about the possibility of DU dust for the first responders.
Her information about the Navy part, and the auditors and missing $ is what I've read elsewhere. She confirms that much, but I wonder where she got her information about that.
Let's not forget that they cleared everyone out of the area at one point because they thought another plane was inbound. That could have been a time they planted AA debris.
Robert Turcios told me it was 10 minutes after and told him tog et out of the area.
Robert Turcios told me it was 10 minutes after and told him tog et out of the area.
Cruise missiles have Turbo fan engine and wings. Some of them are as big as jets.
So broken pieces at Pentagon would be a broken cruise missile.
I agree with you that the large jets passed by CITGO and it landed at Ronald Regan Washington National Airport.
But no missile theory ignores Edwards account and knocked down poles.
I do not know about timming. We can forget about the clock because I have seen clocks showing wrong time in USA. Even THE evidence at Pentagon showed wrong date.
So broken pieces at Pentagon would be a broken cruise missile.
I agree with you that the large jets passed by CITGO and it landed at Ronald Regan Washington National Airport.
But no missile theory ignores Edwards account and knocked down poles.
I do not know about timming. We can forget about the clock because I have seen clocks showing wrong time in USA. Even THE evidence at Pentagon showed wrong date.
Whatever, dream up whatever fantasy you want.
Here is an article about radiation measured:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1895/81/
A question in general: Is the structure of the Pentagon reinforced outer wall's
published somewhere?
One could think a DU shielded missile is needed to break such a wall.
INP
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1895/81/
QUOTE
Around the Pentagon there were reports of high radiation levels after 9-11 American Free Press has documentation that radiation levels in Alexandria and Leesburg, Va., were much higher than usual on 9-11 and persisted for at least one week afterward.
In Alexandria, seven miles south of the burning Pentagon, a doctor with years of experience working with radiation issues found elevated radiation levels on 9-11 of 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm) using a "Radalert 50" Geiger counter.
One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon, soil readings taken in a residential neighbourhood showed even higher readings of 75 to 83 cpm.
"That's pretty high," Cindy Folkers of the Washing ton-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) told AFP. Folkers said 7 to 12 cpm is normal background radiation inside the NIRS building, and that outdoor readings of between 12 to 20 cpm are normal in Chevy Chase, Md., outside Washington.
The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and "detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the alpha." This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor's Geiger counter.
"The question is, why?" Folkers said.
If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, it most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft that allegedly hit the building.
"Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747," Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing's 767, told AFP. "Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective."
The cost effectiveness argument is debatable. A waste product of U.S. nuclear weapons and energy facilities, DU is reportedly provided by the Department of Energy to national and foreign armament companies free of charge.
DU is used in a wide variety of missiles in the U.S. arsenal as an armor penetrator. It is also used in the bunker-buster bombs and cruise missiles. Because no photographic evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon is available to the public, 9-11 skeptics and independent researchers claim something else, such as a missile, struck the Pentagon.
A white flash, not unlike those seen in videos of the planes as they struck the twin towers, occurs when a DU penetrator hits a target.
Workers and FEMA officials at the Pentagon were seen wearing special protective outfits and respirators. FEMA photos show the workers going through decontamination procedures. Bellinger told AFP that the U.S. Department of Defense was responsible for on-site safety procedures at the Pentagon.
In Alexandria, seven miles south of the burning Pentagon, a doctor with years of experience working with radiation issues found elevated radiation levels on 9-11 of 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm) using a "Radalert 50" Geiger counter.
One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon, soil readings taken in a residential neighbourhood showed even higher readings of 75 to 83 cpm.
"That's pretty high," Cindy Folkers of the Washing ton-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) told AFP. Folkers said 7 to 12 cpm is normal background radiation inside the NIRS building, and that outdoor readings of between 12 to 20 cpm are normal in Chevy Chase, Md., outside Washington.
The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and "detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the alpha." This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor's Geiger counter.
"The question is, why?" Folkers said.
If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, it most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft that allegedly hit the building.
"Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747," Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing's 767, told AFP. "Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective."
The cost effectiveness argument is debatable. A waste product of U.S. nuclear weapons and energy facilities, DU is reportedly provided by the Department of Energy to national and foreign armament companies free of charge.
DU is used in a wide variety of missiles in the U.S. arsenal as an armor penetrator. It is also used in the bunker-buster bombs and cruise missiles. Because no photographic evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon is available to the public, 9-11 skeptics and independent researchers claim something else, such as a missile, struck the Pentagon.
A white flash, not unlike those seen in videos of the planes as they struck the twin towers, occurs when a DU penetrator hits a target.
Workers and FEMA officials at the Pentagon were seen wearing special protective outfits and respirators. FEMA photos show the workers going through decontamination procedures. Bellinger told AFP that the U.S. Department of Defense was responsible for on-site safety procedures at the Pentagon.
A question in general: Is the structure of the Pentagon reinforced outer wall's
published somewhere?
One could think a DU shielded missile is needed to break such a wall.
INP
I have one more question. People said the wall was reinforced. Do you think it is true? No body can know if the wall was reinforced or not since it has been destoyed now. I can be quite oppsite. Since they were about to destroy this part, they might have made it weaker instead of stronger.
The holes on the wall were very inline and line up with poles so I think it would be harder to set up or cover up like that. It would be much easier to shoot a missile to make inline holes and knock down poles.
Aldo Marquis CIT:
You act like anti 9/11 truther. You got to open up your mind. I think your job was great. I changed my mind because of your work. I used to think they launched a missile from Navy Annex parking lot. But it is inconsitent with Edward account.
The holes on the wall were very inline and line up with poles so I think it would be harder to set up or cover up like that. It would be much easier to shoot a missile to make inline holes and knock down poles.
Aldo Marquis CIT:
You act like anti 9/11 truther. You got to open up your mind. I think your job was great. I changed my mind because of your work. I used to think they launched a missile from Navy Annex parking lot. But it is inconsitent with Edward account.
QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 27 2007, 07:14 PM)
Craig
I assume those photos are from something like Google Earth for a time period preceding 9/11? What you say sounds plausible.
Leuren Moret is a scientist and investigator, and apparently well-respected, specializing in the matter of DU. I am sympathetic to her cause. DU poisons the earth and any and all humans, including our guys in uniform, once it is used. It should be outlawed by international convention, IMO.
Apparently she was certainly NOT at the Pentagon that morning, but was concerned about the possibility of DU dust for the first responders.
Her information about the Navy part, and the auditors and missing $ is what I've read elsewhere. She confirms that much, but I wonder where she got her information about that.
I assume those photos are from something like Google Earth for a time period preceding 9/11? What you say sounds plausible.
Leuren Moret is a scientist and investigator, and apparently well-respected, specializing in the matter of DU. I am sympathetic to her cause. DU poisons the earth and any and all humans, including our guys in uniform, once it is used. It should be outlawed by international convention, IMO.
Apparently she was certainly NOT at the Pentagon that morning, but was concerned about the possibility of DU dust for the first responders.
Her information about the Navy part, and the auditors and missing $ is what I've read elsewhere. She confirms that much, but I wonder where she got her information about that.
It has been confirmed that the trailers were there. The top image is from 9/7/2001. Remember there had been a renovation going on for years.
She may be reporting a lot of good information but she is simply mistaken in regards to the Missile.
This is common and doesn't automatically mean that she is disinfo.
QUOTE (shoon @ Sep 27 2007, 07:59 PM)
But no missile theory ignores Edwards account and knocked down polls.
The poles were staged in advance, not knocked down in real time.
We know this because the cab driver Lloyd England's account is physically impossible.
Watch our interview with him here.
QUOTE (shoon @ Sep 27 2007, 08:21 PM)
Aldo Marquis CIT:
You act like anti 9/11 truther. You got to open up your mind. I think your job was great. I changed my mind because of your work. I used to think they launched a missile from Navy Annex parking lot. But it is inconsitent with Edward account.
You act like anti 9/11 truther. You got to open up your mind. I think your job was great. I changed my mind because of your work. I used to think they launched a missile from Navy Annex parking lot. But it is inconsitent with Edward account.
Don't mind him.
He is anti-social.
Her information revealed the idea of Eric Hufschmid was half way wrong because the person instructed to wear full protective gear thought DU in airplane might be harmful. However I still think his idea was great because it ended up that the warhead had DU.
I saw Lloyd’s interview but I cannot tell if he is telling a lie intentionally or not because he is telling a point of view of truth. If something did not make sense he is just saying wrong instead of lies.
By the way, why did he pull off the pole? He should have left it on the glass for insurance claim purpose until police come.
I saw Lloyd’s interview but I cannot tell if he is telling a lie intentionally or not because he is telling a point of view of truth. If something did not make sense he is just saying wrong instead of lies.
By the way, why did he pull off the pole? He should have left it on the glass for insurance claim purpose until police come.
QUOTE (shoon @ Sep 27 2007, 08:21 PM)
Aldo Marquis CIT:
You act like anti 9/11 truther. You got to open up your mind. I think your job was great. I changed my mind because of your work. I used to think they launched a missile from Navy Annex parking lot. But it is inconsitent with Edward account.
You act like anti 9/11 truther. You got to open up your mind. I think your job was great. I changed my mind because of your work. I used to think they launched a missile from Navy Annex parking lot. But it is inconsitent with Edward account.
I am anti-bullshit.
I have "opened up my mind". I opened it up long ago and now have closed it to the missile. Because there is no evidence for it.
At the end of the day, what does this thread or her speech prove? Absolutely NOTHING. A missile did not take out a generator trailer, chain link fence, put in a poorly simulated plane shape in the wall, knocked out multiple columns, and produced a circular hole at the end.
We have enough problems with the flyover alternative, why would you convolute it with a missile???????????????
Because a cruise missile has a turbine engine, which was found at Pentagon.
Why do you ignore Edward's account?
Why do you ignore knocked out poles and holes?
Why do you ignore the broken pieces at Pentagon?
The easiest way to explain all the 9/11 facts was "inside job".
The easiest way to explain all these facts would be "a missile".
Why do you ignore Edward's account?
Why do you ignore knocked out poles and holes?
Why do you ignore the broken pieces at Pentagon?
The easiest way to explain all the 9/11 facts was "inside job".
The easiest way to explain all these facts would be "a missile".
[/QUOTE]
Hello,
Indeed, I think that poles were staged in time and Loyd came just after, stop his taxi near the downed pole, and broke his windshield ,while everybody was gathering at the pentagon.
Better, no ?
QUOTE (Craig Rank)
The poles were staged in advance, not knocked down in real time.
We know this because the cab driver Lloyd England's account is physically impossible.
We know this because the cab driver Lloyd England's account is physically impossible.
Hello,
Indeed, I think that poles were staged in time and Loyd came just after, stop his taxi near the downed pole, and broke his windshield ,while everybody was gathering at the pentagon.
Better, no ?
Is there any web site that shows locations of fallen poles and Lloyd's car?
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Sep 27 2007, 09:34 PM)
A missile did not take out a generator trailer, chain link fence, put in a poorly simulated plane shape in the wall, knocked out multiple columns, and produced a circular hole at the end.
We have enough problems with the flyover alternative, why would you convolute it with a missile???????????????
We have enough problems with the flyover alternative, why would you convolute it with a missile???????????????
take out a generator trailer : The trailer was staged as the lightpoles
knocked out multiple columns : Charge of the missile did it
put in a poorly simulated plane shape in the wall : The entry hole fit well a hole of missile
produced a circular hole at the end : an additional explosive did it. Witnesses speak about two explosions
There was obviously contamination at the pentagon, certainly due to depleted uranium. Some witnesses heard the noise of a missile engine rather than plane.
You've a great problem with the theory of the fly-over.
Many witnesses saw a plane before the pentagone, no-one saw it after he flew over, especially those who were on the other side of the pentagon.
That is not correct.
QUOTE
Because a cruise missile has a turbine engine, which was found at Pentagon.
Jet's have a turbine engine too. In fact the one found only closely resembles a JT8D which goes on jets like a 737.
QUOTE
Why do you ignore Edward's account?
I don't. What are you talking about? Edward said large twin engine jet flew over him and toward the north side of the Citgo. I fully embrace Edward's account.
If you are referring to Lloyd England, I don't ignore him either. I have studied his account very closely. I have met hima nd interviewed him. His account could not have happened. It is phyiscally impossible, since the plane was on the north side of the Citgo.
QUOTE
Why do you ignore knocked out poles and holes?
I don't. I have studied those also. The plane was nowhere near them. They were planted and staged.
QUOTE
Why do you ignore the broken pieces at Pentagon?
What are you going on about? What broken pieces? Broken pieces of light pole? There are none.
QUOTE
The easiest way to explain all the 9/11 facts was "inside job".
I believe in the facts. I provide facts. I believe 9/11 was an inside job.
QUOTE
The easiest way to explain all these facts would be "a missile".
"Easy" is not synonymous with "Correct". There are no facts to support a missile. Let it go. It didn't happen.
QUOTE
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Sep 27 2007, 09:34 PM)
A missile did not take out a generator trailer, chain link fence, put in a poorly simulated plane shape in the wall, knocked out multiple columns, and produced a circular hole at the end.
We have enough problems with the flyover alternative, why would you convolute it with a missile???????????????
take out a generator trailer : The trailer was staged as the lightpoles
Uh huh.
QUOTE
knocked out multiple columns : Charge of the missile did it
Nope. Do you realize how many columns were damaged? Do you realize no one saw a missile?
QUOTE
put in a poorly simulated plane shape in the wall : The entry hole fit well a hole of missile
Really? This looks like an entry hole for a missile?
QUOTE
produced a circular hole at the end : an additional explosive did it. Witnesses speak about two explosions
Right, that would play into the logic we are presenting. EXPLOSIVES. Not a missile. So now you are suggesting a missile (that no one saw) AND explosives to make the "exit hole". That makes no sense. Witnesses speaking about two explosions is not proof of explosives making the exit hole. In fact, we interviewed someone who was in the B-Ring and saw the exit hole made, it happened at the same time as the "impact". He saw debris flying and a fireball.
QUOTE
There was obviously contamination at the pentagon, certainly due to depleted uranium. Some witnesses heard the noise of a missile engine rather than plane.
And you believe those witnesses wholeheartedly huh?
Do you have proof they were on the highway?
Did they see the missile or did they just claim to hear it?
Would it make sense to plant disinfo early on about a missile to throw people off?
QUOTE
You've a great problem with the theory of the fly-over.
Many witnesses saw a plane before the pentagone, no-one saw it after he flew over, especially those who were on the other side of the pentagon.
That is not correct.
Many witnesses saw a plane before the pentagone, no-one saw it after he flew over, especially those who were on the other side of the pentagon.
That is not correct.
You've agreat problem with the missile----NO ONE SAW A MISSILE!!!!!!!!!!!
And you are wrong. There are reports of a plane/jet along the same flight path, shadowing/chasing that veers away and/or is over the Pentagon as the explosion/fireball happens. These are cover stories developed to confuse people about the plane they saw fly over/away from the Pentagon.
QUOTE
Anybody who may have noticed a plane flying over the building were handled with a cover story about a 2nd plane. There were additional planes called into the area and there were reports of a 2nd plane that allegedly "shadowed" the AA jet and "veered away" over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion. The two known planes there were reported are a C-130 and an E4B that came in a few minutes later. For confusion the flyover plane and the C-130 accounts were ambiguously blended by fabricated accounts of "some sort of second military plane/jet shadowing/chasing along the same flight path then veering off/peeling off and up into the air". That way anyone who might have seen the flyover jet would be thrown off by these fabricated accounts that bring "some sort of second military plane/jet" that much closer to the time of impact, essentially veering away simultaneously with the explosion...
Vin Naranayan:-"I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second *jet* hovering in the skies".
Joel Sucherman:-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit.
Kelly Knowles:
-...she saw a second plane in the air *over the Pentagon* *as* a hijacked jet plunged into the five-sided military fortress...some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion. "Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane, " Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason." (Kelly sounds like a great actress) Pentagon official said late Friday no other plane was flying with the jetliner. But he said it was possible a military plane was in the area at the time of the attack. (that would sure fool a lot of people who saw a jet fly away)
Keith Wheelhouse:-He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon....As the hijacked jet started its descent, "it's like it stepped on its gas pedal, " Wheelhouse said. "As soon as he did that, the second plane banked off to the west." A possible explanation for the second plane could be a plane landing at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport . The Pentagon is between the cemetery and the airport... (He) said it's possible the second plane was a military plane, but the military has not said it had a plane shadowing the hijacked jet."
*-Both Keith and Kelly, as well as at least one other person at the funeral (Pam Young), insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet... the other three witnesses say they're not sure what the plane looked like."
(That's because Keith Wheelhouse will eventually confirm it as a C-130, but the "other three witnesses", want to keep it ambiguous enough to still make people think there WAS a military jet chasing/shadowing and that Keith Wheelhouse (who we've interviewed) may be "wrong" or "confused". It keeps people in confusion. We talked with Keith Wheelhouse 3 times on the phone and in light of the testimony from the C-130 pilot himself we know for a fact that Keith Wheelhouse is not telling the truth.)
...So the "second plane/jet" eventually gets blamed on the C-130 pilot who NEVER shadowed or chased the plane. He actually lost sight of it AFTER if passed in front of him and he turned around. He was NEVER near AND/OR over the Pentagon at the time of alleged impact (explosion & Fireball). He wouldn't have been able to keep up with a 530 mph jet, when a C-130 can only travel maximum 379 mph. He didn't arrive until 60 seconds later at a much higher altitude that none of our witnesses along the flight path saw...
We learned from an e-mail exchange with him that he was too high and far away to even see the Pentagon!:
C-130 Pilot Steve O'Brien:
"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport." (That means he was far away)
Clearly the "2nd plane that Wheelhouse and others described shadowing the jet was NOT the c-130.
Why wasn't this "2nd plane" more widely reported if it really happened?
Why didn't any of the Citgo witnesses see this 2nd plane?
Because there WAS NO 2nd plane and planted reports of one were meant to confuse people who really saw the plane fly over the building.
So......for the sake of argument; pretend you were in the Doubletree on the top floor looking out the window (like in picture at beginning) and you saw the big explosion and the plane flying away from the building. If you didn't report it you might wonder about what you saw and look into it only to find reports of this mysterious 2nd plane. Obviously that would satisfy most people. But there may have been some that called in to report this plane flying over the Pentagon immediately after a massive explosion. However....we will NEVER know what people initially reported because conveniently for the perpetrators.....the 911 calls were confiscated and permanently sequestered.
Vin Naranayan:-"I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second *jet* hovering in the skies".
Joel Sucherman:-Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"..."another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit.
Kelly Knowles:
-...she saw a second plane in the air *over the Pentagon* *as* a hijacked jet plunged into the five-sided military fortress...some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion. "Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane, " Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason." (Kelly sounds like a great actress) Pentagon official said late Friday no other plane was flying with the jetliner. But he said it was possible a military plane was in the area at the time of the attack. (that would sure fool a lot of people who saw a jet fly away)
Keith Wheelhouse:-He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon....As the hijacked jet started its descent, "it's like it stepped on its gas pedal, " Wheelhouse said. "As soon as he did that, the second plane banked off to the west." A possible explanation for the second plane could be a plane landing at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport . The Pentagon is between the cemetery and the airport... (He) said it's possible the second plane was a military plane, but the military has not said it had a plane shadowing the hijacked jet."
*-Both Keith and Kelly, as well as at least one other person at the funeral (Pam Young), insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet... the other three witnesses say they're not sure what the plane looked like."
(That's because Keith Wheelhouse will eventually confirm it as a C-130, but the "other three witnesses", want to keep it ambiguous enough to still make people think there WAS a military jet chasing/shadowing and that Keith Wheelhouse (who we've interviewed) may be "wrong" or "confused". It keeps people in confusion. We talked with Keith Wheelhouse 3 times on the phone and in light of the testimony from the C-130 pilot himself we know for a fact that Keith Wheelhouse is not telling the truth.)
...So the "second plane/jet" eventually gets blamed on the C-130 pilot who NEVER shadowed or chased the plane. He actually lost sight of it AFTER if passed in front of him and he turned around. He was NEVER near AND/OR over the Pentagon at the time of alleged impact (explosion & Fireball). He wouldn't have been able to keep up with a 530 mph jet, when a C-130 can only travel maximum 379 mph. He didn't arrive until 60 seconds later at a much higher altitude that none of our witnesses along the flight path saw...
We learned from an e-mail exchange with him that he was too high and far away to even see the Pentagon!:
C-130 Pilot Steve O'Brien:
"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport." (That means he was far away)
Clearly the "2nd plane that Wheelhouse and others described shadowing the jet was NOT the c-130.
Why wasn't this "2nd plane" more widely reported if it really happened?
Why didn't any of the Citgo witnesses see this 2nd plane?
Because there WAS NO 2nd plane and planted reports of one were meant to confuse people who really saw the plane fly over the building.
So......for the sake of argument; pretend you were in the Doubletree on the top floor looking out the window (like in picture at beginning) and you saw the big explosion and the plane flying away from the building. If you didn't report it you might wonder about what you saw and look into it only to find reports of this mysterious 2nd plane. Obviously that would satisfy most people. But there may have been some that called in to report this plane flying over the Pentagon immediately after a massive explosion. However....we will NEVER know what people initially reported because conveniently for the perpetrators.....the 911 calls were confiscated and permanently sequestered.
QUOTE
His account could not have happened. It is phyiscally impossible, since the plane was on the north side of the Citgo.
Do you call it "ignore". Then I just need find another word.
If a missile fly over and knock down poles, then punch through Pentagon, his account is correct and physically possible. Don't you think so?
Broken pieces I am talking about are a rotor hub and aluminum plates, etc. at/in Pentagon.
QUOTE
Do you realize no one saw a missile?
Leuren told somebody saw a flying object on TV. I think it is very defficult identify a flying missile.
QUOTE (shoon @ Sep 28 2007, 04:52 PM)
QUOTE
His account could not have happened. It is phyiscally impossible, since the plane was on the north side of the Citgo.
Do you call it "ignore". Then I just need find another word.
If a missile fly over and knock down poles, then punch through Pentagon, his account is correct and physically possible. Don't you think so?
Broken pieces I am talking about are a rotor hub and aluminum plates, etc. at/in Pentagon.
QUOTE
Do you realize no one saw a missile?
Leuren told somebody saw a flying object on TV. I think it is very defficult identify a flying missile.
Shoon, you are not adhering to reason.
There was no missile. No one saw a missle. No one with a name. Hearsay is not evidence.
I told you the rotor hub could and does come from a jet engine.
The missile could NOT knock down the light poles. Think about what you are saying.
It should be obvious that the downed light poles were an added extra to reinforce the official account that flight 77 struck the Pentagon. That little trick could have been pulled off so easily in any number of ways, heck, they could have torn them down during the night and no one would have noticed. A missile wouldn't have knocked down the poles. That's not to say there was or wasn't a missile, no one knows. Seriously though, what's the difference? We DO know that the gov is lying - that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. That can be confirmed. Trying to push it further and suppose that this happened or that happened without some sort of proof does not strengthen the argument that 9/11 was an inside job, it weakens it. We do not know all of the details, we never will. That's OK. There are bigger fish to fry...
IMO
IMO
QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Sep 28 2007, 04:05 PM)
Nope. Do you realize how many columns were damaged? Do you realize no one saw a missile?
I don't know if a single charge of missile can destroy all this columns. Thre was no wall at the ground floor and 1st floor. But I can contemplate additional explosion.
A Thing disturbing is the disappearance of the wall of the ground floor.
QUOTE
Really? This looks like an entry hole for a missile?
Yes, it looks like another similar holes I saw on photographies.
QUOTE
Right, that would play into the logic we are presenting. EXPLOSIVES. Not a missile. So now you are suggesting a missile (that no one saw) AND explosives to make the "exit hole". That makes no sense. Witnesses speaking about two explosions is not proof of explosives making the exit hole. In fact, we interviewed someone who was in the B-Ring and saw the exit hole made, it happened at the same time as the "impact". He saw debris flying and a fireball.
Perhaps. That does nothing with the problem. I was reffering about the inquiry of barbara honegger.
QUOTE
And you believe those witnesses wholeheartedly huh?
Do you have proof they were on the highway?
Did they see the missile or did they just claim to hear it?
Would it make sense to plant disinfo early on about a missile to throw people off?
Do you have proof they were on the highway?
Did they see the missile or did they just claim to hear it?
Would it make sense to plant disinfo early on about a missile to throw people off?
I don't know why people would plant disinfo about a missile. Everything in this case seemed to have been done to make people think there was a boeing : lightpoles, witnesses, generator , false debris (very left and swept-back of the hole)
QUOTE
You've agreat problem with the missile----NO ONE SAW A MISSILE!!!!!!!!!!!
And you are wrong. There are reports of a plane/jet along the same flight path, shadowing/chasing that veers away and/or is over the Pentagon as the explosion/fireball happens. These are cover stories developed to confuse people about the plane they saw fly over/away from the Pentagon.
And you are wrong. There are reports of a plane/jet along the same flight path, shadowing/chasing that veers away and/or is over the Pentagon as the explosion/fireball happens. These are cover stories developed to confuse people about the plane they saw fly over/away from the Pentagon.
We are at the same place. In my mind, nobody saw an American Airline jet fly behind the pentagon. Perhaps the C130 was here to make confusion, perhaps to launch a missile, perhaps by any chance.
I think american people are Familiarized with jetplanes and i don't believe they can make a confusion between a C130 and a Boeing757. Nothing you say can show me that somebody saw this airplane after his fly-over. I can't believe it. There was plenty of people on the other side of the pentagon.
No-one saw a missile: yes, we are face to an illogical problem : There was no boeing that crashed in the pentagon and many witnesses said they saw an airplane.
If fly-over is wrong , you have to consider that you don't look the problem with the right eyes.
If witnesses said they saw it, perhaps because they had the illusion of an airplane. Why the missile did'nt carry a system to make an ILLUSION ?
You know, i don't like exotic theories, like some at the wtc where one speak about raybeam, hologram and no plane theory where it is useless. And nobody think about an unknown technology (?) at the pentagon where it can be necessary. Perhaps , that is intended disinfo.
So i speak of a technology able to give an image of a boeing at the right and left of the missile, perhaps something like a hologram.
A witness spoke (don't remember who, but can retrieve) that the plane seemed to remain immobile on the facade of the pentagon while one second. Others witnesses said that they saw the left wing of the plane touch the ground(heliport).
Valid with an image displayed for me.
You have to consider the different solutions until you can prove the fly-over.
QUOTE
Clearly the "2nd plane that Wheelhouse and others described shadowing the jet was NOT the c-130.
Why wasn't this "2nd plane" more widely reported if it really happened?
Why didn't any of the Citgo witnesses see this 2nd plane?
Why wasn't this "2nd plane" more widely reported if it really happened?
Why didn't any of the Citgo witnesses see this 2nd plane?
There were shocked by what they saw. Perhaps they did'nt care.
QUOTE
Because there WAS NO 2nd plane and planted reports of one were meant to confuse people who really saw the plane fly over the building.
2nd plane is not very important to me. I don't think witnesses wanted to make several leads of disinfo. Too tortuous.
Another solution is the most part of witnesses lie and the rest was subjected to threat from FBI or someone else. I don't think so, but not impossible.
So, i prefer the "image displayed" version because it very well explain all the available datas.
I know what I am talking about.
Do you know if an object goes at ultrasonic speed, the airwave from the object can break window glass? I am not saying it was that fast. I am just assuming that if a missile fly nearby, there is a great possibility it could knock down the poles.
I have my own theory that is launching a missile from parking lot of Fort Myer because military/fire department had training at Fort Myer at that morning.
Unless you explain why the holes on the walls and poles on at highway were perfectly aligned straight without missile, I still can not agree with you.
You soud like unti-truther. Without missile, you have to knock down several poles, make holes inline, leave DU, leave a rotor hub, leave aluminum peices. If it was a missile, the explanation would be easy. A missile knocked down poles and went through the walls. That's it!
Do you know if an object goes at ultrasonic speed, the airwave from the object can break window glass? I am not saying it was that fast. I am just assuming that if a missile fly nearby, there is a great possibility it could knock down the poles.
I have my own theory that is launching a missile from parking lot of Fort Myer because military/fire department had training at Fort Myer at that morning.
Unless you explain why the holes on the walls and poles on at highway were perfectly aligned straight without missile, I still can not agree with you.
You soud like unti-truther. Without missile, you have to knock down several poles, make holes inline, leave DU, leave a rotor hub, leave aluminum peices. If it was a missile, the explanation would be easy. A missile knocked down poles and went through the walls. That's it!
QUOTE
I don't know if a single charge of missile can destroy all this columns.
According to Leuren, military used cookie cuter demolition after a missile hit Pentagon to hide a hole.
QUOTE (Voltaire @ Sep 28 2007, 05:44 PM)
QUOTE
I don't know why people would plant disinfo about a misile.
Um because there was no missile and people, like you, keep chasing your tail with something that was not there.
QUOTE
Everything in this case seemed to have been done to make people think there was a boeing : lightpoles, witnesses, generator , false debris
Right.
QUOTE
You've agreat problem with the missile----NO ONE SAW A MISSILE!!!!!!!!!!!
And you are wrong. There are reports of a plane/jet along the same flight path, shadowing/chasing that veers away and/or is over the Pentagon as the explosion/fireball happens. These are cover stories developed to confuse people about the plane they saw fly over/away from the Pentagon.
And you are wrong. There are reports of a plane/jet along the same flight path, shadowing/chasing that veers away and/or is over the Pentagon as the explosion/fireball happens. These are cover stories developed to confuse people about the plane they saw fly over/away from the Pentagon.
QUOTE
We are at the same place. In my mind, nobody saw an American Airline jet fly behind the pentagon. Perhaps the C130 was here to make confusion, perhaps to launch a missile, perhaps by any chance.
"Perhaps" is not solid research. I know where the C-130 was. I have researched and documented his flight path. I know why he was there. There is no perhaps.
Like you said, it is "in your mind". Have you ever been there? Do you know the topography of the area? Did you know planes take off and fly over/near the Pentagon all the time? The plane ALSO did NOT look like AA according to some witnesses. This would make sense if it was to blend in with Reagan air traffic.
QUOTE
I think american people are Familiarized with jetplanes and i don't believe they can make a confusion between a C130 and a Boeing757.
You think wrong. Walk up to an average American in DC and they will not know what a C-130 or a 757 or an E4B is. I know I didn't until I started researching 9/11. Regardless, you are missing the point. the whole idea is to place a plane over DC and over the Pentagon and confuse people. It doesn't matter if
QUOTE
Nothing you say can show me that somebody saw this airplane after his fly-over. I can't believe it. There was plenty of people on the other side of the pentagon.
Well I really don't care. The plane was on the north side, it pulled up, a plane is reported as being over the pentagon and veering away as the explosion happened.
Don't just say, "there was plenty of people on the other side". That does not matter. There are trees, building, highways. There is not much on the other side of the Pentagon. People focused on what's in front of them oblivious to air traffic above them.
YOU CAN'T SAY "NO ONE" SAW A PLANE FLYING AWAY OR REPORTED IT!
The 911 calls and transcripts were confiscated and sequestered as Craig pointed out.
And what if someone did see or think it flew over or away from that position? What next? You see Mike Walter and Joel Sucherman talking about how they saw an American Airlines impact the building. Yet you think you saw it fly over or away. What then? Do you challenge every lying operative or asset that they used? Would you be incredibly scared after seeing a story develop that you know didn't happen? Do you go around contacting the media telling your story??? What would they do? AA and the American Gov't is telling the world American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Do you expect a mob of these flyover witnesses to come marching down Pennsylvania Ave? Is there a support group where they all meet and recount their experiences and what they saw???? Is every single flyover/away witness a conspiracy minded person or do they believe in gov't benevolence? Meaning, would they believe the second plane cover story? What about people on the impact side? Wouldn't some think it hit, while some though it went over??? Which would the reporter interview? The impact or the flyover witness? Remember two planes just hit the tower in an apparent terrorist attack. Would reporters be confused? Why did the reporter speaking with Isabel James ask her very slowly and clearly if she "*actually* saw the plane hit the building" and if she "only saw one plane"? Perhaps because she was confused by reports and accounts of the plane not hitting and a plane flying away??????
What about witnesses around the highway? Are they not subject to these same conditions? What if they did see a plane fly over or away? Have you ever been there? Do you realize how far the pentagon is from that highway in relation to the naked eye? Do you realize planes fly over or by EVERY 3 minutes?!?!?! (In fact, Levi Stephens said, while on the phone with his sister in his delivery van, that when he saw the plane come over the Navy Annex he didn't think anything of it since planes fly over all the time, it's only when he saw it turn OR BANK toward the pentagon that he began to take notice and think something was seriously wrong.) Do you realize how small a 757-737 is in relation to the Pentagon???? If someone is driving down 395 S, isn't it possible like most normal people they are looking straight ahead, then see an explosion, which catches their eye which leaves them OBLVIOUS to the jet flying AWAY from them, UP RIVER??? In fact, here is an overhead shot showing you the spots where you can see the Pentagon/flyaway(green) versus not being able to see them(red). This is only for Southbound, because northbound lanes would not have a view, because their backs would be turned. I do concede there is one portion of 395 North where you might be able to see the fly away, but you can't see the impact.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mer...95ActualPOV.jpg
You would know this if you actually went there and documented things in person.
You would also know, if you actually spoke with witnesses, that people are scared. I can personally attest to this. People in Shanksville have said they DO NOT want to talk about the little UAV, because "the have kids and lives".
QUOTE
No-one saw a missile: yes, we are face to an illogical problem : There was no boeing that crashed in the pentagon and many witnesses said they saw an airplane.
Yes. Now you are getting it.
QUOTE
If fly-over is wrong , you have to consider that you don't look the problem with the right eyes.
If witnesses said they saw it, it perhaps it had the illusion of an airplane. Why the missile did'nt carry a system to make an ILLUSION ?
If witnesses said they saw it, it perhaps it had the illusion of an airplane. Why the missile did'nt carry a system to make an ILLUSION ?
Listen to yourself. Illusion. Holograms?? Please stop. If we are wrong about a flyover/away...so be it. Why the HELL are you distractingeveryone from the ACTUAL smoking gun that the jet was on the north side of the Citgo and pulled up???????????
Why the f--- are you people so focused on the goddamn flyover. You have evidence now. You have a smoking gun. Stop your goddamn nonsensical fantasies and do something about the north side.
QUOTE
You know, i don't like exotic theories, like some at the wtc where one speak about raybeam, hologram and no plane theory where it is useless. And nobody think about an unknown technology (?) at the pentagon where it can be necessary. Perhaps , that is intended disinfo.
So i speak of a technology able to give an image of a boeing at the right and left of the missile, perhaps something like a hologram.
So i speak of a technology able to give an image of a boeing at the right and left of the missile, perhaps something like a hologram.
Oh it all makes sense now. According to you the plane didn't fly over or away because no one reported it. So in order to find out what happened and prove what happened, we need to fantasize about holograms. Oh yes, that makes more sense than embracing the north side flight path/pull-up and implications of those maneuvers.
QUOTE
A witness spoke (don't remember who, but can retrieve) that the plane seemed to remain immobile on the facade of the pentagon while one second. Others witnesses said that they saw the left wing of the plane touch the ground.
Valid with an image displayed for me.
Valid with an image displayed for me.
You can't even post the witness. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are flailing in the water recklessly.
QUOTE
You have to consider the different solutions until you can't prove the fly-over.
WHO THE f*ck CARES ABOUT THE FLYOVER??????????????????????????????????????
We have proved it. We proved it with the north side and the pull-up. Plus our other evidence. I don't need someone who has done 0 research or investigating to tell me what I can prove or can't. Because I HAVE.
QUOTE
Clearly the "2nd plane that Wheelhouse and others described shadowing the jet was NOT the c-130.
Why wasn't this "2nd plane" more widely reported if it really happened?
Why didn't any of the Citgo witnesses see this 2nd plane?
Why wasn't this "2nd plane" more widely reported if it really happened?
Why didn't any of the Citgo witnesses see this 2nd plane?
There were shocked by what they saw. Perhaps they did'nt care.
QUOTE
Because there WAS NO 2nd plane and planted reports of one were meant to confuse people who really saw the plane fly over the building.
QUOTE
2nd plane is not very important to me. I don't think witnesses wanted to make several leads of disinfo. Too tortuous.
Oh of course. Well there you have it. It's not important to him, so let's just move on everyone. You are not thinking that is your problem. People lie. Intelligence agencies have assets and NOC's. If you believe the US had to go to war to secure the last oil fields on the planet, you would lie too. The fact is PEOPLE LIED about the C-130. Namely, Kieth Wheelhouse. The second plane IS the flyover plane. You can't change this, you can only poorly spin it.
QUOTE
Another solution is the much part of witnesses lie and the rest was subjected to threat from FBI or someonr less. I don't think so, but not imossible.
Whatever. Witnesses lied and they stuck to it. The fact remains, the C-130 was not over the Pentagon when the impact happened. So a plane/jet veered away and it wasn't the C-130.
QUOTE
So, i prefer the "image displayed" version because it very well explain all the avaible datas.
I have no idea what you talking about.
Sanders is right--arguing about all the trivia is ultimately counterproductive.
I mean it's fine to have the conversation, rather like trivial pursuit, but there is no sense in getting one's blood pressure up about it.
IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB, and the government did everything in its power to eliminate the evidence, and plant false and misleading evidence.
I found the black taxi driver credible, but the damage to the car does not seem consistent. I don't see how they could have pulled out one of those poles without bending the hell out of the hood.
I mean it's fine to have the conversation, rather like trivial pursuit, but there is no sense in getting one's blood pressure up about it.
IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB, and the government did everything in its power to eliminate the evidence, and plant false and misleading evidence.
I found the black taxi driver credible, but the damage to the car does not seem consistent. I don't see how they could have pulled out one of those poles without bending the hell out of the hood.
QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 29 2007, 02:27 AM)
I found the black taxi driver credible
Do you understand what the north side flight path means?
I am totally agree with amazed!.
However I feel like that no missile at Pentagon = no planes at Twin towers = no Apollo landing on Moon.
Then unti-truther point out these problems and newbie would get confused.
I find a problem of theory of Aldo Marquis CIT is based on testimonies, which I do not trust. Have you seen the movie “12 angry men”? All the testimony made no sense after careful examination. No one saw a missile because it might have bee too close and too low to see it if it flew right over the poles (Police men told that he was not able to see the poles) or if it was launched from a hut in Pentagon’s lot.
Aldo Marquis CIT can be right after all.
However I feel like that no missile at Pentagon = no planes at Twin towers = no Apollo landing on Moon.
Then unti-truther point out these problems and newbie would get confused.
I find a problem of theory of Aldo Marquis CIT is based on testimonies, which I do not trust. Have you seen the movie “12 angry men”? All the testimony made no sense after careful examination. No one saw a missile because it might have bee too close and too low to see it if it flew right over the poles (Police men told that he was not able to see the poles) or if it was launched from a hut in Pentagon’s lot.
Aldo Marquis CIT can be right after all.
Aldo
No, I'm not certain what you mean by that term.
I found the old man to be not faking anything, but that's on video.
Everything but the hood looked plausible.
His wife worked for the FBI.
No, I'm not certain what you mean by that term.
I found the old man to be not faking anything, but that's on video.
Everything but the hood looked plausible.
His wife worked for the FBI.
QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 29 2007, 08:50 PM)
Aldo
No, I'm not certain what you mean by that term.
I found the old man to be not faking anything, but that's on video.
Everything but the hood looked plausible.
His wife worked for the FBI.
No, I'm not certain what you mean by that term.
I found the old man to be not faking anything, but that's on video.
Everything but the hood looked plausible.
His wife worked for the FBI.
http://www.thepentacon.com.
Watch it.
I'm moving this thread to the Alt Theories forum. Please read the rules for posting pinned in this forum. No personal attacks. If you can't be civil, DO NOT POST IN THIS FORUM.
QUOTE
His wife worked for the FBI.
This makes less plausible.However I agree with amazed!
QUOTE (amazed!)
IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB, and the government did everything in its power to eliminate the evidence, and plant false and misleading evidence.
I found the black taxi driver credible, but the damage to the car does not seem consistent. I don't see how they could have pulled out one of those poles without bending the hell out of the hood.
I found the black taxi driver credible, but the damage to the car does not seem consistent. I don't see how they could have pulled out one of those poles without bending the hell out of the hood.
And I don't see how the 175 lb pole could have entered the taxicab without killing the driver and ripping off the roof.
No skid marks and an obvious staged photo op
Note the scrape on the asphalt from the base that is coming from the direction of the Pentagon from the 175 lb pole being moved. You can see leaves on the road
and the glass right next to the lamp. You can see the government plates on the vehicle. This person told Lloyd to stay there because he was part of the scene.
So he followed orders.
The Official Conspiracy Theory is completely bogus.
Everything was staged, and the trivia is interesting, but not worth arguing about.
Everything was staged, and the trivia is interesting, but not worth arguing about.
The poles could have been felled with a number of different technologies.
the breaking point looks like a heavy object impact, or maybe softened,
Laser, maser... or scalar metal-melting beam,
or even a tank-cannon.
Hugely precise, from a great distance.
the breaking point looks like a heavy object impact, or maybe softened,
Laser, maser... or scalar metal-melting beam,
or even a tank-cannon.
Hugely precise, from a great distance.
QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Sep 27 2007, 01:25 PM)
QUOTE (Cary @ Sep 27 2007, 06:00 PM)
Question for the CIT team.
If nothing hit the Pentagon, where did all the small parts of "something" come from?
If nothing hit the Pentagon, where did all the small parts of "something" come from?
We believe they were blown out of these construction trailers that were completely obliterated:
To support the theory that the trailers were the source of the debris we have an EMS audio asking to close down the left lane of Southbound Route 27 because of debris in the road. Now that would be lane #3 working away from the Pentagon. We have three lanes of highway covered with debris hundreds of feet from the impact site?
How could debris end up that far away from the building if it were a plane crash? Or even a missile? I say it couldn't. But it certainly could if it were trailers exploding outward, sending debris away from the building. This also explains why we saw FBI clean up crews working upwind from the impact site towards I-395 elevated highway direction, right in the area marked "generator trailer" on upper photo.
The punch thru by a missile doesn't make sense to me cuz the angle of attack would've caused deflection upon each entry/exit of ring walls. They're telling us a lightweight airframe punched a straight line 310 feet long ---through six, eighteen inch thick reinforced concrete walls? And made its way through three separate forests of square reinforced concrete columns in between?? COME ON!! These punch throughs had to have been done with shaped charges or wall breaching charges. The idiot who set this up forgot to factor deflection in.
I do not know whose information would be reliable. But DU/high radiation was detected. How would you explain about it? If it is regular explosion, they would not have detected it
A puched out hole at C ring seems to be real, too.
I am not saying explosion did not happen. I am saying it was orchestrated with airplane, missile and explosives.
A puched out hole at C ring seems to be real, too.
I am not saying explosion did not happen. I am saying it was orchestrated with airplane, missile and explosives.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.