I am assuming your point is that it was not a plane.scroll99 said:
Then ask these people what they saw that day
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html
Charlie Sheen questions 9/11!!!!!
- Thread starter Rick123
- Start date
Then ask these people what they saw that day
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html
gotta love your conpiracy theory linksdreamer said:
there will be apologists until the truth comes out ,
very interesting 5 minutes movie showing the blur picture of a plane from the security cameras that hit the Pentagon and the eye witness accounts
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomseven/pentagonlies.swf
If it makes you feel better about yourself by classifying those links as such, feel free.scroll99 said:gotta love your conpiracy theory links
What I did was point out that there are many, many, many eyewitness accounts that you and the video maker ignore. The links I gave were lists that people tried to compile for all eyewitness accounts without giving opinions on those accounts.
In fact the video maker only chose to quote the few witnesses who support his theory. Many quotes are not "eyewitness" accounts but rather statements like "it sounded like". The first "eyewitness" account given was by someone named Patterson who saw the plane fly by his window. Do you really expect that witness to be able to determine the type of plane? Of course my links included his comments.
There were many witnesses out on the highways and in the area, that were ignored by the video, who had a clear and in some cases very close view of the plane fly by them.
One witness, Timmerman gave this account
His statement gives an account of what happened to the wings.
Sorry if this link offends you as well
http://www.rense.com/general31/CONFIRM.htm
so scroll99, please explain in your own words all of those eyewitness accounts, albeit inconsistent, and the analysis of the plane debris found on the lawn
I find it weird that you are back to the pentagon despite what you posted yesterday.
Footage of airplane parts on the lawn. Damage to lamp posts over a much wider path than a missle.
Do you even watch the videos you link? This one shows that it was a plane. I was wondering why you posted it but I guess you mixed it up with some other quackery.scroll99 said:
Footage of airplane parts on the lawn. Damage to lamp posts over a much wider path than a missle.
to both of you :
read the thread from the begining , you will get all the answers, if your memory is that short . I am a busy person and dont have time to do it again
and regarding what I personally think about 9/11 conspiracy i stated that too in the begining of the thread
one thing is clear to me there is a high chance that 9/11 truth may never come out ( luckily people have begin to understand whats going on)
but what worries me is that as a consequence of 9/11 US is loosing its civil liberties and becoming police state .
Its the same freedom and liberties that Americans are loosing every day for which Bush adminstration is (supposedly) attacking the world (
)
10 years from now the US citizens will most likely loose all their civil liberties which they are enjoying today and every thing is being done gradually and systemetically
peace
read the thread from the begining , you will get all the answers, if your memory is that short . I am a busy person and dont have time to do it again
and regarding what I personally think about 9/11 conspiracy i stated that too in the begining of the thread
one thing is clear to me there is a high chance that 9/11 truth may never come out ( luckily people have begin to understand whats going on)
but what worries me is that as a consequence of 9/11 US is loosing its civil liberties and becoming police state .
Its the same freedom and liberties that Americans are loosing every day for which Bush adminstration is (supposedly) attacking the world (
)
10 years from now the US citizens will most likely loose all their civil liberties which they are enjoying today and every thing is being done gradually and systemetically
peace
Last edited:
Sorry, between all of your link posts it is difficult to figure what you personally thinkscroll99 said:
The above is a perfectly legitimate worry, so why not just stop posting all of the links that deal with conspiracy theories about how the 9-11 events happened and start discussing the impact of the aftermath.
I think that it is fair to say, given all of the hard evidence, that any conspiracists who still claim that the Pentagon was hit by anything but flight 77 are out of touch and behind the times, so stop linking to them.
In those links and others there is new information. Credible witness and testimonials. Alot of it is spin but its still good to read/watch/listen. U dont like it fine, go QQ some more. The 911 Comission report was a piece of propaganda too, but i still read it. U have to do your homework/research wherever u can find it.
Only thing fair to say is that u dont know shit and u are speculating just as much as the rest of us. Show me a picture of a plane hitting the pentagon and then the debate is over. There were over 34 different cameras recording the alleged flight path of the plane and the only thing released was 5 frame after picture, that did not show a plane. We can show the towers imploding on CNN but god forbid we see a plane flying towards the pentagon. Plz explain this and then produce the picture.
but it goes contrary to his last postanomandar said:
Not really, the facts are there, you are just blind to them. What logic
no pictures therefore it cannot be. I am sorry, but that is so laughable.Usually I do not like to get personal, but you are an idiot to ignore all of the witnesses (as opposed to the select few), the debris, especially the debris that have been identified to the specific plane, the firemen, policemen, and investigators on site, and finally you are just ignorant to the families who lost loved ones on the flight to suggest that it was anything else.
To stand up and make claims that it was not flight 77, to me at least, means that you have other agendas and could care less about the facts.
And to all of you conspiracist believers out there who have trouble thinking for yourselves or understanding what you read, this discussion is only about what hit the pentagon, not why, or who to blame or anything else.
Last edited:
Just goes to show you the sad state of affairs in todays world that the majority of our society have turned into morons...scroll99 said:
dreamer said:Not really, the facts are there, you are just blind to them. What logic
Where is your pic of a plane or how about an explanation why we have no pic or video of the plane?
Q: You know how u know ur Dad is your Dad?
A: Your Mom told ya so.
Your "hard facts" are fabricated. Planes do NOT evaporate. As far as im concerened u are the fuckin conspiracist nut who is believing in the impossible.
What is so impossible to believe. The problem is that you are reading material on the internet that is out of date or just plain wrong. You have read the sites that state "where is the plane?". Come on, admit it, you read it, and you stopped there. You were satisfied because it supported your bias. You did not bother to followup and read about all of the debris that was scattered all over the place, some large enough that they have now matched it to the plane. When a photograph went against your bias you probably closed you eyes and put your hands over your ears. That is why, in this case, your opinion is a joke.anomandar said:
The way you eloquently phrased your response also shows alot about your character.
You're right, they don't evapourate. Watch scroll's video and you will see it didn'tanomandar said:
scroll99 said:
I watched case study entagon flight 77
where the cam took the pic ... the plane is completely blurred out
Is there another video or pic that shows the plane ?besides the aftermath of some pieces
How many people died in the Pentagon ?
The attendence records of the Pentagon the norm?
Im open to both sides .......just looking for answers too
entagon flight 77where the cam took the pic ... the plane is completely blurred out
Is there another video or pic that shows the plane ?besides the aftermath of some pieces
How many people died in the Pentagon ?
The attendence records of the Pentagon the norm?
Im open to both sides .......just looking for answers too
Last edited:
dreamer said:
You do not know me so stop making assumptions.
Please try and asnswer my simple request......
Where is your pic/video of the attack?
With the release of the two video clips, the Pentagon claims to have supplied ALL of the footage it has of the attack. Although the number and positions of security cameras monitoring the Pentagon is not public knowledge, it seems unlikely that only two security cameras captured the attack. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of security cameras ringing the huge building that is the heart of the United States military establishment?
Not only has the government refused to release footage that would clearly show how the Pentagon was attacked, it has also seized footage not belonging to the military. The FBI confiscated video recordings from several private businesses near the Pentagon in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Those recordings, if they still exist, might provide decisive evidence about the attack.
* The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack. 1
* The FBI visited the Citgo gas station southwest of the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack
*Immediately following the attack, actions by officials reveal a concerted program to mop up what evidence of the attack remained in its immediate aftermath and to conceal it and information about its very existence indefinitely. The common interpretation that these actions indicate an attempt cover up that something other than Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon ignores other plausible interpretations.
*As of May, 2006, the only video footage of the Pentagon crash that has been released to the public are three-minute clips from two Pentagon security cameras north of the crash site. Neither video clearly shows details of the crash, but one seems to show an aircraft obscured by a parking lot structure in the frame before the fist one showing the explosion.
*The five frames from the first video leaked in 2002 fueled speculation that the Pentagon was not hit by a jetliner because. In Painful Deceptions , Eric Hufschmid points out:
* The first frame shows a vapor trail of the kind made by missiles, not jetliners.
* The first frame shows an apparent mostly-obscurred plane that is much too small to be a 757.
* The second frame shows an explosion whose white color indicates the detonation of an explosive rather than the deflagration of jet fuel.
*None of these observations support conclusions about what hit the Pentagon, since the video's resolution is too poor to make definitive conclusions, and it is possible that the imagery was edited.
*It may be that the video recordings from surrounding businesses confiscated by the FBI in the wake of the attack clearly show the jetliner. Its release continues to be sought through the Freedom of Information Act case documented at Flight77.info and summerized with this timeline.
*Many people think that the suppression of evidence from the Pentagon attack is evidence that something other than Flight 77, a Boeing 757, crashed into the Pentagon. However, there are explanations for the way officials have handled the evidence that are consistent with the attack plane being Flight 77. For example, destroying and hiding evidence at all of the 9/11/01 crime scenes serves the coverup by limiting the information available to investigators, and cultivating false legends about the attack.
There is a movement for the truth.....
We NEED to see.
We NEED to know....
At least two plaintiffs have attempted to obtain videos seized by the FBI, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The first, documented at Flight77.info, began with a request to the FBI in October of 2004. The second, undertaken by the Judicial Watch, Inc. began with a request to the Department of Defense (DOD) in December of 2004. Following is a timeline of the requests and subsequent lawsuits. Entries relating to the first case are distinguished with boldfaced dates.
* October 14, 2004: Scott A. Hodes, on behalf of his client Scott Bingham, sends a request to David Hardy of the FBI requesting any videos "that may have captured the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001". The request letter mentions videotapes from the Citgo Gas Station and the Sheraton National Hotel.
* November 3, 2004: The FBI replies to Bingham's request stating that their search "revealed no record responsive to your FOIA request".
* November 17, 2004: Hodes files an appeal of Bingham's FOIA request with the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ), citing evidence that the videotapes mentioned in the original request exist.
* December 15, 2004: Christopher J. Farrrell of Judicial Watch, Inc. writes to James Hogan in the Office of Freedom of Information/Security Review of the DOD requesting that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOD, and FBI produce:
any and all agency records concerning, relating to, or reflecting the following subjects:
(1) Video camera recordings obtained by federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from a Nexcomm/Citgo gas station in the vicinity of the Pentagon orn or about September 11, 2001.
(2) Pentagon security video camera recording(s) showing Flight 77 strike and/or hit and/or crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
(3) Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) video camera recording(s) obtained by any federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and/or the VDOT "Smart Traffic Center" on or about September 11, 2001.
* March 7, 2005: The DOJ replies to Hodes' November 17 appeal, admitting that it did posses records responsive to the request but that it could release the records because such a release "could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings."
* January 26, 2005: The DOD advises Judicial Watch, Inc. that it possesses a videotape responsive to the December 15, 2004 request but declines to produce the videotape, citing U.S.C 552(b)(7)(A).
* March 8, 2005: Bingham's attorney files a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia stating that the FBI is in violation of the FOIA for "failing to adequately respond to plaintiff's FOIA request, including failing to adequately search for and release records that the plaintiff believes the agency is in possession of, and for failing to timely respond the plaintiff's administrative appeal."
* April 18, 2005: The DOJ files a response to Bingham's March 8 lawsuit denying the plaintiff's request and asking the judge to dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
* April 19, 2005: District Judge Paul L. Friedman orders the defendants to file a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in the case brought by Bingham on or before June 21, 2005.
* June 10, 2005: The DOD denies Judicial Watch's administrative appeal, claiming that the video is exempt as part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui.
* August 1, 2005: Jeffrey D. Kahn, an attorney for the DOJ's Civil Division files a 23-page MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Scans of the document are posted on Flight77.info.
* August 29, 2005: Hodes files a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and a STATEMENT OF FACT ON WHICH THERE EXIST A GENUINE ISSUE TO BE LITIGATED in response to the DOJ's motion for summary judgment.
* September 9, 2005: Kahn files a REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT"S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
* September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.
and exactly what assumption did I make about you, oh I get it, I mentioned your character, or lack thereof, but that was not an assumption, it was based on your eloquent postanomandar said:
You have to be kidding right? Your whole basis of your opinion is based on the fact that the videos have not been released and Eric Hufschmid's interpretation of the security cameras.
I have asked you numerous times to answer my question. It is obvious u can not, nor do you wish to try.dreamer said:
There is a legal battle right now trying to get the Government to even admit that there is more then just the pentagon video. I doubt you would be aware of this becuase its obvious you know nothing about this subject besides what has been spoon fed to you. The only person kidding here is you.... you are kidding yourself.
Cant wait to read what excuse you do not come up with next.
I am not exactly sure what question you want me to answer, but tell you what, I will call up my good friends at the FBI and see if they will release the tapesanomandar said:
I am guessing here, but do you believe that you could never come to a conclusion of about any event, say a murder trial, unless you had a video or pictures of the crime occurring?
And what more is there to know about the subject. The only "evidence" you have provided is the fact that the government will not release the tapes. I have not convieniently ignored all of the other evidence.
I have to admit, this has been an amazing conversation. Your whole basis of your argument is that the "government" will not release the tapes.
I don't believe that there is a conspiracy by the US Govt to cover up their involvement in 9/11. However, I cannot see a good reason why they withhold information like these security tapes. NOTE: I am making the assumption that the above claims by anomandar is true.dreamer said:I am not exactly sure what question you want me to answer, but tell you what, I will call up my good friends at the FBI and see if they will release the tapes
I am guessing here, but do you believe that you could never come to a conclusion of about any event, say a murder trial, unless you had a video or pictures of the crime occurring?
And what more is there to know about the subject. The only "evidence" you have provided is the fact that the government will not release the tapes. I have not convieniently ignored all of the other evidence.
I have to admit, this has been an amazing conversation. Your whole basis of your argument is that the "government" will not release the tapes.
If indeed they are withholding all this information, then they are doing a dis-service to themselves, the public, the people who died and the men and women who died trying to save the people in the towers...
BTW... if it was not flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon, where is flight 77?? Where are the passengers of flight 77???
