FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Pentagon - Overview
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

People on the thread here seldom mention the eyewitness accounts. Back to that in a second.

One of the main websites I keep returning to is on the Pentagon thing is http://911research.wtc7.net/ . It's detailed look at the crash convinced me it WAS flight 77.

But let me go over Rumpl's unanswered questions quickly:

Rumpl wrote:
I don't see the evidence of the tail hitting


I agree. But there could be minimal damage we can't see, or the tail could have detached somehow before impact, missing the 3rd floor. (rule of thumb:"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence")

Rumpl wrote:
Of course the surviving column


That's not a column. It's a piece hanging from the floor above.

Rumpl wrote:
undamaged cable spools


I believe the wing cleared the spools. Just.

Rumpl wrote:
And of course, no debris


There's plenty of photographs of small debris.

But let's go beyond the photo evidence for a second, and compare the 2 scenarios of 757 vs. Military Drone (or other small craft).

You need to create 2 cover stories. The official account, and the alternate account designed to bait and discredit the skeptics.

If it was a drone and you'd want to maintain the official story, you'd have to:

- have confidence you could discredit and suppress eyewitness accounts (knowing that facing that side of the building was a busy highway at rush hour).

- get rid of flight 77 (hoping no one would see it), or falsify information that it took off in the first place (again, you'd have to suppress more eyewitness accounts of airport staff that it never took off)

- make sure the airtraffic controllers didn't get clear evidence that it was not a 757. This might include falsifying flight data.

- falsify photographic evidence, or plant, 757 debris.

Then, for your alternate story to work you'd hope skeptics would pick up on the anomalies created from using the drone.

If it was flight 77 and you'd want to maintain the official story, you'd have to:

- take remote control of flight 77 and slam it into the Pentagon. No need to falsify data, plant evidence, or worry about eyewitnesses (because it's all real, except for Arab hijackers doing the flying).

Then, for your alternate story to work, photoshop a few frames of CCTV footage with some weird things in them (after a guy in France writes a book about how Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon, seeding the idea) and release them.

Which one would you choose? Which one has the greatest chance of success? Which one has less risk, less unknowns?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just so you know - those are not my comments on that picture, they were added by the guy who did the editing. I took that from another message board, because it was the best, clearest photo I could find of the pre-collapse Pentagon.

I should have made that clear or covered-up those text boxes.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My apologies, Rumpl. I assumed you labled the picture yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
marpaujac



Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 5
Location: Faroe Island

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:28 am    Post subject: Pentagon attack Reply with quote

Why make things complicated.


Im agreeing with urbanspaceman that if you should do a Pentagon attack, the simplest way is to take remote control of the flight, and let it slam into the Pentagon building.

Why complicate things?

The only motive I can imagine not to let the Boing plane crash into Pentagon, is if Pentagon has an automatic defense system, which would have shot the plane down.


If we assume there was no Boing flying into the building, we have to explain how to fake the lamp poles, which were brought down.


See following link:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html




Anyway:

Whether it was a Boing, Drone or planted explosives in Pentagon it not crucial whether It was an inside job or not. An inside job could be done in any way. Our problem is just that we dont really understand the details.

_________________
MarPauJac
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 730

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:28 pm    Post subject: New Pentagon Video? Reply with quote

Just in time for the elections ...

Quote:
Sep 15, 2006 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5188

CITGO Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack

FBI Responds to Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act Request and Related Lawsuit

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released a videotape from the FBI that was taken from a CITGO gas station near the Pentagon. Many believed the video would show American Airlines Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The videotape, which depicts views from the gas stations six security cameras, shows that the CITGO cameras did not seem to capture the actual attack. The tape was partially obscured by the FBI to protect the privacy of individuals captured on video in the CITGO convenience store. The FBI released the videotape as the result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request and related lawsuit.

Judicial Watch originally filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004 seeking all records pertaining to September 11, 2001 camera recordings of the Pentagon attack from the Nexcomm/CITGO gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the FBI on June 22, 2006. (In May 2006, The Department of Defense released videos depicting the attack in response to another Judicial Watch lawsuit.)

The FBI has agreed to release to Judicial Watch a videotape obtained from the Doubletree Hotel near the Pentagon by November 9, 2006.

With the release of this videotape, we are one step closer to completing the public record on the September 11 terrorist attacks, said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. The CITGO tape evidently does not show the Pentagon attack, which the American people can now see for themselves. This videotape was the subject of intense public debate. Now that it has been released to the public, there is no reason for further speculation about what it does or does not show.

The CITGO video can be accessed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5965.shtml

_________________
"Look up here, I'm in heaven. I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen. Everybody knows me now." - David Bowie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, it'll be 2 days late. Otherwise, I might think it may show something interesting.

But obviously if it's coming out, then it does not show anything that can be proven to not be Flight 77. It'll be either a blurry frame of nothingness, or another suspicious-looking blob that almost looks like a 767. Or maybe a waiters head, right in line with something that's emitting a trail of vapor-smoke-vortex that almost looks kinda like some kind of jet-missile-plane-bomb-A3-cargo-tanker-flying device.

I hereby claim "suspicious blob" in the office pool. Cool

But the 9/11 blogs have been slow lately, and they really need to get the debate ramped up again, or... everyone will..... start to.... lose....zzzzzZZZZZZZ......

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.

September 26, 2005: Hodes files a request seeking "copies of 85 videotapes in the possession of the FBI described in the declaration of Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire dated September 7, 2005.


http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Damn.... all that waiting for nothing. Again. Laughing

Well, this proves 2 things - (1) the government truly has "nothing to hide"... :roll: and (2) in the future, when they actively suppress, manipulate or destroy any kind of crime scene evidence, it was probably nothing important. And now we can all just chill out and take comfort that there are no such things as govt conspiracies, just like they've been telling us, over and over.

I feel much safer now. Shocked

http://damall.com/mp3/PRESIDNT.WAV

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doubletree camera video. Shows an explosion but no airplane.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1507751455

Now I understand why the release of this damning 'evidence' would have seriously compromised national security.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Caustic Logic



Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 9
Location: Northwest US

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey y'all! Brand new here and it looks like the threads asleep so... BEEP BEEP BEEP!
I just read most of the thread so far - Jerry Fletcher - enjoying your posts so far. Some good discussion that spurred several responses in me brain but now I forget what they were and I need to refreshen my coffee...

I've been looking into the Pentagon case for a couple years now off and on, and have my insights to share, worked in over at my blog site
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/

What I'd like to share for this, yet another independent inquiry into 9/11 of dubious usefulness (but worth another and smarter try):
There is psyop going on, and just as much foot-self-shooting.
The evidence is consistent with a 757:
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/12/physical-evidence-masterlist.html
(If you're familiar with Jim hoffman and Russell Pickering class evidence, not much new here)

That doesn't necessarily mean it was a 757, but Occam's Razor and the fact that the official story says that and that the Pentagon is a smaller and cleaner crime scene than NY, there's not too much room to hide such a massive absence. I'm wih Fintan 100% on the basic concept of the set-up. And the HTB people have run with it, primarily because they think the simpler case works in THEIR favor and offers the easiest route to proof.

If a 757 was the attack plane, that doesn't necessarily mean Hani Hanjour was flying it. Remote control is easy enough. Calls can be faked. That's all they'd need on the day of. The rest could be assembled later according to the list of Patsies pre-selected via Able Danger or whatever.

But - and this is the agnostic in me talking - just because all these are possible doesn't mean Hani WASN'T flying and I know it sounds crazy but what if... he was an ace pilot, Saudi Air Force, American trained, etc and was just FAKING to be a bad pilot for his American witnesses - and what if gov. comes out w/evidence of this, and then we're all playing into the hijackers' pre-arranged psy-op 9/11 follow up attack to turn us against each other.

The most effective disinfo is 90% correct. the Pentagon story and the 9/11 myth are disinfo I think we all know, and they're highly effective.
Could they actually be roughly 90% correct? Is this really only a LIHOP scenario? Do we really have to make the case most opposite the official story?

I guess that's a more general question I should post elsewehre...

_________________
We need to unclog the pipes of truth with caustic logic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:11 pm    Post subject: Remote controlled organism Reply with quote

Hello Caustic, welcome to the forum.

Caustic wrote:
I just read most of the thread so far - Jerry Fletcher - enjoying your posts so far.


You immediately appear to be an extremely intelligent and discerning individual. Wink

Quote:
ust because all these are possible doesn't mean Hani WASN'T flying and I know it sounds crazy but what if... he was an ace pilot, Saudi Air Force, American trained, etc and was just FAKING to be a bad pilot for his American witnesses


Well, it would have been hard for a human to control the aircraft the way it supposedly maneuvered into the Pgon, but it's possible, I guess.

Even so, a human pilot would have to be under some sort of extreme duress, or hypnotic programming to be able to kill oneself with such surgical precision.

It suggests that even a human pilot would be under the 'control' of another party, and another level of operational involvement beyond Hani's personal beef with the US.

I still consider that a type of 'remote control'.
Either way, you're looking at a robot of some kind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Caustic Logic



Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 9
Location: Northwest US

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You immediately appear to be an extremely intelligent and discerning individual.

Yes, you know great minds think alike.

I'm not arguing for Arab hijackers here, just again, if evidence was hidden elsewhere as part of a honepot setup, why not here as well?

I still find remote control the most likely but...
1) It does require faked calls, which can be tricky (but clearly doable)
2) I'm no expert but I don't see how remote control can do things a human pilot can't. Seems to me the issue is what the plane, the engines and rudder can handle, not how strong is the guy yo force the throttle - that's all powered hydraulics I thought, no muscle power needed.
3) I forgot the third one.

As for pilot mindset, hard to say - Islam itself has a kind of remote control thing going on, with everyone's heads supposedly connected to the Kaaba at Mecca five times a day. He may have been some kind f Islamic fanatic or something...
Quote:
I still consider that a type of 'remote control'.
Either way, you're looking at a robot of some kind.

In the sense that robot means servant yes. The attack served US interests, so they allowed it. Doesn't mean they WERE the controllers, but that is likely the case. I've often thought bin Laden's code name could almost be "remote control," seeing his CIA work and elite connections - could it be that this is the 10% wrong (aside from failed air defense) and the rest is as they say?

I appreciate your openness in entertaining this taboo possibility.

_________________
We need to unclog the pipes of truth with caustic logic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.