Thread locked in 3...2...1...

__________________
I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. -- Jimmy Hoffa

You wish locking the thread could save you... (Big Bad Boo has arrived!)

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

You guys really discredit yourselves when you say this picture is too blurry to make out. It's quite clear and whatever it is, it's not the front of a 757.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
(top right)

The picture posted by jt-3d at the bottom of page 15 is a joke. The arrows marked "Nose" and "Fuselage" are pointed at empty space.

I saw the pictures of bodies that was posted on page 15.
Pentagon releases AA77 video
How do we know that those aren't the bodies of people who were in the building when it was hit? The official version is that the DNA matched. How can this be varified?
I have googled around trying to find the pictures taken from the gas station but I couldn't find anything.
All I could find was stuff like this.
http://www.rense.com/general63/unob.htm
If somebody has it, please post it. Also--is it true that the FBI confiscated the video? Why wouldn't they show what it recorded if it showed a 757? What is the reason for not showing it for five years?

The only thing I see here that's worthy of serious debate is whether these pictures have been doctored.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...giantpsyop.htm
If this is the original which was released by the government, why would they make the nose look too pointed to be that of a 757?

I only have a little time today. I know I didn't cover all of your responses.

Things have degenerated a bit lately, it seems.

Anybody care to comment on my analysis of the video camera's characteristics and how they affect the "clear" vs. "blurred" images of the attacking aircraft?

Does anyone know where to find information on the specific make and model of the camera that captured those images?

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

The image is NOT clear. It CANNOT be clear. I explained why in post #470 of this thread. Do you understand what I'm saying in that post? If not, I'd be glad to help you understand.

I don't have a link, but I have watched the video. If you find it, you'll be disappointed. The cameras at the gas station were (surprise) pointed at the pumps, cash register, and other areas of the store, not at the pentagon. All the video shows is a flash of light followed by people running out of the store to see what happened. There's no image of the aircraft or impact.

The tape was held until after the Moussaoui trial, as it was evidence in a criminal prosecution.

If this is the original which was released by the government, why would they release it at all if it contained evidence that the official story was wrong and there was government involvement in the attack?

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

My God! Have you just been wandering through this thread in a daze or what?

From page 15:
If you did check out the link provided in the first post of the "Judicial Watch releases 9/11 video from CITGO store near Pentagon" thread and didn't find anything, your desired to investigate truly knows no bounds...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5965.shtml (a link to the video is at the bottom of the page)

I thought that was great info. I didn't know how video cameras worked. I explains a lot of the things I've seen when I pause a VHS tape.

Here are some questions I have for David C. They won't need a lot of time to answer, and none will require yet another link to that image. If the answer is Yes, move to the next question, if it's No, please explain why.

1. Do you say that the plane that hit the pentagon was not a 757?
2. Do you agree that the official story is that it WAS a 757?
3. Does this make the official story wrong?
4. Is an an F-4 or F-111 smaller than a 757?
5. About half the size?
6. If you were in charge of a conspiracy of this type, would you use the same type of plane you planed to claim was used?
7. Can you think of any reason at all why the conspiritors would use one type of plane for the story, then select another for the attack?
If Yes, what would that reason be?
If No, then how can you continue to defend your position?

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

It's quite clear to me what features they're pointing at. When looking at just the pic, there doesn't seem to be a lot indeed. But when also looking at the alternating animation, it becomes clear what is meant with the arrows.

It does not become clear in a sense that there's lots of obvious detail as there isn't, but at least it shows why these arrows are where they were drawn.

Explain why you call a fuzzy, tiny blob of white "clear". Explain how you can see an F4 or F111 in it. Explain how you seee that it is NOT a 757, nor in the white nor in front of the white. Explain how you can't recognize an F4 from an F111 in a clear picture.

F-4

F-111

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

David C,
I wasn't sure if you were coming back. But since you have, please answer the questions I asked in post 435. I'll repeat my post below:

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

The 757 is a much larger plane than the F-111 or the F-4. I wiki'd their specs, and here they are...

757-200
Length: 47.32 m (155 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 38.05 m 124 ft 10 in)
Tail Height: 13.56 m (44 ft 6 in)

F-4 Phatom II (fighter)
Length 19.2 m (63 ft)
Wingspan: 11.7 m (38 ft 4.5 in)
Tail Height: 5.0 m (16 ft 6 in)

F-111 (fighter/bomber)
Length: 22.4 m (73.5 ft)
Wingspan: 19.2 m / 9.74 m (63 ft / 32 ft) spread/swept
Tail Height: 5.22 m (17.13 ft)

The 757-200 has over twice the length of the F-4 or the F-111, and nearly double the wingspan. The tail height is also more than twice that of the two military jets, clocking in at 13.56 m (compared to 5.0 m and 5.22 m). Either of the two military jets are dwarfed by the 757. If it was a mil jet in the Pentagon video, (IMO) you wouldn't be able to resolve it in the camera from the distances we estimated.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

David C, HOW can you say that the image of the parking camera is clear? Many people have posted how it couldn't be, under any circumstance. The camera was not designed for it.

In this case, what is your *proof* that it was not a 757? The evidence is overwhelming in favor of the official story. And you have yet to provide anything, except a very blurry picture where you point and yell 'Look! Its obvious!', when the rest of us say 'Its a white smudge, dude.'.

__________________
Don't believe everything you think.

Oh, I don't need any saving.
I was simply commenting on the fact that the thread had gotten so far off topic (and silly). Usually, when that happens the thread gets locked.

That said, things seem to have gotten back on topic.

__________________
I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. -- Jimmy Hoffa

Did any eyewitnesses report seeing a fighter jet zoom in and hit the Pentagon? I know several say an airliner, some reporting the AA markings. Also, there was one first responder on the radio in New York that reported that WTC2 was hit by a military jet, big military jet, like a B-52.
David, can you provide details on your photoanalysis of the video? The rest of us aren't seeing things with your clarity. Maybe an annotated picture?
I don't see how you can make anything out there...

I know this is a bad scale, but...

Top: 757-200
Middle: F-4 Phatom II
Bottom: F-111
Each dash represents 1 m.

-----------------------------------------------

-------------------

----------------------

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

According to David, they are all lying...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Well, he doesn't exactly say they are lying, he simply refuses to accept any of their testimony as evidence, or any evidence at all for that matter that might contradict his theory, because they all could be lying

Sorry about the double post. I though my first attempt to post had failed but I was mistaken.

I talked about this in post #276

Not if it's a good clear picture such as this one.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html

There's a lot of other evidence such as this from post #264

The clarity of the object in this picture belies your post. You can even see the reflection of the sun on the top of it and the shaded area under it.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html
It was a good attempt at damage-control though.

This is a joke too. It doesn't show anything the other doesn't show. Those arrows are pointed at empty space. This is ludicrous. How can you say what you're saying with a straight face?

I can't see how somebody can say such silly things with such a scornful attitude. This is ludicrous too. I guess you're getting desperate.
Look at the picture. It's the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon. Its shape is too pointed to be that of a 757. Its shape is like that of a fighter. It has the reflection of the sun on the top and a shaded area on the bottom. The reflection of the sun and the shaded area are consistent with the direction the sun is shining judging from the shadow of the Pentagon.

The majority isn't automatically right. Anyway you people are only the majority here. There are lots of skeptics out there. Look at the some of the comments on the footage in question.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/tf2...le13076/#34573
I'd like to hear some comments from you people on the ninth comment on the list. Here it is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty-five years in aviation taught me that the main gear and the engines can always be recovered from an airliner crash. They may be crumpled, smashed and distorted, but they do not disappear.

There was no Boeing airliner involved in the CIA hit!! Once again, we have been had.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

They came from here.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle13076.htm

Here's something that might explain why so many people say they saw a 757. The evidence points to something much smaller so either they were lying or they were mistaken. Maybe a lot of them were actually mistaken.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/archive/9keys.htm
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An air-to-ground missile seems to have been used in the surgical attack, fired by an F-16 while the Boeing 757 overflew the explosion and landed at Reagan National only one mile ahead. Hundreds watched the Boeing flying towards the Pentagon, while only a few saw the small, much faster killer jet hugging the ground flying below radar level. The Boeing approached the Pentagon at about eighty feet above ground level, while the killer jet came in at a 52° angle to the wall, so low that it left a trail of downed lamp-posts, in a straight line with the small hole it finally made at its exit point after passing through several thick walls. All planes in the sky had instructions to land, so the Boeing would have been hardly noticed in the tumult of planes coming out of the sky at Reagan National airport. It was a ‘spook’ plane anyhow as the usual flight 77 Washington to LA was not flying that day (Key No. 7). Debates continue over the path of 5 flattened street-lamps approaching the Pentagon, and how wide a wing-span it indicates. They were on a hill, above the Pentagon’s ground-level, indicating the craft’s ground-hugging capability: a small F-16 drone could have done that, coming in at ground level – impossible for a passenger plane.

David C....please visit Washington some time. Take a look around. Now imagine JET AIRCRAFT sneaking around a few meters above the ground (like your preposterous scheme) without anyone but the conspirators seeing them.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

And other than a blurry photo, do you have proof of any of this? The order to land all the aircraft was well after the attack on the Pentagon. And I'm sorry, but the idea that air traffic control would not notice an extra plane landing is nonsense.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

AHA. A jet fighter knocked down the lamp posts... And after that he flew away with no damage to its wings? RIGHT!
Flight 77 aproached the Pentagon, flew over it, and then landed on Washington Airport. Funny that we have so many reports of an approaching 757 but no one saw it continiue its flight...
Still you have not shown us where the passengers of Flight 77 are. Please not again anything with might, could or maybe.
I could continue, but I have little time...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

I've shown this explanation at least once on this thread.
Watch part 1 of "Painful Deceptions". During the last five minutes a hypothesis is given. It hypothesizes that flight 77 landed at a military base and the passengers were killed by the conspirators.

http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

I think it's a plausible explanation.

That says loads about you.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

The guy in the video could be lying...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Add to the list of places to visit; a "military base."

Take, for instance, Pope AFB, adjoining Ft. Bragg, NC -- close enough so on a long morning run I'd circle part of the apron.

Fly a plane in there. Some thousand-odd duty personnel, plus another thousand civilian workers and military dependents (aka families in on-post housing or shopping at the local PX), will see it. And they gossip.

Put everyone behind closed doors, stop all traffic on post...the gossip will read pandemic proportions. And these days, every GI there will have cell phone and internet access (just as most of them have their own cars, off-post friends, etc.)

So take one single example. Here's Airman Peters. E2, just out of training, he works in the mess hall assisting the civilian cooks. What EXACTLY are you going to tell Airman Peters to make him shut up about the fully-loaded 757 with civilian markings that just landed and was rapidly whisked out of sight?

And how much are you paying "Gunny" McMurdy, who actually has to shoot three-hundred something civilians then lead the burial detail to hide them in a quick mass grave?

Joining the military...much less marrying a military person, or working on post shining boots...does not take away your intelligence or your humanity. I do not believe you could get two thousand random people to shut up and be silent, and be tacitly co-conspirators in the killing of so many American citizens.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

The more I read threads like these, the more I think (jokingly) that the 9/11 episode of South Park is. The US Government created the conspiracy to make it seem like it was all-powerful and menacing, when in reality, they got caught with their pants down.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

David, I said "Please not again anything with might, could or maybe."
A video in that somewhere someone hypothesizes something is far away from that.

Oh and by the way. As my local ISP has some problems I am on ISDN Backup so I will not be able to look at that video. Not that I would have looked at it anyway. I already said that I will not look through hours of video nonsense to guess your point.

Anyway. So now you have all the people in a surrounding of, say, 3 km around the pentagon in your plot, all the people at the pentagon, the 200 people that planted your evidence (I still don't get for what purpose as anybody in the surrounding was in it so no one would ask for that anyway), the whole staff of an AF base, the staff of Washington Airport, everybody living on the way between the Pentagon and Washington Airport, the evil people who planned all this and, (well what US agency is responbsible to watch over the spend money?), them too, as it would cost a HELL LOT of money to pay all these thousands of people to shut their mouth so anybody in that agency would notice.
I am sure I forgot about the other half of the people you would need to pay to get away with that stunt and that is only for the Pentagon. Not speaking of WTC1+2 and the other flight...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Where are the reports of a 757 landing at Reagan National airport (it's not a private airport, you know)? Where are the eyewitness reports of a 757 just missing the Pentagon?

In Washington D.C.?

OK, frankly... I'm having trouble typing out a coherent response to this drivel. It's contagious!

You declare that all eyewitness of the Pentagon impact are lying, so that you have a clean slate to chicken-scratch this nonsense onto. But yet you imply some people actually did see this "killer fighter". Who's to say that these are the liars, or just mistaken? Why do you favor the minority over the majority?

You say this "killer plane" was responsible for the downed light poles, but you fail to consider that this fantastic plane of yours would also have to have the wingspan of a 757 in order to create the pattern seen with the downed light posts. Yet you deny that a 757 is capable of this?

You also ignore the generator damage...

Let me get this straight? It's suspicious that any part of a 757 could have created the hole in the C-ring, but a much, much smaller jet fighter is completely capable of it?

False. Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon at 9:37am. All airborne planes were order to land beginning at 9:45am, 8 minutes after the Pentagon impact.

Why? Explain in detail for all us "dumb folk".

Oh, now it's an "F-16 drone", which BTW is much smaller and lighter than the F-4 or F-111, and about a magnitude lighter in weight than the 757...
...and who was "controlling" this drone?

C'mon guys/gals, I'm sure if our Goverment ever did anything wrong they'd admit it ! What do you think, they'd have to LIE right on TV... ???

When was he last time you hugged the Military Industrial Complex, huh?

Last night, when I went to bed, actually. ;-)

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.