Debunking 911 conspiracy theories

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So you don't know what view they had and they only look like 360 degree cameras to you.

That is what a 360 camera looks like

King Mob wrote: »

You are assuming that they all had a clear view on the crash site and the run up to it, but you've nothing to base this assumption on.

No Im not assuming that (where do i state that they all had a clear view on the crash site)

King Mob wrote: »

You've shown only three cameras.
And yes, it's perfectly normal for lower frame rate cameras to have trouble getting a clear picture of a fast moving object.

Why do you assume that the pentagon is only using low fps cctv ? other then you want it to be that way to make your point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GhjLW6HrNk

Just an ordinairy cctv camera in 2001

King Mob wrote: »

Can you show any low frame rate CCTV footage of the planes crashing into the twin towers?

Why would I ? you stated that

No video security system in the world was or is designed to capture images of a plane crashing into a building

Ordinary video cameras operate at 24 fps plenty of CCTV systems operate at the same or even higher framerate .. therefor they can easaly capture a plane hitting a building as is shown in the twin tower attacks

King Mob wrote: »

But the video actually showing the impact is from a low frame rate camera:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9HrwTONo4k
Again, note the police car before the impact.

conveniantly it supposed to be the only footage capturing the plane

King Mob wrote: »

Why would the most secure building in the world bother with such a low frame rate camera at all?

I think you should ask Why they only released the low fps frames not showing a plane

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

That is what a 360 camera looks like

No Im not assuming that (where do i state that they all had a clear view on the crash site)

So you agree that even though there were other cameras present, they are not necessarily in the position to capture the plane.

weisses wrote: »

Why do you assume that the pentagon is only using low fps cctv ? other then you want it to be that way to make your point

I did not assume any such thing.
I'm just explaining that even if there is a camera present and also in the position to see the point of impact, it doesn't necessarily mean that it had to capture an image of the plane.
Hence the argument that you are making, that it is impossible for the security system to have missed getting a clear picture, is false.

weisses wrote: »

Why would I ? you stated that

Ordinary video cameras operate at 24 fps plenty of CCTV systems operate at the same or even higher framerate .. therefor they can easaly capture a plane hitting a building as is shown in the twin tower attacks

So if it is easy for CCTV cameras to capture an image of the plane hitting the twin towers, why is there no footage of it from security cameras?
Perhaps all of the cameras weren't being used to scan the skies for possible incoming jets?

weisses wrote: »

conveniantly it supposed to be the only footage capturing the plane

This is not an answer to my question.
You are asserting that the pentagon would only have high quality, normal frame rate cameras. The video shows that this is not the case.

weisses wrote: »

I think you should ask Why they only released the low fps frames not showing a plane

Because it was the only one that was pointed in the right direction at the right time?

Are you claiming the footage is faked?
Or that is shows something other than a plane?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So you agree that even though there were other cameras present, they are not necessarily in the position to capture the plane.

You stated that i said that they all had a clear view on the crash site I asked you to point out to me where i made that statement ... if you cannot why make such a disingenuous claim

King Mob wrote: »

I did not assume any such thing.

You are only referring to low fps regarding the Pentagon

King Mob wrote: »

I'm just explaining that even if there is a camera present and also in the position to see the point of impact, it doesn't necessarily mean that it had to capture an image of the plane.
Hence the argument that you are making, that it is impossible for the security system to have missed getting a clear picture, is false.

One low fps camera could miss it But all these cameras scanning the building and surroundings and not one showing a picture of a plane ... That is highly unlikely

King Mob wrote: »

So if it is easy for CCTV cameras to capture an image of the plane hitting the twin towers, why is there no footage of it from security cameras?
Perhaps all of the cameras weren't being used to scan the skies for possible incoming jets?

They where probably doing what they where supposed to do and that is monitoring... most cctv cameras have a downwards angle anyway

Are you actually still suggesting that a cctv camera cannot capture a plane flying by ?

King Mob wrote: »

This is not an answer to my question.
You are asserting that the pentagon would only have high quality, normal frame rate cameras. The video shows that this is not the case.

No you asserting they only have low fps cctv (because thats all you talk about)

I showed that even in 2001 it was perfectly normal to have CCTV that can capture anything driving/flying by ... But somehow according to you one of the best guarded buildings in the world doesn't have this technology and only have one camera facing that side of the building (when its clear that camera's purpose would be monitoring the entrance)

So you basically stating there is no CCTV camera at all monitoring that whole side of the Pentagon

King Mob wrote: »

Because it was the only one that was pointed in the right direction at the right time?

And I showed you that probably isn't the case

How are you so sure its the only camera pointing in that direction ?

King Mob wrote: »

Are you claiming the footage is faked?
Or that is shows something other than a plane?

I cannot make anything out of it ... Can you tell its a plane from these frames if so please point out where ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

You stated that i said that they all had a clear view on the crash site I asked you to point out to me where i made that statement ... if you cannot why make such a disingenuous claim

It's not disingenuous because of statements like this:

weisses wrote: »

One low fps camera could miss it But all these cameras scanning the building and surroundings and not one showing a picture of a plane ... That is highly unlikely

Which cameras had a clear view and were pointing at the right place at the right time? And how do you know that this is the case?

weisses wrote: »

They where probably doing what they where supposed to do and that is monitoring... most cctv cameras have a downwards angle anyway

So why couldn't this be the explanation for the lack of footage at the pentagon?
This is what I am suggesting. Like the pentagon, the towers and the surrounding city was riddled with security cameras, yet none of them were in the right position to capture the impact.

weisses wrote: »

Are you actually still suggesting that a cctv camera cannot capture a plane flying by ?

No that's not what I'm suggesting.
I said that no security system in the world is designed to capture images of planes crashing into buildings. I did not say that CCTV cameras were incapable of doing so.

weisses wrote: »

No you asserting they only have low fps cctv (because thats all you talk about)

I did not assert this.

weisses wrote: »

I showed that even in 2001 it was perfectly normal to have CCTV that can capture anything driving/flying by ... But somehow according to you one of the best guarded buildings in the world doesn't have this technology and only have one camera facing that side of the building (when its clear that camera's purpose would be monitoring the entrance)

So again, why if the pentagon had access to this technology do they use a low fps camera at all?
The reason is that low fps cameras are perfectly fine for normal security involving cars and people. Just because the technology existed it does not mean that all of the cameras in the pentagon were high fps. The three cameras you highlighted could have also been low fps.
Do you disagree with this? If so, what do you have to suggest that they were not?

weisses wrote: »

So you basically stating there is no CCTV camera at all monitoring that whole side of the Pentagon

I did not state or suggest this.

weisses wrote: »

And I showed you that probably isn't the case

No you haven't. You haven't shown that any other cameras were pointing in the right direction at the right time.

weisses wrote: »

How are you so sure its the only camera pointing in that direction ?

You asked me why it was the only footage released, that is the possible (and most likely) explanation.

weisses wrote: »

I cannot make anything out of it ... Can you tell its a plane from these frames if so please point out where ?

You have avoided my question.

And no, from the video alone, you cannot conclude that it is a plane.
However in reality, all of the other evidence and reasoning points to it being a plane. The video does not contradict it being a plane. And with the total lack of any viable, sensible alternative, I'm going to conclude it's a plane.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

It's not disingenuous because of statements like this:

Saying

One low fps camera could miss it But all these cameras scanning the building and surroundings and not one showing a picture of a plane ... That is highly unlikely

Is not the same as your dishonest statement regarding the above saying

King Mob wrote: »

You are assuming that they all had a clear view on the crash site and the run up to it, but you've nothing to base this assumption on.

King Mob wrote: »

Which cameras had a clear view and were pointing at the right place at the right time? And how do you know that this is the case?

I showed you pictures of the 360 degree cameras on the pentagon

King Mob wrote: »

So why couldn't this be the explanation for the lack of footage at the pentagon?
This is what I am suggesting. Like the pentagon, the towers and the surrounding city was riddled with security cameras, yet none of them were in the right position to capture the impact.

How do you know for a fact they don't have footage that captured the impact but not released it

King Mob wrote: »

No that's not what I'm suggesting.
I said that no security system in the world is designed to capture images of planes crashing into buildings. I did not say that CCTV cameras were incapable of doing so.

You said

King Mob wrote: »

No video security system in the world was or is designed to capture images of a plane crashing into a building.

Caught again

So what did you actually suggest with that statement if its not CCTV you where referring to ... What other video security system are you talking about?

King Mob wrote: »

So again, why if the pentagon had access to this technology do they use a low fps camera at all?

Maybe because at the gates where you have police as well its not needed to have these systems but on places where you have no eyes all the time more sophisticated equipment would be used

King Mob wrote: »

The reason is that low fps cameras are perfectly fine for normal security involving cars and people. Just because the technology existed it does not mean that all of the cameras in the pentagon were high fps. The three cameras you highlighted could have also been low fps.
Do you disagree with this? If so, what do you have to suggest that they were not?

You said it perfectly Involving cars and people .... at an entrance gate guarded 24/7 ... I never said all the cameras at the pentagon where high fps ... but I am assuming better equipment is used in places where there is no human presence 24/7

King Mob wrote: »

No you haven't. You haven't shown that any other cameras were pointing in the right direction at the right time.

I showed you the pictures of the 360 degree cameras hanging from the pentagon walls

King Mob wrote: »

And no, from the video alone, you cannot conclude that it is a plane.
However in reality, all of the other evidence and reasoning points to it being a plane. The video does not contradict it being a plane. And with the total lack of any viable, sensible alternative, I'm going to conclude it's a plane.

But yet there is no plane visible .... not really a scientific approach

You are happy they released footage of the plane hitting the pentagon without seeing a plane hitting the pentagon .... terrific

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

• The majority of witnesses report a plane.
• A tiny minority of witnesses report specifically and directly that it was a missile and not a plane.
• There is no additional evidence that it was a missile.
• All of the available evidence points to a plane.
• The most likely explanation is that it was a plane.
• There are no witness reports of the things that would follow if it was a missile (such as the planting of wreckage or of the fallen street lamps.)
• A massive nonsensical conspiracy isn't required to explain why a small minority of people make erroneous witness reports. Such a conspiracy is required to explain why so many people reported a plane if there was none.

So since people are saying that the only thing that would convince them is footage of the plane, can we see footage or pictures of the government planting the wreckage of the plane?
After all it was an attack on one of the most famous buildings in the world, and it was right next to a freeway and in the open. So I assume that there was tons of cameras and witnesses able to see.
So why no reports or evidence of the wreckage being planted?

Have I not posted in this very thread one of these so-called witnesses being caught out lying through his teeth? Did you watch his interview? Reactions?

Can you do the same here?

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).

• Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...
  
  It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...
  
  There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...
  
  I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
  
  The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
  
  The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
  
  More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."
  
  
• Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.
  
  
• Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."
  
  
• Bio: http://militaryweek.com/

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Saying

Is not the same as your dishonest statement regarding the above saying

I showed you pictures of the 360 degree cameras on the pentagon

So all of those cameras had a clear view of the crash site and were all pointing in the right direction?

weisses wrote: »

How do you know for a fact they don't have footage that captured the impact but not released it

I don't know. But I think it's more likely that the cameras just didn't pick up anything. You suggested that this was the case.
Do you think the CCTV camera did see the crash?

weisses wrote: »

You said

Caught again

So what did you actually suggest with that statement if its not CCTV you where referring to ... What other video security system are you talking about?

A system of cameras, like the security system around the Pentagon.
I did not ever once say anything about CCTV cameras being unable to get an image of a plane.

weisses wrote: »

Maybe because at the gates where you have police as well its not needed to have these systems but on places where you have no eyes all the time more sophisticated equipment would be used

You said it perfectly Involving cars and people .... at an entrance gate guarded 24/7 ... I never said all the cameras at the pentagon where high fps ... but I am assuming better equipment is used in places where there is no human presence 24/7

Yes, as I said, you are assuming this is the case when you have no real reason to.

weisses wrote: »

I showed you the pictures of the 360 degree cameras hanging from the pentagon walls

But you have not shown that they had a clear view of the crash site or the run up, nor that they happened to be pointing in the right direction, or that they were able to get a clear picture of the plane in the first place.

If they did not have a clear view, or were pointed in the wrong direction or were of too low fps to get a clear, distinct image or all of the above, then it's not a strange thing for there to be no image.

weisses wrote: »

But yet there is no plane visible .... not really a scientific approach

You are happy they released footage of the plane hitting the pentagon without seeing a plane hitting the pentagon .... terrific

Again, taken in context with all of the other evidence, yes, I am happy to say that in the absence of a better alternative.
Do you have a better alternative?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Have I not posted in this very thread one of these so-called witnesses being caught out lying through his teeth? Did you watch his interview? Reactions?

So are all of the witnesses who claimed to see a plane lying?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you do the same here?

He says:

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

This is evidently not the case.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/mil_pentagon_relief_plane.jpg
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/debrisHR.jpg

If these, and other pieces of evidence where planted, how come he doesn't say he saw them being planted?

So beyond the assumptions of people who didn't see it and witness reports you've no reason to trust, what direct evidence is there that a missile hit?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So are all of the witnesses who claimed to see a plane lying?

Who knows? Do you?
So you acknowledge that Taxi Driver was lying? If one "witness" is lying to corroborate the already questionable narrative it calls into question the rest.

Could you share your views briefly on the interview with this guy? What was he afraid of? Why was he lying?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

This is evidently not the case.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/mil_pentagon_relief_plane.jpg
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/debrisHR.jpg

Don't make me laugh...

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who knows? Do you?

I'm asking what your theory is.
The only way for the majority of witnesses to be invalidated is if they are lying.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If one "witness" is lying to corroborate the already questionable narrative it calls into question the rest.

No not really. Unless you are indeed speculating that they were all lying and have a reasonable theory for this.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you share your views briefly on the interview with this guy?

Well first, I think it's pretty despicable the way they keep badgering the poor guy.
Second, there's a lot of cuts, which is a red flag for me.

Taking the content at face value, I fail to see how it's not just a case of him remembering the specific details or getting confused.
Which part are you claiming that he's lying about, the pole being in his car, or his position?

I don't see any of the stuff you claimed he did:

breaking down, admitting this is a concern for "men with money" and essentially admit a cover up that he is too afraid to divulge.

Is that in the same part of the video you posted? If so, can you point out where this occurs?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What was he afraid of? Why was he lying?

I'm not convinced he was afraid or lying.
Could you elaborate on your theory about it?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't make me laugh...

Your witness said that there was no wreckage on the lawn. There are some examples.
Your witness is wrong.

Now again, he claims to have seen the whole thing and watched carefully. If he had seen them planting wreckage, he'd have no issue claiming so. Yet he doesn't.
Can we use this to conclude that no wreckage was planted? If so, where did the wreckage in those pictures come from? If not, then doesn't that mean he's an unreliable witness since he missed something so important?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So all of those cameras had a clear view of the crash site and were all pointing in the right direction?

Isn't that something you falsly stated i have said earlier ?

Define all cameras

King Mob wrote: »

I don't know. But I think it's more likely that the cameras just didn't pick up anything. You suggested that this was the case.
Do you think the CCTV camera did see the crash?

Why is it so likely that 84 cameras apparently did not capture the plane ?

Are they all low fps ?

Are they all pointing in the wrong direction ?

King Mob wrote: »

A system of cameras, like the security system around the Pentagon.
I did not ever once say anything about CCTV cameras being unable to get an image of a plane.

Can you give me the information that explains what kind of system the pentagon uses. ?

Because you seem to know its not a CCTV system they used

Ill ask again regarding your statement below

King Mob wrote: »

No video security system in the world was or is designed to capture images of a plane crashing into a building.

What is this system you talk about ? Its not CCTV according to you

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, as I said, you are assuming this is the case when you have no real reason to.

Yes i assume they will use state of the art surveillance equipment in places where there is no human presence ... Specially because its one of the prime targets for any terrorist,

Meanwhile you assume you see a plane where there is no plane visible in a released video

King Mob wrote: »

But you have not shown that they had a clear view of the crash site or the run up, nor that they happened to be pointing in the right direction, or that they were able to get a clear picture of the plane in the first place.

http://www.arecontvision.com/images/products/Arecont_Vision_180_SurroundVideo_42039_xl.png

Is this to far fetched ?

King Mob wrote: »

If they did not have a clear view, or were pointed in the wrong direction or were of too low fps to get a clear, distinct image or all of the above, then it's not a strange thing for there to be no image.

I am just gonna wait your response regarding the system they used in the pentagon

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Define all cameras

Why is it so likely that 84 cameras apparently did not capture the plane ?

Are they all low fps ?

Are they all pointing in the wrong direction ?

All being all 84 camera you claim were there.
Of those cameras, how many were able to get a clear view of the crash site?
All of them? Some of them?

weisses wrote: »

Can you give me the information that explains what kind of system the pentagon uses. ?

Because you seem to know its not a CCTV system they used

Ill ask again regarding your statement below

What is this system you talk about ? Its not CCTV according to you

A system meaning many cameras hooked together from all around the facility.
No such system is designed with the intent of capturing images of fast moving planes in mind.

weisses wrote: »

Yes i assume they will use state of the art surveillance equipment in places where there is no human presence ... Specially because its one of the prime targets for any terrorist,

But they didn't use the state of the art equipment in some places. So they might not have used it in the places you are assuming they did.
Your assumption is not sound enough to draw the conclusion you do.

weisses wrote: »

http://www.arecontvision.com/images/products/Arecont_Vision_180_SurroundVideo_42039_xl.png

Is this to far fetched ?

Can you show that this was the camera they used?
Is it possible that they did not use such a camera?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

All being all 84 camera you claim were there.
Of those cameras, how many were able to get a clear view of the crash site?
All of them? Some of them?

84 recordings were confiscated

Ill ask again

Why is it so likely that none of the 84 cameras did not capture the plane ?

Are they all low fps ?

Are they all pointing in the wrong direction ?

King Mob wrote: »

A system meaning many cameras hooked together from all around the facility.
No such system is designed with the intent of capturing images of fast moving planes in mind.

Then point out the specifications of that system ... you seem to know what is used in the pentagon.

But its not CCTV according to you
Closed-circuit television (CCTV) is the use of video cameras to transmit a signal to a specific place, on a limited set of monitors.

King Mob wrote: »

A system of cameras, like the security system around the Pentagon.

What system of cameras?

What security system?

You seem to know it so stop being vague about it

King Mob wrote: »

But they didn't use the state of the art equipment in some places. So they might not have used it in the places you are assuming they did.
Your assumption is not sound enough to draw the conclusion you do.

Pentagon is a level V facility
A level V facility is a building such as the Pentagon or CIA Headquarters that contains mission functions critical to national security.

So I think its safe to assume they use state of the art security on places that requires that ... An entrance gate with armed officers could probably do with less

King Mob wrote: »

Can you show that this was the camera they used?

Nope .. Its a 360 degree dome they use

King Mob wrote: »

Is it possible that they did not use such a camera?

Possible yes ... even if they didn't use that lens there where still plenty of cameras mounted on the pentagon covering every inch of space









Can you point out how its logical they all faced in the wrong direction ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

84 recordings were confiscated

Ill ask again

Why is it so likely that none of the 84 cameras did not capture the plane ?

I've asked you point out how many cameras were pointed at the spot or had a clear view of it.
You cannot answer because you cannot show that any did.

It's possible that none were in a position to capture the images.
You are claiming that it is not possible because you are making assumptions that aren't backed up.

So since you are unwilling to consider a non-conspiracy explanation, can you please present a viable alternative?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I've asked you point out how many cameras were pointed at the spot or had a clear view of it.
You cannot answer because you cannot show that any did.

84 recordings where confiscated probably to see if there was anything on it 2 where released with no plane on it

The rest is still not released so I cannot make out which camera was facing where .. which you also know of course so I don't understand why you would ask this

Do you think its logical that 1 of the most important buildings in the US had its CCTV pointed elsewhere ? all of the cameras that are in the Pictures ? ??

King Mob wrote: »

It's possible that none were in a position to capture the images.
You are claiming that it is not possible because you are making assumptions that aren't backed up.

I am making assumptions based on logic ..

King Mob wrote: »

So since you are unwilling to consider a non-conspiracy explanation, can you please present a viable alternative?

No I am making logical conclusions based on the importance of the building and the security measures logically used for such a building

Your logic so far is that you see a fireball and conclude its a Boeing 757 despite there has been no evidence it was a Boeing 757 if you have any then please present it !

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Do you think its logical that 1 of the most important buildings in the US had its CCTV pointed elsewhere ? all of the cameras that are in the Pictures ? ??

Yes it is logical that there might be gaps, momentary or otherwise.
Can you say it is impossible?

weisses wrote: »

Your logic so far is that you see a fireball and conclude its a Boeing 757 despite there has been no evidence it was a Boeing 757 if you have any then please present it !

There's been plenty of evidence shown but you're not going to accept it.

What alternatives are there that fit better?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yes it is logical that there might be gaps, momentary or otherwise.
Can you say it is impossible?

Those gaps happen to be there affecting all the (pentagon) cameras at the same time ?

Is that logical ?

King Mob wrote: »

There's been plenty of evidence shown but you're not going to accept it.

Then point me to the evidence it was a Boeing 757 ?

King Mob wrote: »

What alternatives are there that fit better?

Has nothing to do with fitting other alternatives more the lack of forensic evidence proving what is claimed by officials

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Those gaps happen to be there affecting all the (pentagon) cameras at the same time ?
Is that logical ?

Nope it's not. But I didn't say that.

weisses wrote: »

Then point me to the evidence it was a Boeing 757 ?

For one example I posted pictures of some wreckage a few posts ago.

weisses wrote: »

Has nothing to do with fitting other alternatives more the lack of forensic evidence proving what is claimed by officials

Would you then agree that the alternatives that are presented, such as it being a missile are baseless and without merit?
Or are they more likely than the official story?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Nope it's not. But I didn't say that.

Then how do you explain the apparent failure from Cameras at the pentagon to record the plane hitting the building ?

King Mob wrote: »

For one example I posted pictures of some wreckage a few posts ago.

That is not evidence it was from a 757

King Mob wrote: »

Would you then agree that the alternatives that are presented, such as it being a missile are baseless and without merit?
Or are they more likely than the official story?

The alternatives are only there because of the lack of Information from officials

Interesting piece below

Suppressing Evidence of the Crash Serves the Cover-up

Evidence from the Pentagon crash that would decisively resolve the question of whether Flight 77 was the attack plane has been systematically suppressed by authorities, such as the FBI. Actions have included the following:

The seizure of security videos from the nearby Citgo gas station and Sheraton hotel within minutes of the attack, and their refusal to release those videos.
A failure to release recordings of security video cameras thought to ring the Pentagon or traffic monitoring video cameras along the nearby highways maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
A failure to release photographs of the Pentagon's interior prior to removal of debris.
A failure to disclose the fate of aircraft debris collected at the Pentagon, and their failure to document or disclose the results of any attempts to identify the aircraft parts.
An implausible insistence that the recovered black boxes yielded "nothing useful."
This behavior is consistent with three different motives on the parts of the those responsible for suppression and destruction of evidence.

An institutional penchant for secrecy, amplified by the atmosphere of national emergency produced by the attack
A desire to suppress evidence that would disprove the crash of Flight 77
A desire to suppress evidence that would prove the crash of Flight 77
People who fail to grasp the role of disinformation in the cover-up will tend to overlook Motive 3 and attribute the suspicious actions to Motive 2. However, as I point out in the Booby Trap article, an analysis of the history of the 9/11 Truth Movement demonstrates the value of the no-jetliner theories in sidelining challenges to the official story as the product of lunatic conspiracy theorists.

Conclusion

In this essay I asked what conclusions about the Pentagon attack were supported by physical evidence -- primarily post-crash photographs of the site. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Then how do you explain the apparent failure from Cameras at the pentagon to record the plane hitting the building ?

Didn't say it was a failure either.
No real point in continuing to try and explain this to you when you are determined to not understand what I am saying.

weisses wrote: »

That is not evidence it was from a 757

The only explanation is that it is from a 757. If you have another that you think is better, please outline it.

weisses wrote: »

The alternatives are only there because of the lack of Information from officials

Not an answer to my question.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I'm asking what your theory is.

Why do you think I have any theory? I don't know what happened anymore than you do.

King Mob wrote: »

The only way for the majority of witnesses to be invalidated is if they are lying.

Who said anything about witness testimony being "invalidated"? The witness testimony is questionable because a) There are conflicting witness testimonies and b) Some of the witness have been clearly been lying apparently under pressure to do so.

King Mob wrote: »

No not really. Unless you are indeed speculating that they were all lying and have a reasonable theory for this.

It's happened time and time again that mere street gangs can pressure witnesses into giving false testimonies after a crime. Obviously this is also possible for the most powerful military in history of the world to do so too, especially in their home town.

King Mob wrote: »

Well first, I think it's pretty despicable the way they keep badgering the poor guy.
Second, there's a lot of cuts, which is a red flag for me.

Irrelevant.
I am not asking to give your opinion on what you didn't see but what you did see. So.......?

King Mob wrote: »

Taking the content at face value, I fail to see how it's not just a case of him remembering the specific details or getting confused.
Which part are you claiming that he's lying about, the pole being in his car, or his position?

I don't see any of the stuff you claimed he did:
Is that in the same part of the video you posted? If so, can you point out where this occurs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not convinced he was afraid or lying.
Could you elaborate on your theory about it?

I'll quote the liar himself to demonstrate his fear.

One thing about it, you gotta understand something. When people do things and get away with it - Eventually it's going to come to me and when it comes to me it's gonna be so big that I can't do nothing about it.

King Mob wrote: »

Your witness said that there was no wreckage on the lawn. There are some examples.
Your witness is wrong.

No. You are wrong.
I suggest you look up the meaning of "dearth". 20 years in the airforce and in the Pentagon when it was attacked. There can be few better placed and qualified witnesses.

Dude111

weisses wrote:

84 recordings were confiscated

Yes ask yourself WHY!!!!!!

BECAUSE IT SHOWS WHAT THEY CLAIM????


No..... IT SHOWS THAT NOTHING THEY TOLD THE PUBLIC IS TRUE!!!!!!!!!

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why do you think I have any theory? I don't know what happened anymore than you do.

Then you agree that the alternative theories presented are unsupported and flawed?
Is there some you believe are better than the official explanation?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who said anything about witness testimony being "invalidated"? The witness testimony is questionable because a) There are conflicting witness testimonies and b) Some of the witness have been clearly been lying apparently under pressure to do so.

It's happened time and time again that mere street gangs can pressure witnesses into giving false testimonies after a crime. Obviously this is also possible for the most powerful military in history of the world to do so too, especially in their home town.

If this is the case then, why is the minority of testimony that contradicts the official story more valid or more reliable?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Irrelevant.
I am not asking to give your opinion on what you didn't see but what you did see. So.......?

You asked me my opinion on the video. I gave it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll quote the liar himself to demonstrate his fear.

Nothing in that quote can be taken as evidence he was pressured by anyone and it's far from the admission you claimed it was.

In addition to it being cryptic, the filmmaker has edited it out of it's context in a way i think is dishonest.
First we see the witness talking in the car (the start of the conversation we don't see) where it's claimed he's being candid and making a confession. But the actual quote is cut in from a different voice over.

I am not convinced that he made any such confession or was caught out in a deliberate lie.
I think it was an old man being badgered by an underhanded filmmaker.

This is in addition to the problems in the explaination if we assume that he was forced to lie.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. You are wrong.
I suggest you look up the meaning of "dearth". 20 years in the airforce and in the Pentagon when it was attacked. There can be few better placed and qualified witnesses.

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

I showed you a picture of airplane metal on the lawn.

So again, are you arguing that piece of wreckage was planted there?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Didn't say it was a failure either.
No real point in continuing to try and explain this to you when you are determined to not understand what I am saying.

You claim to know what system is used in the pentagon .... Without telling
what system.

Below another one of your unsupported claims

King Mob wrote: »

Like the pentagon, the towers and the surrounding city was riddled with security cameras, yet none of them were in the right position to capture the impact.

How do you no this to be true ?

If you could support that statement that will clear everything up .... unless its only your assumption

Another one of your claims

You stated

King Mob wrote: »

No video security system in the world was or is designed to capture images of a plane crashing into a building.
It's not a strange thing for such a system to not capture any images.

Then I asked

weisses wrote: »

So what did you actually suggest with that statement if its not CCTV you where referring to ... What other video security system are you talking about?

You anwsered

King Mob wrote: »

A system of cameras, like the security system around the Pentagon.
I did not ever once say anything about CCTV cameras being unable to get an image of a plane.

So its not CCTV according to you

Ill ask again because you seem to know exactly what was and wasn't used at the pentagon according to your statements above

What specific system did they use at the pentagon and how was it not capable of recording a plane ?


What is your logical explanation for all the cameras at the pentagon apparently not being able to record something even resembling a plane.

King Mob wrote: »

The only explanation is that it is from a 757. If you have another that you think is better, please outline it.

So thats a big NO then for presenting evidence it was a 757

You should ask yourself why this wasn't investigated as part of the biggest terrorist attack on the US

King Mob wrote: »

Not an answer to my question.

I go with Bomber's answer

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why do you think I have any theory? I don't know what happened anymore than you do.

And before you go off on a Tangent about theories being unsupported present Evidence your theory is the right one regarding the plane and various security systems used that support what you are saying

That should be easy enough because your'e on the official side with I assume access to all the data collected from various official investigations, like the NIST reports, commission for 9/11 and FEMA to name a few or try NTSB regarding the planes.

Brown Bomber

It's one thing to say that none of the cameras may not have have caught the hi-speed impact moment clearly quite another that only a single camera could could record anything at all as the massive object travelled at ground level along the front lawn of the Pentagon. Also it seems ridiculous to me that not a single camera would have recorded a single moment of the approach as the plane was in the distance.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Then you agree that the alternative theories presented are unsupported and flawed?

I believe that ALL theories are flawed. Hence my statement "I don't know what happened".

King Mob wrote: »

Is there some you believe are better than the official explanation?

This is just speculation but going on a hunch these would be the order of possibilities imo.
1-The 9-11 plane
2- Another plane, possibly a drone
3- A plane which flew up to the pentagon and then over/around + missile
4- A missile

King Mob wrote: »

If this is the case then, why is the minority of testimony that contradicts the official story more valid or more reliable?

Could you please stop putting words in my mouth? Nowhere have I said that this testimony is more valid or reliable. What it does to is raise valid questions about what really happened.

King Mob wrote: »

You asked me my opinion on the video. I gave it.

Nothing in that quote can be taken as evidence he was pressured by anyone and it's far from the admission you claimed it was.

In addition to it being cryptic, the filmmaker has edited it out of it's context in a way i think is dishonest.
First we see the witness talking in the car (the start of the conversation we don't see) where it's claimed he's being candid and making a confession. But the actual quote is cut in from a different voice over.

I am not convinced that he made any such confession or was caught out in a deliberate lie.
I think it was an old man being badgered by an underhanded filmmaker.

This is in addition to the problems in the explaination if we assume that he was forced to lie.

OK. Could you please explain what he was talking about here?

One thing about it, you gotta understand something. When people do things and get away with it - Eventually it's going to come to me and when it comes to me it's gonna be so big that I can't do nothing about it.

Consider, the FBI's harrasment and intimidation of witnesses from JFK to the Boston Bombing - which involved deportations and shooting to death of a witness.

This also happened during 9/11.



(September 12, 2001-2002): FBI Intimidates Witnesses Who Saw Atta in Venice; Tells Them to Keep Quiet


A number of witnesses who claim they saw Mohamed Atta living in Venice, Florida in early 2001 later allege that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, they are intimidated by the FBI and told to keep quiet about what they knew. Amanda Keller, who claims to have lived with Atta during early 2001 (see (February-April 2001)), later says that, even after she moved away from Venice, FBI agents called her every other day for several months after the attacks. She tells investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker about “intimidation by the FBI” that she suffered, adding, “They told me not to talk to anybody, to keep my mouth shut.”



Stephanie Frederickson, who remembers Keller and Atta living next door to her in the Sandpiper Apartments in Venice, later recalls, “At first, right after the attack, [the FBI] told me I must have been mistaken in my identification. Or they would insinuate that I was lying. Finally they stopped trying to get me to change my story, and just stopped by once a week to make sure I hadn’t been talking to anyone. Who was I going to tell? Most everyone around here already knew.”



Charles Grapentine, the manager of the Sandpiper Apartments, also confirms Atta having lived with Keller. He says that, after 9/11, the FBI “called me a liar, and told me to keep my mouth shut.” (Hopsicker 2004, pp. 62-63, 65 and 88-89)


According to the FBI’s account of events, Atta had left Venice by late December 2000 or early January 2001. Its account makes no mention of him returning there later. (US Congress 9/26/2002) A former manager at Huffman Aviation, the Venice flight school attended by Atta in late 2000 (see July 6-December 19, 2000), also later alleges that the FBI intimidated him and told him to keep quiet. He says the FBI was “outside my house four hours after the attack.” He claims his phones were bugged after 9/11, and adds, “I thought these guys [Atta and his associates] were double agents. Why is that so incriminating?” (Hopsicker 2004, pp. 149-150)

King Mob wrote: »

I showed you a picture of airplane metal on the lawn.

Yes, you did. A piece of airplane metal after an airplane crashed into a building fits the description of "dearth".

So again, are you arguing that piece of wreckage was planted there?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, perhaps not. In the same way that there is nothing novel or unique in threatening witnesses there is nothing beyond the pale of tampering with a crime scene.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you please stop putting words in my mouth? Nowhere have I said that this testimony is more valid or reliable. What it does to is raise valid questions about what really happened.

Do you believe then that the witnesses who contradict the official story likewise have similar problems?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK. Could you please explain what he was talking about here?

One thing about it, you gotta understand something. When people do things and get away with it - Eventually it's going to come to me and when it comes to me it's gonna be so big that I can't do nothing about it.

I don't know because I don't think we're getting the full context.
There could be many possibilities for what he meant, but you won't accept any of them as possible. And there's a lot of problems with the explanation that you are presenting but you ignore these.

If he was admitting to the fact that someone pressured him, why didn't he just say it plainly? Why, if he was threaten and thought that some one might come after him, did he agree to any interview at all?
Why did they pressure him into giving testimony in the first place? Why tell him to say something that is so easily disproven. Why tell him to say those things in the first place and how does it assist the conspiracy?
Did they fake the damage to his car, and if so, why doesn't he admit that along with the confession you believe he made?
Why bother with forcing random people to fake testimony and just fly a plane into the building?

But all of these questions are ignored because it's impossible that some old guy was rambling a bit and was taken out of context by someone with an agenda.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, you did. A piece of airplane metal after an airplane crashed into a building fits the description of "dearth".

The witness said that there was no metal wreckage on the lawn.
There was metal wreckage on the lawn.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Perhaps, perhaps not. In the same way that there is nothing novel or unique in threatening witnesses there is nothing beyond the pale of tampering with a crime scene.

Do you have any pictures, video or witness testimony of this evidence tampering? Or do you think that this to makes that theory as flawed as the official explanations?

weisses

So at this point it's safe to assume you are unable to support your own stated facts with anything that backs them up KingMob ?

Strange that anybody can shoot holes in the official story and even the official investigation by just looking at the presented evidence

Dude111

King Mob wrote:

I showed you a picture of airplane metal on the lawn.

So again, are you arguing that piece of wreckage was planted there?

More than likely King!!

Watch this please: http://911blimp.net/pentagonStrike.htm

King Mob

Dude111 wrote: »

More than likely King!!

Then can you provide photos, video or witness testimony that indicates directly that there was evidence planted?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Then can you provide photos, video or witness testimony that indicates directly that there was evidence planted?

Can you provide photos, video or witness testimony that indicates directly that it was a boeing 757 that crashed there ?

If not ... Don't you find it strange that information is not available anywhere ? ..

weisses

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ

From 29 minutes

Makes the "official" story even more ridiculous

Explained by people who know what they are talking about

Dude111

King Mob wrote:

Then can you provide photos, video or witness testimony that indicates directly that there was evidence planted?

No but more important: CAN YOU PROVIDE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS THE OFFICIAL STORY IS REAL??

King Mob

Dude111 wrote: »

No but more important: CAN YOU PROVIDE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS THE OFFICIAL STORY IS REAL??

Yes: Pictures of the wreckage for one.

You reject the idea that it was a plane that crashed into the building cause you say there is no direct evidence of it.
You reject the idea that the wreckage came from the plane because you believe that it could have been planted. You have no direct evidence that it was planted.

Why do you reject the official story out of hand because you believe there is no direct evidence for it, but then have no issue accepting the conspiracy theories when there actually is no direct evidence?

Leroy42

weisses wrote: »

From 29 minutes

Makes the "official" story even more ridiculous

Explained by people who know what they are talking about

I watched most of the video, and it sure does throw up some interesting questions.

One thing I don't understand though, is if we follow the assumption that the 737 didn't hit the Pentagon, it was either a missle of a fighter jet, then what happened to 737 and all the people on board? As the MA flight has shown us it is not that difficult to make plane disappear but it seems very far fetched.

And to what benefit? The twin towers were attacked so the cause of for war would have been pretty strong anyway. Why go to all the additional trouble of such a major cover-up. Having to hijack and destroy a plane, the cover up of that. Having to involve all those people in the cover up of the missle story. Whatever about the top guys buying into the "lessor of two evils" idea, surely some of the lower ranked soldiers you were ordered not to take the normal actions would have spoken out.

weisses

Leroy42 wrote: »

I watched most of the video, and it sure does throw up some interesting questions.

One thing I don't understand though, is if we follow the assumption that the 737 didn't hit the Pentagon, it was either a missle of a fighter jet, then what happened to 737 and all the people on board? As the MA flight has shown us it is not that difficult to make plane disappear but it seems very far fetched.

Not want to be pedantic but it was a 757 ... a bigger plane

Problem with the MA flight comparison is that they know exactly where it hit but still to this day did not positively identified it as an 757 ( publicly)

Leroy42 wrote: »

And to what benefit? The twin towers were attacked so the cause of for war would have been pretty strong anyway. Why go to all the additional trouble of such a major cover-up. Having to hijack and destroy a plane, the cover up of that. Having to involve all those people in the cover up of the missle story. Whatever about the top guys buying into the "lessor of two evils" idea, surely some of the lower ranked soldiers you were ordered not to take the normal actions would have spoken out.

I don't know what their reason was to bring down WTC 1,2 and 7 if i could answer that there wouldn't be a conspiracy

The official story just doesn't add up

The biggest terrorist attack ever .. And to this date no proper (scientific) investigation has been done as to how and why ?

Leroy42

The WTC attack is clearly what happened. Everyone saw the planes hit the towers. A conspiracy has built up around the other buildings and the collapse of the towers but the attack is not in question. That is not the part of the conspiracy that we have beent alking about.

The plane hitting the Pentagon. The official story claims that the plane hit the pentagon and basically disintegrated. The conspiracy theory is that a plane did not hit it but it was either a fighter jet or a missle.

My question was simply (the question being simple not the answer!) what happened to the plane as everyone agrees that the flight exists. Those people on board have never been heard of again.

Is the throery that the US hijacked a plane, destoyed it and killed all the passengers and crew, without any evidence of it every being found, and then flew a missle into the pentagon, and claiming that it was a plane?

This dispite many witnesses saying they say a plane flying towards the pentagon (although their is some disagreement over the exact flight path).

weisses

Leroy42 wrote: »

The WTC attack is clearly what happened. Everyone saw the planes hit the towers. A conspiracy has built up around the other buildings and the collapse of the towers but the attack is not in question. That is not the part of the conspiracy that we have beent alking about.

The attack was allowed to happen We all know that planes hit the twin towers ..(not building 7 But it collapsed reaching free fall speed anyway)

You could assume that it is logical a plane also hit the pentagon if you follow the events taking place.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The plane hitting the Pentagon. The official story claims that the plane hit the pentagon and basically disintegrated. The conspiracy theory is that a plane did not hit it but it was either a fighter jet or a missle.

It disintegrated but apparently there where passengers recovered still strapped in their seats ... Yet the whole plane disappeared and never was positively identified after (same as the other 3 planes)

Leroy42 wrote: »

My question was simply (the question being simple not the answer!) what happened to the plane as everyone agrees that the flight exists. Those people on board have never been heard of again.

Thats the million dollar question

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is the throery that the US hijacked a plane, destoyed it and killed all the passengers and crew, without any evidence of it every being found, and then flew a missle into the pentagon, and claiming that it was a plane?

There is also a theory it flew over the pentagon

Leroy42 wrote: »

This dispite many witnesses saying they say a plane flying towards the pentagon (although their is some disagreement over the exact flight path).

Some very reliable witnesses stating to be 100% sure the plane used a different approach (flight path)

The government could easily release the footage showing a 757 either hitting the pentagon or its approach ... so many cameras where pointed in the general direction of the impact zone

Or do you also believe the Pentagon used very basic low fps surveillance systems ? and none of the 86 confiscated tapes could identify a plane?

Brown Bomber

Leroy42 wrote: »

My question was simply (the question being simple not the answer!) what happened to the plane as everyone agrees that the flight exists. Those people on board have never been heard of again.

If I remember correctly this flight was off all radar for 8 mins. Perhaps someone could fill me in if it is plausible to carry out the switch-a-roo in this time? I have no idea.

Even if we assume an inside job I think the biggest question is why they wouldn't just fly the plane into the Pentagon? Why replace it with a missile?

I got nothing. The only thing I can think of is that the Shanksville plane was scheduled to hit the Pentagon for some reason.

poteen o hooley

Leroy42 your questions are blindingly obvious and simple common sense.
For one, after hitting the twin towers why the need for the guinness book of records for convoluted conspiracy operations replacing a plane with (an imaginary) missile for............what purpose?.... with all the ludicrous risk that someone somewhere would blow the lid on the olympic standard cover up.
But you are wasting your time utterly asking such questions here (and me mine) 'cos even if you produced 100 witnesses who videoed the flight swooping down into the Pentagon along with more footage from the pilot's cockpit the likes of Weiss and the rest here would contend that those witnesses were hypnotised and the film photoshopped.
Best leave then to it. Irrelevant,

Brown Bomber

poteen o hooley wrote: »

Leroy42 your questions are blindingly obvious and simple common sense.
For one, after hitting the twin towers why the need for the guinness book of records for convoluted conspiracy operations replacing a plane with (an imaginary) missile for............what purpose?.... with all the ludicrous risk that someone somewhere would blow the lid on the olympic standard cover up.
But you are wasting your time utterly asking such questions here (and me mine) 'cos even if you produced 100 witnesses who videoed the flight swooping down into the Pentagon along with more footage from the pilot's cockpit the likes of Weiss and the rest here would contend that those witnesses were hypnotised and the film photoshopped.
Best leave then to it. Irrelevant,

Here is the thing, I'd bet my house on Weisses knowing wayyyyyyyyyyy more about 9/11 than you.

I'd also bet my house on Weisses not suspecting any kind of conspiracy UNTIL he actually studied and analysed the evidence.

So where I am sitting, and I know it's an assumption, that you are patronising Weisses for studying, learning and thinking - which is laughable.

poteen o hooley

The main difference is that I have a very decent grasp of reality.

weisses

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If I remember correctly this flight was off all radar for 8 mins. Perhaps someone could fill me in if it is plausible to carry out the switch-a-roo in this time? I have no idea.

Even if we assume an inside job I think the biggest question is why they wouldn't just fly the plane into the Pentagon? Why replace it with a missile?

I got nothing. The only thing I can think of is that the Shanksville plane was scheduled to hit the Pentagon for some reason.

Maybe an Interesting thing to read up on

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html

degrassinoel

poteen o hooley wrote: »

The main difference is that I have a very decent grasp of reality.

next time, use that grasp of reality and read this

Leroy42

I agree that the points raised by Weiss etc raise questions.

The one major problem with the whole "it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon" idea is why?

Two planes had been crashed into the twin towers, we can all agree on that (if not the exact reasoning for the building collapses etc).

Why bother going to all the trouble of hijacking a plane, landing or crashing it where nobody will ever find it, then get all those witnesses to say they say they saw flying towards the pantagon and creating the whole story about the plane so that people such as Weiss could pick holes in it. Why not just fly the plane into the pentagon?

What possible reason for the conspiracy?

poteen o hooley

This is more or less an open admission by Leroy42 that he is also paid by the CIA (and Elvis Presley) to support the cover up.

weisses

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree that the points raised by Weiss etc raise questions.

And all Im doing is looking for anwsers for these questions

Leroy42 wrote: »

The one major problem with the whole "it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon" idea is why?

The funny thing is that there are 2 very viable "conspiracy" theories regarding the pentagon ... the no plane theory and the Mineta testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

Leroy42 wrote: »

Two planes had been crashed into the twin towers, we can all agree on that (if not the exact reasoning for the building collapses etc).

The smoking gun regarding the WTC collapses is WTC 7

WTC 1 and 2 collapsing after the planes hit could be something you can get away with but building 7 puts that collapse in a different perspective as well imo .. and I gave plenty of examples as to why the official building 7 collapse story is ludicrous

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why bother going to all the trouble of hijacking a plane, landing or crashing it where nobody will ever find it, then get all those witnesses to say they say they saw flying towards the pantagon and creating the whole story about the plane so that people such as Weiss could pick holes in it. Why not just fly the plane into the pentagon?

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

Leroy42 wrote: »

What possible reason for the conspiracy?

Just think of the above in a modern setting

All the wars started and supported because of 9/11 which would not have been approved without 9/11

The patriot act approved which would not have happened without 9/11

And that is in my believe just the tip of the Iceberg regarding "the reason"

degrassinoel

poteen o hooley wrote: »

This is more or less an open admission by Leroy42 that he is also paid by the CIA (and Elvis Presley) to support the cover up.

banned 1 week - consistent refusal to adhere to the charter.

Leroy42

weisses wrote: »

Just think of the above in a modern setting

All the wars started and supported because of 9/11 which would not have been approved without 9/11

The patriot act approved which would not have happened without 9/11

And that is in my believe just the tip of the Iceberg regarding "the reason"

I have cut out the rest of your reply as although you may have valid points they don't deal with the plane hitting the pentagon.

I asked why they would use this elaborate hoax regarding the plane and you have deflected it by raising questions about ligitimising wars etc.

That may well have been the outcome, but that would have been the outcome whether a plane had hit the pentagon or not.

The attacl on the twin towers was far more powerful in terms of leading public opinion than the attack on the pentagon. Why bother attacking the pentagon at all? Why, if the whole thing was a military set-up would they attack there own HQ? It one thing to attack a cilivilian base, maybe let some attacks on some outpost, but to allow their HQ to be hit as part of it?

An even if we accept that it was attacked as part of a vast conspiracy why hijack a plane and then use a missle?

I am not saying that their wasn't a conspiracy, I don't know enough facts to be able to say one way or another, I just don't see the logic or reasoning behind this particular part of the conspiracy