WOW! ... video on AA Flight 77 -- a 757 into Pentagon?

[Bozita]

Just watched it twice. Fantastic job.

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

My apologies if this is something old.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. This is at least the 30th thread on this same stupid video!

It's full of lies and distortions. Educate yourself.

[sniffa]

2. um

why don't you do some edumacatin then, instead of acting Like a jerk.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Look at the forum!

I refuse to debunk this video everytime somebody puts their emotions in front of their brains and posts this video.

It's all down there. Edumacate yourself. Take responsibility for what you let into your brain.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Yes. There is.

If the poster had even looked at the forum, they would have seen ten threads or so that are clearly talking about this same video. If the poster had actually opened a few threads, they would have seen the same video posted to even more threads.

And yet here the lying, deceitful thing is again.

It's pretty frustrating to watch a slick piece of propanganda infect yet another DUer, and then watch people like you defend people's right to be ignorant.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[russian33]

4. can you point some out? never seeing this video before..

..it looks pretty damn convincing

[Capn Sunshine]

6. I'd be curious to hear a non distorted explanation.

?

The part about this film that bugs me is,by extension, WHERE is Flight 77 then? Hard to hide something that large.

[RH]

54. The remains of AA 77 were buried

in a landfill.

Which was not by the way any sort of a secret. Ordinary civilian employees were involved and news stories covered the events.

[DBtv]

8. Explain how photographic evidence is false.

I'd love to hear something substantive that explains the shape of the hole in the building prior to the collapse.

[RH]

45. Read the previous threads.

This was all thrashed out long ago.

Here's a web page to help:

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

[DeadHead67]

16. Name Two ! . . . .

. . .lies and distortions. I had never thought about plane debris, or lack thereof, at the pentagon.

[RH]

36. Two lies and distortions:

The cable spools were disturbed and damaged. Look at them with your own eyes. If they were not damaged they'd all be standing up straight at the same height.

The very first reports from eye witnesses at the scene were perfectly consistent with the fact that Flight 77 hit the building.

Read the previous threads on the subject.

[mourningdove92]

3. Wow, very powerful.

[sniffa]

5. i initiaLLy roLLed my eyes

but now i'm a bit skepticaL - if some of the cLaims are true.

- the confiscated cameras; i'd Like to see.
- the punctured hoLes.

[Mr Blond]

7. So, we're supposed to believe...

...that our government flew real planes into the twin towers (That were videotaped) but flew a missle into the Pentagon (That was not videotaped)?

Is that it?

And...We're also supposed to believe that the countless numbers of people involved in such a wide reaching conspiracy have all remained quiet since then?

Is that it?


Face it...This kind of crap makes a lot of money for a lot of people. And that money comes from morons only.

There's your conspiracy.

[DBtv]

10. Not "our government" but the powere elite operatives

in the "intelligence" community.

[Mr Blond]

14. I guess these "Power Elite Operatives" have zombies working for them?

Doing all the dirty work? Then, they're just put back into their graves, thus silencing them forever?


Look...I dig a UFO or Bigfoot story as much as the next guy, but it's JUST A STORY!!!

GEEEEEEZE! And I thought the water-heads who payed for 10 years of Y2K supplies were bad...

[bowens43]

13. It wasn't our government. It was the bush administration.

Be careful who you call a moron that sort of thing has a tendency to bounce back and slap the you in the face.

If you don't have anything constructive to say put your head back in the sand....

[Mr Blond]

15. What I said WAS constructive.

But the kooks who believe this whack-job crap are too wraped in tin-foil (As opposed to sand) to see it.

[DeadHead67]

20. 'Wrapped' is spelled with two (2) p's, Mr. Blond !

[Mr Blond]

21. Thanks for the heads-up!

:)

[Rainbowreflect]

34. Yep, "kooks" & "whack-job crap" are very constructive.

Not!

[Mr Blond]

47. That wasn't the contructive part...

...that was the truth part.

[Rainbowreflect]

51. I think you need to research the difference between truth

and opinion. Also how to use the spell check! ;-)

[Mr Blond]

55. Well, I guess it's my opinion...

...that those who think they're being abducted by little green men are kooky too.

But many would consider that opinion the simple truth.


I'm just trying to tell you guys how others view you (And unfortunately me, by association). Take it for what it's worth.

[Rainbowreflect]

58. The ones that abducted me were not green they were gray.

They also were not that little. :evilgrin:

[johnnie]

19. From what I hear

It doesn't say a missle. Have you watched the movie..or just spouting?

[donco6]

9. How many times to we have to see this?

And rehash the same old silly arguments.

[sniffa]

11. sorry that "we"

have to see this for the first time.

[geek tragedy]

12. Check out the threads from this page.

The Pentagon missile theory has been debunked numerous, numerous times.

Do your own research here and check out the threads discussing it.

No one has an obligation to do your research for you.

[webDude]

17. geek tragedy, watch "911: In Plane Sight" and then reply...

with solid reasons why the Pentagon part is not true.

[geek tragedy]

22. I know why the Pentagon story is true.

Short summary:

Most eyewitnesses saw a big passenger plane hit the Pentagon.

Three other passenger jets were hijacked and crashed that day.

Civil Engineers have studied the crash site and concluded that it was consistent with a large plane hitting the building

Parts of a large passenger jet were found at the crash site.

The bodies of the passengers of Flight 77 were found at the crash site.

I'm not going to waste my $$ on a tape that pretends to refute the obvious.

[el_gato]

35. Qeustions for you

You made 6 statements. Can you provide us with a link to
statements 1, 3, 4, & 5?

[RH]

38. Read the previous threads.

All this was already thrashed out over and over two years ago.

[geek tragedy]

40. Does your attention span last only one thread at a time.

This was discussed in threads on page 1 of this forum. Do some research and actually read them.

[sniffa]

18. um

- i didn't ask you to do research
- i was decLaring that this is the first time i've seen this video

- what the fuck is wrong with you aLL? you're making DU an unhappy pLace, between the shitty repLies and threads on giving advice to kerry.

[geek tragedy]

23. And I'm telling you

that if you look at the past threads in this forum you'll find all of your answers.

[sniffa]

25. who said i was even Looking for "answers"?

i watched the video for the first time, and i'm gratefuL that this person posted it so i couLd.

but now it seems i can't even taLk about it since DU has aLready covered it.

so maybe now, i'LL just taLk about asshoLes some of you are.

[geek tragedy]

26. If you're not looking for answers, what's the point of discussing it?

To point out the cool music?

[sniffa]

27. what's the point of discussing the weather

or a tv show, or what i had for Lunch?

[RH]

53. I never discuss the weather,

tv shows, or what I had for lunch.

As a rule I dont expect anybody to be interested and I'm spending far too much on this here to manage to spare the time.

So please do tell. Why do they do it?

:shrug:

[sniffa]

56. i can't beLieve i took you off ignore for that

damned curiosity!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. Is "not looking for answers" a symptom of a closed mind?

[el_gato]

30. No, were looking for evidence which will provide answers

Like why did the wingspan of the supposed 747 not scar the building?
Why is there no footage of the impact or at least the approach?
Why have the black box recordings of any of these flights never been released? These black boxes were designed to withstand impact after all.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. :eyes:

The wingspan did scar the building. Educate yourself.

There is footage. The idiot video gave you three examples beyond the security cam stills that have been released. One of these was watched "over and over" again by hotel employees before the FBI confiscated the tape. Yet exactly NONE of these people nor have ANY actual eyewitness disputed what hit the Pentagon. Some have recorded their initial impressions, and those descriptions are cherrypicked by this video to distort the actual record. But no eyewitness disputes that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, not even the ones that thought they heard a missile, not even the ones who thought they saw a small plane. None of them.

Please provide an example of any black box recording from any crash being "released", so we know what you're talking about.

[RH]

42. The wingspan did scar the building.

The Black box recordings were not explored because the idiots were far too busy chasing the 'No Boeing' disinformation nonsense, convinced by the lie that no Black Box information was found.

It was found. Go get it.

[johnnie]

24. I don't know why everyone keeps thinking it's all about a missile

I have been reading all these posts about this movie, and I would have to believe that most of you "debunking" it haven't seen the complete movie yet.
The reviews I have read on it basically states that the writers of this movie just asks questions and doesn't give opinions. They used footage that was out on 9-11 and haven't been seen since.
I know for sure that I heard and saw things on the news live on that day, that I never heard about again. I see nothing wrong with looking in to these things and asking questions.
If it makes you feel better to believe the "official" story and go along with what you have been told, then that's fine. But why put down people who want to ask questions and are trying to educate themselves?

[el_gato]

29. Some people are afraid to ask qeustions and want to accept the official

line no matter what. When you do start asking qeustions the most vile of langauge gets spouted out in a very accusatory tone.
Perhaps if these questions didn't matter or if they really were just
on the level of UFOlogy then why would people get so upset over them instead of just laughing about it?

Where is the footage of the pentagon crash? How come we saw the
WTC impact from every fucking angle but yet all footage of the pentagon crash has somehow magically does not exists. Remember the pentagon is probably one of the most surveilled buildings in the world. Why no footage?

[RH]

66. footage that was out on 9-11 and haven't been seen since?

Like hell it wasn't seen since.

Not only have some some us seen the complete crap we saw every image in it and every argument put more than two whole years ago, with every fallacy and every fantasy raked over and over then, ad infinitum.

Google for "Garamone" "Riskus" "Augustino" and "Donley", the photograhers whose work makes up most of it, and with what regard for copyright I wonder? The material was all there in 2001 for anybody to see.

[RH]

70. Correction

Photos that I've been thinking were by Garamone were actually by Jason Ingersoll. Bad memory.

They're mostly for instance on this page

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

which was "Last Revised: February 18, 2003".

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. It's propaganda. Manipulative. Showing off Flash (TM) skills. . . . nt

[el_gato]

32. Why, just because you say so?

At least try to backup what you say.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. This video has been debunked countless times in this forum.

Take a look around. Educate yourself.

[johnnie]

48. Have you seen it?

I'm just curious. As I state in a post above, the producers of this movie just show you pictures and footage for the most part. The reviews I have seen from people who have seen it say that it isn't made with the intentions to sway your mind into believing what they believe, but as a way to ask a few questions.
I have read a lot of the "debunker's" in the threads here, and I have seen no qualified posters who made a good case in believing the "official" story.
To be honest, I really don't know what happened at the Pentagon that day, but I refuse to listen to what the powers to be says happened exactly how they want me to think it happened. A lot of things happened that day that I personally saw live, and never heard about it again.

[RH]

50. You don't have to listen to any "official" story.

Nor do you need any slick video to know what happened.

What is it about official stories that so obsesses everybody?

:boring:

There were plenty of people there at the Pentagon who were not powers that be. They know what happened. It was there to feel. It was there to hear. It was there to smell and it was there to feel.

[johnnie]

59. And a lot of those people that were there

...tell other stories...Do we only listen to the people who are allowed to tell their story?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. No, they don't.

They are on record as telling their initial impressions, but no eyewitness of the crash that I know of is a Flight 77 denier. Even the ones who thought they heard a missile. Even the ones who thought they saw a smaller plane. No eyewitness disputes Flight 77 as being the plane that hit the Pentagon.

[johnnie]

62. I saw some that said different

But I respect your opinion and it's not my purpose to have anyone think any different than they want to.
I just think it is wrong when people try to make others look "stupid" or whacked out because they don't believe everything that the general public believes.
I was in Texas a few weeks back and someone I know there has stacks of the newspapers from Nov 23rd, 1963. I was going thru them and looking at all the initial reports that today aren't covered in the "official" story. It was pretty interesting.

[RH]

67. Where did you see some?

Make my day.

Can you give us one witness, just one willing to subscribe to the supposition that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon?

Have you even bothered to read the totality of the versions selectively quoted from? There are lots of collections of eye witness reports around on the Internet for anybody who wants to take the trouble.

[johnnie]

68. They're out there

You just have to look. As I have said, my purpose is not to convince anyone to think like I do. I have only said that trying to make people feel stupid by "debunking" people's views and opinions seems ridiculous to me.
I guess you thought everything that people were saying was a big spin in F9-11 was just that...a big spin. And Moore is just a conspiracy nut...right?

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Classic response, johnnie

You're the one saying that eyewitnesses are disputing what hit the Pentagon, you're the one with the burden of proof.

[johnnie]

71. Well, not that it matters but...

"Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said."

"The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html

[Bolo Boffin]

72. You're proving my point, johnnie.

That link is to a WaPo story on 11 September 2001. The time the story was posted was 4:59 PM, Eastern time.

That was Mr. Patterson's impression at the time. The story itself says that the plane that crashed was one of two United and two American Airlines planes that were hijacked. Which one of those was a 8-12 passenger commuter plane? None of them. Mr. Patterson was mistaken.

Show me a link where Mr. Patterson continues to insist that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. I'll give you a year back, if you like.

[johnnie]

73. As I said..

It won't matter what I post. Mr Patterson said it looked like a commuter plane that he saw. Flight 77 was not a commuter jet. If I knew this man, I guess I can call him and ask him, but I'm sure you would just say that time has fogged his memory. He was mistaken because what he saw that day wasn't what you want him to have seen.
I will say it again, I have no idea what hit the Pentagon. I never felt right about the official story on 911, even on that day.
I also have my own information that I can't say because the information comes from someone who is too close to it all. It's not concerning the Pentagon, but other "official" stories of the day. It kills me to watch some of the posts on here and know that some people don't have any real idea what they are talking about, but they follow the stories they hear. But once again, I'm not here to prove anything. I know what I know, I believe what I believe and I still am asking questions that I would like to know the answers to.
I have been reading this area of DU for quite a while and I just had to say today that you "debunkers" say the same things over and over and it means nothing.
Why should the people that come here to ask questions believe you because you say things like "That's been proved to be wrong", "Don't waste your money", "OH..here we go again", "use Goggle and find out the real answers". Those are cop-out replies to people who are asking questions.
If you are an eye-witness, have unseen photos, planned the thing, are directly involved or are privy to information that no one else has, then speak up. If all your information comes from the Internet, then I'm sure everyone here can do the same as you and read the net.

[RH]

76. How do you know it was Patterson's impression

at the time?

How do know that it was not a mistake of hearsay or a total fiction?

Why has the alleged Patterson never once been heard of since?

Why so shy?

Does Patterson even exist or did somebody invent him to fluff up the story?

[RH]

75. Did you know

that the reporter who wrote that had never even spoken to Steve Patterson?

[johnnie]

77. Have you spoken to Steve Patterson?

[RH]

74. I did look

I produced the first collection of eye witnesses reports in March 2002.

Yout witnesses exist ony within your inagination, don't they?

You've never actually met one, have you?


:eyes:


I thought not.


:boring:

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Yes, I have seen it.

I would buy the soundtrack if available because it's the only part of the movie that's worth the watching.

Go look at the forum. It's been posted and debunked over and over again. It's been posted as yet another thread since this thread was posted.

[johnnie]

63. Well, to be honest

I havent seen it. I will though and I have enough faith in myself to make up my own mind.

[sniffa]

37. no, you're propaganda!

sorry, this thread is just getting siLLy now.

:tinfoilhat:

[soundfury]

49. Why would the FBI have the need to confiscate the video

of the plane crash in the first place.

Why havenÕt we been able to see these videos?

Thanks for posting this, it the first time IÕve seen it.

[RH]

52. Police investigators collect evidence.

It is their job to collect evidence.

That's what they're paid to do.

:boring:

[MrSammo1]

65. Says it all

Not showing us the videos from the Pentagon and the surrounding area speaks volumes!

[MercutioATC]

57. DEBUNKED dozens of times here.

There are a dozen threads just on the FIRST PAGE of the 9/11 Forum dealing with the Pentagon crash. Yes, it's compelling, it's just not honest.

[MrSammo1]

64. Isn't it

Ashame that our government didn't see fit to show us the pre-collapse Pentagon wall?