A documentary more powerful than Loose Change ... blows the lid off the Inside Job!

[Zook]

Good Morning John of Good Avalon!

Posted by John Parslow (here)
Hello Zook
Many thanks for bringing this excellent video to our notice - probably the most comprehensive I have ever seen about the 911 conspiracy; however the question remains what can we do with this data and how do we bring the perpetrators to justice?
Best regards. JP

The best we can do, IMHO, is to continue pounding the drums of truth. There's a certain vibrational energy in the tympani of truth that is as pure as any that Solfeggio frequencies can impart. Pound ... and wait for the masses to reach critical mass. After the tipping point, all bets are off. But we must strive for the tipping point at all costs, IMHO, because our very survival - as individuals and as a species - hinges on mass awareness.

[Ty]

Hi Teakai,

Thanks for the reply.

Posted by Teakai (here)
Because it was obstructed by the fireball explosion.
Then, people's attention would automatically be diverted to the explosion and the conclusion drawn that the plane flew into it, while the plane simply continued flying.

Perhaps. But for me it strains belief in 2 areas.

1) That no-one (or perhaps more appropriately that more than a few) didn't see a 757 continue flying. Maybe they did and that's revealed further into the video?
2) That it would have been possible. Given Robert's statement, there just wasn't much room for a 757 to maneuver once it left Robert's sight.

I have amended by Google Map pic with the flight path from the original for two reasons. After looking at it and comparing the strike point I had drawn it didn't align with the strike point indicated in the video (shot 1 below). This increases the distance from 500 ft to 516 ft, giving the plane a little more room and time to maneuver and miss the building.

But a 757-200 is 155 ft long with a 124 ft wingspan (shot 2) and superimposed to scale (forgive the crudeness) onto the google map (shot 3) it seems nearly impossible that a plane traveling 350 knots or more could have done anything but hit the building.

According to Robert it would have to be hugging the ground for him to lose sight of it. By the time the tail clears the knoll the nose can be no more than 361 ft from the Pentagon wall. So let's look at how much time the pilot had to avoid the building.

The speed of the plane was between 350 and 460 knots, the lower being the opinion of Terry Morin, the 2nd eyewitness, the higher being the officially reported speed. That equate to:

402 to 529 miles per hour (1 knot = 1.15077945 mph)
2,126,640 to 2,795,013.13 feet per hour (5,280 ft in a mile)
35,444 to 46,583 feet per minute (60 minutes in an hour)
591 to 776 feet per second (60 seconds in a minute)

With 361 feet between the nose of the plane and the building, that leaves between 1.64 to 2.15 seconds to maneuver and miss it.

You may be right, but it doesn't seem possible to me.

I'll continue through the vid as time allows and see if they have an explanation for this.

Posted by Teakai (here)
It was already established at the beginning of the film that the damage caused was not by plane.

I didn't see anything up through Roberts interview (which is as far as I've gotten so far) that established the damage wasn't caused by a plane. I did hear opinion about the damage being inconsistent with a plane crash, but that's just opinion and talk is cheap.

In contract, I saw actual photos of plane debris (shots 4 & 5) but so far no explanation of how that got there if not from a plane crash. For me, physical evidence outweighs circumstantial evidence and speculation.

If I missed something more concrete that establishes that the damage wasn't caused by a plane, please direct me to that section of the vid.

I'll keep watching to see what else they have to say. But so far it looks like they are so intent on conclusively documenting the path of the plane that they've inadvertently proven the opposite of what they intended.

[Ty]

Good Morning Zook,

I do enjoy your prose and your conviction...

Posted by zookumar (here)
Good Morning Good Avalon ... the Earth says hello!

That being said, the Rome in question (among the many Romes of 9/11/2001) is the Pentagon attack event. It dismays me greatly that weak conjecture is still the preferred road of many (and here, I'm not so sure that they don't know that this road is a detour that never reaches).

Fact: the CIT documentary has hard irrefutable evidence of a Northside Citgo jetliner approach. Even those who mistakenly believe they are confirming the government's version of events, e.g. the neoArabian fairy tale of Saudi bin Baba and the Nineteen Sorry Excuses For Sheikhs ... place the jetliner North of Citgo!

ps2: If I can still be humble after the above, please allow me that courtesy to be so.

You'll note that I haven't resorted to anything but the video itself. The one puported to contain hard irrefutable proof that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. Nor am I trying to build a larger case to support the official line. I've simply taken the content of the video and applied objective critical analysis to it.

And yes, I will afford you the courtesy to remain humble. You can do so by addressing the points I raised about the video in my two posts and pointing out where I am guilty of "weak conjecture."

I humbly await your most humble explanations and ask only that you provide it clearly and not wander into the larger 911 picture

Just correct or refute the points I raised, if you don't mind.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Ty
I humbly await your most humble explanations and ask only that you provide it clearly and not wander into the larger 911 picture

Your plea reminds me of a situation I was in, perhaps a year ago. I was playing the role that zookumar is playing here, having posted (on quite a different web forum) evidence that I thought was conclusive proof that the 9/11 official story was wrong. Some other diligent poster stepped forward (as you are doing here) and debated point by point the evidence I presented, always finding plausible reasons to accept the official story and reject the evidence I offered to the contrary. I gave up after a week or three and hundreds of posts.

Such discussions are fruitless, at least in the one case I know too well.

We are far enough removed from the scene of the crime in place and time that we, just posting and reading here on the web, cannot really conclusively prove much of anything. Anyone, as I did then or zookumar has now, claiming to have conclusive proof is inviting a skeptic such as yourself to rebut each detail. The "rules" of such a game are guaranteed, given the limitations I just noted, not to change the skeptics view.

I would ask you, Ty, if we had all the evidence you might have seen before us, but if the official story had been quite different, say one of the variations that truthers (such as myself) typically offer up, involving an inside job, high explosives, controlled demolitions, and much chicanery, then what would you think? In that case, would you look at the evidence (same evidence we have now) and shout in objection that that " alternative official story" (WTC 1, 2, and 7 demolished by explosives, no plane hit the Pentagon, no plane impacted that field in Shanksville relatively intact until it hit the field, ...) was clearly bogus? My guess is that you would not see enough clear, convincing and uncontradicted evidence to justify going against the grain of that "alternative official story."

Well, I am not sure the thought experiment in the previous paragraph will lead anywhere interesting to you or not. Give it a try, if you will.

In any case, in my view, one does need to look at the preponderance of evidence of many aspects of 9/11 before one is likely to change one's conviction as to the events of that day.

Until you look at the larger events of 9/11, you will quite likely remain of your current view, and zookumar (like myself a year ago) will remain frustrated in any efforts to change your mind.

[Ty]

Hi ThePythonicCow,

Thanks for your reply.

However it is too hypothetical for me to answer. Without seeing the evidence you refer to I don't know where it would lead me.

Here's what I know. The posts I made above have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY. I never referred to anything but the content of the video. They are simply the result of critically reviewing the video. If the evidence they present leads to the conclusion that a plane hit the Pentagon, as it appears to so far, barring the introduction of Criss Angel into the theory, then that is what I'll conclude.

I'm just asking for someone to point out the fallacy of my reasoning instead of referring to it as "vague suppositions and conjectures bordering on psychosis" and "weak conjecture." This is the defense of someone with no defense. I think an objective read of what I posted would need to conclude otherwise.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the train of thought I followed and the preliminary conclusion I reached doesn't fit into the overall 911 framework so it must be wrong. That whatever happeneded at the towers and in Shanksville factors into what must have happened at the Pentagon.

I disagree. Matter may behave that way in the quantum world but it doesn't in the macro world. Each of these three sites must stand on the evidence at each of these three sites. You may disagree with this, but if you do, you've left the realm of reason and critical thinking and gone someplace else.

When a coin is flipped there is a 50/50 chance that heads will turn up. There is a 25% chance that heads will turn up twice in a row. A 12.5% chance that heads will turn up 3 times in a row. If heads turn up 10 times in a row, what are the odds that heads will turn up again on the 11th flip? 50%. Each flip is an independent event and subject to the same 50% odds no matter what happened before.

What happened at the Pentagon has to be evaluated in terms of what happened at the Pentagon and nowhere else. If Robert's account and other evidence leads to the conclusion that a plane hit the Pentagon then a plane hit the Pentagon no matter what happened elsewhere. If it leads to the conclusion that it didn't, then a plane didn't hit the Pentagon no matter what happened elsewhere.

So I repeat my challenge. Correct or refute my analysis of Robert's account.

[Zook]

Posted by Ty (here)
I'm about 1/3 of the way through this documentary.

Okay. So a preliminary assessment is what you are offering. Fair enough. I mean, at 33%, what else can it reasonably be?

I've been watching it with a very critical eye and have decided that the makers of it are either really really inept or don't believe the story they're trying sell. In an effort to build a case that a plane crash can't be responsible for the damage at the Pentagon (I'm assuming that's the thrust of this since I haven't made it to the end yet) they produce a documentary that all but proves one did.

Whoa ... after a mere 33% of the video, you've arrived at these following statements(??):
... watching it with a very critical eye and have decided ...?
... they produce a documentary that all but proves ...?

I must confess, friend, I find your standard of proof to be a bit befuddling in light of the standard you demand of the documentarians. That being said, let us march on ...

I refer you to the interview of Robert Turcios that starts at 21:37.

At 22:45, Robert is standing where he was on 911 and explaining how he saw the plane go up a bit to clear the side of the bridge and the camera pans to follow where he points and there is a clear view of the pentagon (1st shot below). The camera zooms in to get the Do Not Enter sign that the plane flew over - and captures a clear view of 4 floors of the pentagon, though left of where the plane hit. (2nd shot below)

Continuing the interview:

23:15 Robert: "I could not see when it hit the Pentagon - all I saw was it headed straight to it and uh then the big explosion, the fireball and lots of smoke."

23:28 Interviewer: "OK. Did you see it actually ahh.... you didn't see it hit the Pentagon?"

23:33 Robert: "No - the view was obstructed I could only see the fireball."

Well, Ty, I just went back and watched the clip of Robert Turcios. I'll mark it as an oversight by you for now , but Turcios also states in clear terms that he saw the jetliner lift upwards to avoid the stop sign. You do the math, but even at minimal speed, a jetliner that lurches upward at 500 feet away cannot lurch down again in time to fit the attack profile of the infamous Penta-lawn unidentified low-flying object that was captured in the frames of the CCTV footage that was made available by the mainstream media tentacle of the Inside Jobbers military industrial octopus. Try this at home ... toss an apple up in the air at a very low angle. Observe that it takes some time before the apple gets back to the vertical starting point, let alone dive beneath this starting point to meet the required attack profile of whatever hit the Pentagon. I just tossed my bottle of Vicks VapoRub in the air at about a 10-degree angle (from one end of my bedroom to the pillow on my bed). Half a second. Now imagine a pilot trying this with a jetliner at even minimal speed from 500 feet away. Understand that not only does the pilot have to manouevre downwards instantaneously after hurdling the stop sign, but he also has to straighten out to meet the attack profile of whatever hit the Pentagon. Probable? Improbable? Or impossible?

Haven't even touched on the Northside CITGO jetliner approach fact yet ... a fact that clearly announces the charlatanry of those who believe that a jetliner impacted the Pentagon, and cite the government computer-depicted Southside approach - and witness testimony to said Southside approach - as evidence ... but clearly, even without the Northside approach fact, you have no rational basis for concluding that the documentarians "... are either really really inept or don't believe the story they're trying sell." Emotional bases don't count.

His view was obstructed I think by the overpass as discussed below.
Now if the case you're trying to make is that this plane didn't hit the Pentagon and you're sure that it didn't then wouldn't you ask Robert if he saw the plane veer off to the left or the right or pull up and miss the Pentagon? Wouldn't you ask him if he saw any other projectiles heading for the Pentagon. I mean, the man had a perfectly clear view of it and you're using him to confirm the flight path. Wouldn't you want him to positively corroborate the rest of the theory?
Why wasn't that question asked? I submit it's because the interviewer doesn't believe his own theory and is just trying to muddy the waters or claim his 15 minutes of fame.
Robert had a clear view of the top floor of the Pentagon all around. He watched the plane until he lost sight of it behind the overpass.

You ignore that fact that Turcios states that the whole thing went down from the Northside of CITGO. Not very critical. You ignore the fact that Turcios states that the jetliner lifted up to avoid the stop sign. Not very critical. You ignore the fact that Turcious states that he saw a fireball, not an actual plane impact. Not very critical. In UK you have cricket; in NA, we have baseball ... where I come from, three strikes on two outs and you're asked to join your buddies in the outfield.

Based on these pictures, if it didn't hit the Pentagon, Robert would have seen it miss. He had a wide open view of the top of the Pentagon. There was nothing in his way to the left or right. Yet he never indicated anything but that the plane crashed into the building. If it hadn't don't you think he would have mentioned - Oh, by the way, I have no idea what created the explosion because the plane pulled up at the last minute and flew over the Pentagon. Wierd huh?

He clearly, unequivocally, states that all he saw was a huge fireball. Are you suggesting that a jetliner could not have disappeared and veered off behind this huge fireball? Or that Turcios' vantage point allows him to see anything more than what he said he saw? Why, against the preponderance of the evidence (not least the Northside CITGO jetliner approach which scuttles the official story of a jetliner impact from the Southside), do you insist that a jetliner impacted the Pentagon? I can state my opinion as to why. IMHO, I think you are more secure with weak conjectures that allow you to live in your informational bubble than with irrefutable evidence that forces you out.

It's a little hard to see in the documentary, but based on Robert's drawn flight path (3rd shot below) and Google Maps we can pretty closely lay out the flight path he saw (4th shot). The overpass in the Google Map corresponds to the Bridge annotation in the 1st shot and is what's blocking Robert's view of the lower floors. Using the path denoted by the red line, the distance from the Pentagon side of the knoll to the wall of the pentagon is 500 ft.
So here's the question. At this point in the documentary, three credible witnesses have all seen a plane flying towards the Pentagon. Robert is the closest and watches the plane until it disappears behind the overpass, 500 ft from the wall of the Pentagon. Where did it go if not into the building? What did it have time to do besides crash?
Kinda makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

Besides crash? Lift up. I hope by the time you absorb the remaining 66% (and in doing so, properly claim the critical eye) ... the answers become clear. You don't have to apologize to me. It's not mine you assailed. But I do think you owe the documentarians an apology for slandering their efforts.



ps: Humble opinions all around.

ps2: You wasted my time today ... but that is my burden to bear for I have chosen to defend truth at all costs, even the price of negative energy and inconvenience.

[AlkaMyst]

zookumar

Thank you for this powerful new video and I deeply appreciate this from the bottom of my heart.......now there's no doubt whatsoever that what we think went down that day happened like we think it it.

I can not thank you enough for this and I'm currently making copies of this to pass out to as many people as I can.......The truth MUST come out!!!

[ThePythonicCow]

Correct or refute my analysis of Robert's account.

I'm not interested - sorry.

The things that stand out most to me about the Pentagon hit are

• that the government has never let us see the security videos (but for five ambiguous frames),
• that there was no visible evidence (but for a couple of rather obviously planted pieces) of the crashed plane,
• that the "official story" that the entire airplane (including high temperature turbines in the engines!) vaporized (except for the corpses, which were not seen being recovered at the site, but were autopsied at Dover AFB later on),
• that the hole in the Pentagon (as visible in the first 20 minutes) was too small,
• that the hole through the several walls and three rings was too deep,
• that the flight path alleged to have been flown was nearly or entirely impossible for a large commercial passenger jet to fly,
• that the alleged pilot couldn't fly a single engine Cessna at low speeds, much less a large jetliner at high speeds, much less such a jetliner on a more or less impossible trajectory, and
• that the alleged Barbara Olson phone calls to her husband were impossible.

This along with similar failings of all the other 9/11 major events leads me to only one conclusion, that whatever happened is nothing like the official story.

If you have been able to select certain portions of one video and concoct a case that it really was a large commercial jetliner that hit the Pentagon, then I presume that whatever you got from that portion of that video is inadequate to provide useful analysis.

I've spent far too many hours of the last few years analyzing this. When I see someone get the wrong answer and insist that I only consider whatever they observed in some sharply restricted piece of documentation, then I am no longer interested in pursuing the matter. As I noticed in my previous post, a year ago I might well have traveled further along this path with you. Not now. If some major or conflicting new evidence came forth, I would eagerly pursue it. But I've watched that video multiple times, and I know that I found it consistent with my view of things (though at times I didn't think it did a very good job of presenting things.)

That you continue to insist on examining just this one video demonstrates clearly to me that you are not interested in fully understanding 9/11, but rather in something else, such as perhaps the fun of debating something.

[Ty]

Good man Zook. I respect someone willing to defend what they believe.

I'll keep this short so I ca get through some more of the video soon.

Posted by zookumar (here)
Whoa ... after a mere 33% of the video, you've arrived at these following statements(??):
... watching it with a very critical eye and have decided ...?
... they produce a documentary that all but proves ...?
I must confess, friend, I find your standard of proof to be a bit befuddling in light of the standard you demand of the documentarians. That being said, let us march on ...

Yes. Well, time will tell. On we march...

Posted by zookumar (here)
Well, Ty, I just went back and watched the clip of Robert Turcios. I'll mark it as an oversight by you for now , but Turcios also states in clear terms that he saw the jetliner lift upwards to avoid the stop sign. You do the math, but even at minimal speed, a jetliner that lurches upward at 500 feet away cannot lurch down again in time to fit the attack profile of the infamous Penta-lawn unidentified low-flying object that was captured in the frames of the CCTV footage that was made available by the mainstream media tentacle of the Inside Jobbers military industrial octopus. Try this at home ... toss an apple up in the air at a very low angle. Observe that it takes some time before the apple gets back to the vertical starting point, let alone dive beneath this starting point to meet the required attack profile of whatever hit the Pentagon. I just tossed my bottle of Vicks VapoRub in the air at about a 10-degree angle (from one end of my bedroom to the pillow on my bed). Half a second. Now imagine a pilot trying this with a jetliner at even minimal speed from 500 feet away. Understand that not only does the pilot have to manouevre downwards instantaneously after hurdling the stop sign, but he also has to straighten out to meet the attack profile of whatever hit the Pentagon. Probable? Improbable? Or impossible?

Zook, if it were apples or jars of Vicks Vapo Rub that attacked the Pentagon those experiments may have merit

As it stands, it is an airplane with ailerons and other mechanical whatnot that provide lift and drop. I'm not a pilot and I'm not claiming to know whether what Robert says he saw is aerodynamically possible, probable, improbable or impossible. I'm just following his account to a reasonable conclusion

... but clearly, even without the Northside approach fact, you have no rational basis for concluding that the documentarians "... are either really really inept or don't believe the story they're trying sell." Emotional bases don't count.

My basis is for that statement is the subject of the discussion we are now having.

You ignore that fact that Turcios states that the whole thing went down from the Northside of CITGO. Not very critical. You ignore the fact that Turcios states that the jetliner lifted up to avoid the stop sign. Not very critical. You ignore the fact that Turcious states that he saw a fireball, not an actual plane impact. Not very critical. In UK you have cricket; in NA, we have baseball ... where I come from, three strikes on two outs and you're asked to join your buddies in the outfield.

Didn't ignore any of it. Northside of CITGO is irrelevant regarding whether or not a plane hit. That the jetliner lifted up to "avoid the stop sign" is irrelevant based on what else he said that you've ignored (see below). That he saw a fireball and not the plane impact I didn't ignore at all. Perhaps you should reread my first post.

He clearly, unequivocally, states that all he saw was a huge fireball. Are you suggesting that a jetliner could not have disappeared and veered off behind this huge fireball?

Whether it could have or not, that's not what Robert's account depicts. Perhaps you should watch again and listen to what he said. As to whether a jetliner could have disappeared behind that huge fireball, I don't know. On the one hand there was a large building behind it called THE PENTAGON. And on the other if it lifted up and cleared the fireball or veered left or right, then it wouldn't have been behind the fireball anymore, would it?

Or that Turcios' vantage point allows him to see anything more than what he said he saw? Why, against the preponderance of the evidence (not least the Northside CITGO jetliner approach which scuttles the official story of a jetliner impact from the Southside), do you insist that a jetliner impacted the Pentagon?

I don't insist that it did. I'm simply drawing reasonable conclusions from Robert's account.

I can state my opinion as to why. IMHO, I think you are more secure with weak conjectures that allow you to live in your informational bubble than with irrefutable evidence that forces you out.

The only irrefutable evidence provided up to Robert's interview in the vid is the flight path of the plane, and according tioEYES WIDE OPEN, that was done by cherry-picking eyewitnesses. Everything else but the photos of the plane debris and the downed lightpoles is speculation.

Now, without spilling the beans I'll tell you this. You've had to distort Robert's account in two critical areas in order to arrive at your scenario. Maybe that was an oversight on your part. Since you dwell only in irrefutable evidence, I'm sure you'll have no trouble identifying what you got wrong and correcting.

In the meantime I'll try to get through some more of this vid.

Besides crash? Lift up.

I think I covered that above.

I hope by the time you absorb the remaining 66% (and in doing so, properly claim the critical eye) ... the answers become clear. You don't have to apologize to me. It's not mine you assailed. But I do think you owe the documentarians an apology for slandering their efforts.

For now I'll keep my current claim to it. Maybe once you figure out what you got wrong you'll agree but somehow I doubt that. As for slandering the documentarians efforts, if they did a better job we wouldn't have to be speculating on where the plane went. They could have just asked Robert.

It doesn't seem at all strange to you that one of their star witnesses with a clear view of the Pentagon who would have seen the plane fly left, right or up, wasn't even asked which way it went? Really? Instead of finding this somewhat lacking, you conclude I owe them an apology?

Oh the injustice of it all...

ps2: You wasted my time today ... but that is my burden to bear for I have chosen to defend truth at all costs, even the price of negative energy and inconvenience.

Hey sorry about that. But the truth will win out in the end, providing that's the objective to start with. I'm glad you agree it's worth fighting for.

[Teakai]

Posted by steve_a (here)
Hi Everybody,

Just to clarify my post (I re-read it and my edit button doesn't work). Why did the film maker not interview official report eyewitnesses who saw the plane coming in from the left (south), nor check on theses eye witnesses background?

Best regards,

Steve

Were there any 'official report' eyewitesses? Or was it all manufactured. It would be difficult to find and interview a witness that didn't exist - and the guy, Leroy? who was apparently a witness, lied through his teeth.
The official side could easily prove their case by showing the videos cameras they took away.

If the official story is proven to be wrong in only one regard - isn't that enough to tell us that the Official version has been falsified?

The video wasn't about proving what did happen - it was about proving that the Official version didn't.
I was already convinced on that regard - building 7 was enough to do that.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Again, how much credence can you still give CIT after reading my earlier post and the new paper that cam about last week?

[3optic]

Posted by zookumar (here)
ps2: You wasted my time today ... but that is my burden to bear for I have chosen to defend truth at all costs, even the price of negative energy and inconvenience.

Zook, what is wasted is an opportunity to engage someone in a rational conversation so that they can be of assistance in waking others up. Our friend Ty is making a sincere attempt at understanding the material through a highly skeptical prism. This is laudable. How is he expected to see if this shift in perception and consciousness has such a belligerent gate keeper?


I do love your posts, Zook. Can you respond to EYES WIDE OPEN? I'd find the ensuing dialogue useful for my own understanding.

[Teakai]

Posted by Ty (here)
Hi Teakai,

Thanks for the reply.



Perhaps. But for me it strains belief in 2 areas.

1) That no-one (or perhaps more appropriately that more than a few) didn't see a 757 continue flying. Maybe they did and that's revealed further into the video?
2) That it would have been possible. Given Robert's statement, there just wasn't much room for a 757 to maneuver once it left Robert's sight.

I have amended by Google Map pic with the flight path from the original for two reasons. After looking at it and comparing the strike point I had drawn it didn't align with the strike point indicated in the video (shot 1 below). This increases the distance from 500 ft to 516 ft, giving the plane a little more room and time to maneuver and miss the building.

But a 757-200 is 155 ft long with a 124 ft wingspan (shot 2) and superimposed to scale (forgive the crudeness) onto the google map (shot 3) it seems nearly impossible that a plane traveling 350 knots or more could have done anything but hit the building.

According to Robert it would have to be hugging the ground for him to lose sight of it. By the time the tail clears the knoll the nose can be no more than 361 ft from the Pentagon wall. So let's look at how much time the pilot had to avoid the building.

The speed of the plane was between 350 and 460 knots, the lower being the opinion of Terry Morin, the 2nd eyewitness, the higher being the officially reported speed. That equate to:

402 to 529 miles per hour (1 knot = 1.15077945 mph)
2,126,640 to 2,795,013.13 feet per hour (5,280 ft in a mile)
35,444 to 46,583 feet per minute (60 minutes in an hour)
591 to 776 feet per second (60 seconds in a minute)

With 361 feet between the nose of the plane and the building, that leaves between 1.64 to 2.15 seconds to maneuver and miss it.

You may be right, but it doesn't seem possible to me.

I'll continue through the vid as time allows and see if they have an explanation for this.



I didn't see anything up through Roberts interview (which is as far as I've gotten so far) that established the damage wasn't caused by a plane. I did hear opinion about the damage being inconsistent with a plane crash, but that's just opinion and talk is cheap.

In contract, I saw actual photos of plane debris (shots 4 & 5) but so far no explanation of how that got there if not from a plane crash. For me, physical evidence outweighs circumstantial evidence and speculation.

If I missed something more concrete that establishes that the damage wasn't caused by a plane, please direct me to that section of the vid.

I'll keep watching to see what else they have to say. But so far it looks like they are so intent on conclusively documenting the path of the plane that they've inadvertently proven the opposite of what they intended.

Hi Tye, pilots have given their official opinion that it was utterly impossible for a plane to manouvre in such a way as to crash into the Pentago as it was Officially said to have done. Even using simultation it wasn't able to be acheived.

And in regard to the plane going through the building - there were pillars left standing where there shouldn't be if a plane went crashing through them. How much more evidence is required?
Even the tiny smattering of video footage that has been release shows no plane.

And it was a blessed coincidence that this was where all the records in regard to the missing Trillions were kept.

[Ty]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
I'm not interested - sorry.

The things that stand out most to me about the Pentagon hit are

• that the government has never let us see the security videos (but for five ambiguous frames),
• that there was no visible evidence (but for a couple of rather obviously planted pieces) of the crashed plane,
• that the "official story" that the entire airplane (including high temperature turbines in the engines!) vaporized (except for the corpses, which were not seen being recovered at the site, but were autopsied at Dover AFB later on),
• that the hole in the Pentagon (as visible in the first 20 minutes) was too small,
• that the hole through the several walls and three rings was too deep,
• that the flight path alleged to have been flown was nearly or entirely impossible for a large commercial passenger jet to fly,
• that the alleged pilot couldn't fly a single engine Cessna at low speeds, much less a large jetliner at high speeds, much less such a jetliner on a more or less impossible trajectory, and
• that the alleged Barbara Olson phone calls to her husband were impossible.

This along with similar failings of all the other 9/11 major events leads me to only one conclusion, that whatever happened is nothing like the official story.

If you have been able to select certain portions of one video and concoct a case that it really was a large commercial jetliner that hit the Pentagon, then I presume that whatever you got from that portion of that video is inadequate to provide useful analysis.

I've spent far too many hours of the last few years analyzing this. When I see someone get the wrong answer and insist that I only consider whatever they observed in some sharply restricted piece of documentation, then I am no longer interested in pursuing the matter. As I noticed in my previous post, a year ago I might well have traveled further along this path with you. Not now. If some major or conflicting new evidence came forth, I would eagerly pursue it. But I've watched that video multiple times, and I know that I found it consistent with my view of things (though at times I didn't think it did a very good job of presenting things.)

That you continue to insist on examining just this one video demonstrates clearly to me that you are not interested in fully understanding 9/11, but rather in something else, such as perhaps the fun of debating something.

I had no interest at all in 911 until two members here piqued my curiosity. One of them referred me to three particular threads of which this is one. So I started looking at the video. You know I have examined more than this one video because you replied to my post on September Clues which had nothing to do with this video. You didn't like my reply there either.

I'm focusong on this video now because that's where I am in my research. I'm focusing on Robert's account because for me it leads to one inescapable (at least at this point) conclusion. You can either believe his account or not. But if you take him at his word you have a real problem explaining how that plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

It's fine to have a lot of issues with the official story. But the only way I know to research them is as they come up. You say you've spent far too many hours researching this already. What did you find out from eyewitness accounts? There were plenty of them who saw one or more planes hit the towers. EYES WIDE OPEN said traffic was at a standstill around the Pentagon that day. Even if it wasn't, the Pentagon isn't exactly out in the boonies. There should be plenty of accounts of a plane either crashing into or flying over the Pentagon.

Enough magnifying glasses on any event will reveal inconsistencies. And in this case there may be deliberate fraud and deception. I'm not saying there isn't. But if the only expanation you have to resolve it is that the damage wasn't from a plane what did you base that on? This video just came out so there must have been something before that. Perhaps something more convincing than this is so far?

[Ty]

Posted by Teakai (here)

The video wasn't about proving what did happen - it was about proving that the Official version didn't.
I was already convinced on that regard - building 7 was enough to do that.

Apples and oranges Teakai. What happened in NY, stays in NY so to speak. For a credible alternate explanation, each event must stand on it's own. You can't credibly claim a plane didn't hit the Pentagon because of Bldg 7. You have to use the evidence or lack of it at the Pentagon.

[Ty]

Posted by Teakai (here)
Hi Tye, pilots have given their official opinion that it was utterly impossible for a plane to manouvre in such a way as to crash into the Pentago as it was Officially said to have done. Even using simultation it wasn't able to be acheived.

And in regard to the plane going through the building - there were pillars left standing where there shouldn't be if a plane went crashing through them. How much more evidence is required?
Even the tiny smattering of video footage that has been release shows no plane.

And it was a blessed coincidence that this was where all the records in regard to the missing Trillions were kept.

Pilots for Truth - I saw that on the video. Has anyone searched to see if another group of pilots have come forward to refute them? If Robert's account is taken at face value, it seems to.

I haven't had time to look into the reports on the structural damage yet. Maybe that's more convincing.

As for the missing trillions I did see something to effect that the money wasn't "missing" as in physically unaccounted for. That it was either split between two accounting systems or was in one accounting system and missing from the other. What specifically have you heard about the missing money?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Again, how much credence can you still give CIT after reading my earlier post and the new paper that cam about last week?

What new paper?

[Teakai]

Posted by Ty (here)
Apples and oranges Teakai. What happened in NY, stays in NY so to speak. For a credible alternate explanation, each event must stand on it's own. You can't credibly claim a plane didn't hit the Pentagon because of Bldg 7. You have to use the evidence or lack of it at the Pentagon.

Exactly.
There were pillars standing where there wouldn't be if a plane did go through it.

Pilots have stated that it is impossible to accomplish that move - even by simulation. And the eye witnesses you pointed out tells us he saw the plane go up - not down.
And no, there is no group of pilots I have found that say that it is perfectly easy thing to accomplish.
Also, as someone else pointed out - the guy who was meant to have carried out this move, couldn't even fly a small plane.
And all the eye witnesses said it came in at a totally opposite direction, which they all agree upon, to that of the official report.

What evidence are you using?

As a matter of interest - have you seen this documentary? It's very interesting and fast moving and reveals a lot of information and inconsitencies. I think most of us have watched this so this latest documentary is just butter on the bread.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

[Ty]

First of all an apology to Zook. Some egg on my face. Having listened again to Robert's account there is sufficient ambiguity in one of the two areas I claimed you got wrong to rescind that. I do humbly apologize. As for the other, it still stands.

Posted by Teakai (here)
And the eye witnesses you pointed out tells us he saw the plane go up - not down.

Not exactly. He says the plane went up to clear the bridge, it was heading for the Pentagon then it "went out of sight" then he heard the explosion and saw the fireball.

Looking at his view of the Pentagon, the only place the plane could have gone out of sight is to go down, whether the group of pilots believe it to be possible or not. So either they're mistaken or Robert's account is wrong.

And all the eye witnesses said it came in at a totally opposite direction, which they all agree upon, to that of the official report.

"Totally opposite direction" is a misnomer used a few times that I caught in the video. It's a northern path vs a southern path, not from the North vs from the South. Look at pic 1 in post 42. The yellow lines are (I assume, since I didn't catch them actually identifying them) the various northern paths the plane may have taken based on the eyewitness accounts. As these converge on the Pentagon the difference is approaching from 9 o'clock vs 8 o'clock.

What evidence are you using?

The first 25 minutes or so of the video Zook posted, primarily Robert's account.

As a matter of interest - have you seen this documentary? It's very interesting and fast moving and reveals a lot of information and inconsitencies. I think most of us have watched this so this latest documentary is just butter on the bread.

No I haven't. As I said I'm just getting started. I looked at the vids in the September Clues thread and this one. I'll prob finish this one then take a look at that. Thanks.

[Kra]

Posted by jaybee (here)
Hiya...after reflecting on the whole 9/11 business....this is what I think probably happened...


Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked 4 airliners.

The day was chosen because Vigilant Guardian/Global Guardian military exercises
were taking place...and the confusion would buy the terrorists time.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity...ilant_guardian



Flight 11 was crashed by terrorists into the World Trade Centre tower.

Flight 175 was crashed by terrorists into the other WTC tower.


The US military got on top of the situation and....


Flight 77 was taken by remote control over the Atlantic Ocean and shot down.

Flight 93 was taken by remote control to a rural part of Pennsylvania and shot down.


For political and propaganda reasons it was decided to cover up the fact that
the military were forced to shoot down the 2 planes.

The Pentagon is the lynch-pin to the whole thing. The incident that fuels the 'Inside Job'
conspiracy and perhaps was, in retrospect a mistake by the 'authorities'.

It was decided to set up the Pentagon to make it look like flight 77 hit it.
Pentagon chosen because it is government property and there was an unoccupied section?

A helicopter fired a missile into the unoccupied area?
Or bombs were set off to look like the building was hit?

Airliner wreckage was placed at the scene.

As I have said before...I don't think that 9/11 was an 'Inside Job'....but I do think
that covering up what actually happened to flights 77 and 93 has brought about
an internet PSYOPS job....to drive the 9/11 conspiracy and muddy the waters.

??????????

I'm sorry but... jaybee you are deluded. Someone here had to say this but none would. You should know... these are not government's plans, government is just a tool. I'm not here to implicate myself in such debates, but this made me react.

[Fred259]

Yes this is possible on B767 aircraft.