View Full Version: Pentagon On Back Burner In Lcfc?

Loose Change Forum > The Pentagon > Pentagon On Back Burner In Lcfc?

Pages: [1] 2

Title: Pentagon On Back Burner In Lcfc?


john_in_CT - September 24, 2006 02:35 PM (GMT)
I heard Jason and Korey on WBAI in New York a couple weeks ago, and they seemed to be backing off the Pentagon stuff a bit when a caller said he was one of the first responders there that day, and Korey's and Jason's facts were just wrong. Jason said something like "well, we have so much evidence, we're not really sure what happened there."

I think that if this happens, it's a good idea. I always thought the Pentagon/missile theory was the weakest link in LC.

LaughNowCryLater - September 24, 2006 02:37 PM (GMT)
I agree, it is the weakest link. I hope they back away from the pentagon stuff and instead focus on interviews with industry experts & witness testimony.

UnderTow - September 24, 2006 02:44 PM (GMT)
There is nothing wrong with investigating the Pentagon.

But you play the fools game when you insert words like missle,pod,hologram, etc etc.

In my humble opinion. If a break-through in the overall 9.11 case happens, it will be from the AA77, Pentagon, UA93, WTC7, Shanksville, TwinTowers.

In that order.

Russell Pickering - September 24, 2006 02:44 PM (GMT)
It is a very good idea. My belief is they should represent all theories of what did or did not hit the Pentagon and not take a personal position at all. Show the theories side by side and then say the reason that everybody is guessing at what happened is the lack of evidence released by the government and that the evidence that was released is conflicting and of poor quality.

Blame the government for the void that the theories are trying to fill. Then mention how disrespectful allowing allowing the speculation to flourish is to the victims and families in an attempt to pressure the government for more data. Use the Pentagon as a poster child for the suppression of 9/11 evidence.

Not taking a position in a contradictory confusing scenario means nothing can be ridiculed or debunked in the future.

Good plan!

Dachsie - September 24, 2006 03:58 PM (GMT)
I generally agree with Russel Pickering.

QUOTE
"Then mention how disrespectful allowing allowing the speculation to flourish is to the victims and families in an attempt to pressure the government for more data. Use the Pentagon as a poster child for the suppression of 9/11 evidence.

Not taking a position in a contradictory confusing scenario means nothing can be ridiculed or debunked in the future."



All of the hypotheses put forward are just that - hypotheses. They are not theories because in science theories must account for ALL evidence, and the government refuses to give us all evidence.

It is wise to try to put forth hypotheses, but it is also wise to stress that they are just attempts to account for the limited amount of evidence we do have. When you do this, you are at the same time showing that the 9-11 Commission Report's explanation of what did happen does not coincide with even that limited amount of evidence.

When people argue against hypotheses put out by 9-11 truthers, they break about every known rule of logic, rhetoric and argument. They ususally exclusively focus on the more unsubtanitated or less plausible hypotheses to make fun of them and they call them something like wacko conspiracy theories.

Nevertheless there is value in pointing out the official story is a joke and try to come up with some ideas of what possibly could work.

The Pentagon is probably the site where we should theoretically have the absolute MOST amount of good solid evidence to examine since it is probably the most highly guarded building in the whole world -- Such as multiple security cameras (estimated over 80 cameras) as well as anti-aircraft missile batteries surrounding the Pentagon that could have picked up on radar foreign craft approaching.

So there was a huge inordinate amount of "failure to operate" scenarios that make the 9-11 Commission Report (generally equated to what we call "the official story") look even more absurd, in light of the nature of the extreme security features of the Pentagon.

So you make the official story look more and more rediculous by doing 4 things...

1. show how very much evidence conceivable is available and not being released

2. show the relative small amount of evidence we do have

3. show how even that very limited evidence does not support or coincide with the "official story."

4. show how there could be realistic and plausible explanations or scenarios (called hypotheses) that could explain that small abount of evidence. Doing this, of course, shows that what the government did to the Pentago could indeed have been done but that it involved a deliberate conspiratorial, made in happen, "attack". Failures of mulitple and massive security systems (basically what the official story is) could not ever be the cause of the Pentagon attack, but there ARE explanations that could hypothecially or "theortically" explain the evidence quite nicely.

There are several very very strange pieces of evidence about the Pentagon that make the idea of a Boeing 757 hitting it absolutely rediculous, and those need to be hypothesized about.

Throughout the whole series of events since 9-11, political pressure being put on the government by the family members of victims and by the 9-11 truth scholars and non-scholar citizen investigators has been a very useful tool to FORCE ACTION from the govvernment. That is what forced the 9-11 Commission since the Congressional investigation was highlighted by these citizens to be totally inadequate. Now, of course we need to press for a real and true and independent investigation, possibly with investigating panel being of an international make-up.

So by our constant talking about and discussing how horribly the government has behaved about everything related to getting 9-11 truth, and never letting up, you firmly keep the government in a highlighted embarrassing position. You keep the ball in their court. You force some kind of action or response from the government, and when that response is in turn is shown to be a bad joke too, you force the government even deeper in to an embarrassing and really despicable position. In other words, you make the government look more like the perpetrators with each passing day.

So like Russel Pickering outlines, what we need to do is primarily limited to political pressuring because of the paucity of evidence we have. But I guess, I differ with Pickering in my thinking that setting forth hypotheses is of great value, regardless of the fact that those who attack 9-11 truth seekers almost almost use those hypotheses to twist and redicule and spew forth absurd propaganda.



“The melting point of steel isn’t Democrat or Republican. The highest temperature a jet fuel fire can attain isn’t conservative or liberal. The facts are decisive.”

Professor James Fetzer, Scholars for 9-11 Truth

johndoeX - September 24, 2006 04:29 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 24 2006, 10:44 AM)
It is a very good idea. My belief is they should represent all theories of what did or did not hit the Pentagon and not take a personal position at all.

I disagree.

I think they shouldnt show ANY theories.They should present facts to let the viewer make up their own mind/theory.

Ask questions, demand answers.

MJChicago - September 24, 2006 04:49 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 24 2006, 04:29 PM)
I disagree.

I think they shouldnt show ANY theories.They should present facts to let the viewer make up their own mind/theory.

Ask questions, demand answers.

Yep... Let the facts stand on their own, that alone will make LC 1000x smarter.

john_in_CT - September 24, 2006 04:57 PM (GMT)
I agree with UnderTow. If you bring in some of these controversial theories, you almost debunk yourself in the eyes of the public. And after all, we're trying to win hearts and minds here. It looks like they're going to focus more on eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, like Laugh suggested, and I agree that's probably the best way. But I'm not suggesting for a minute that we shouldn't stop digging. If someone turned up a good clear shot of something that obviously wasn't a plane hitting the Pentagon, I think we'd all have to stop and look.

Merc - September 25, 2006 01:09 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 24 2006, 04:29 PM)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 24 2006, 10:44 AM)
It is a very good idea. My belief is they should represent all theories of what did or did not hit the Pentagon and not take a personal position at all.

I disagree.

I think they shouldnt show ANY theories.They should present facts to let the viewer make up their own mind/theory.

Ask questions, demand answers.

Yes, there is no need for theories any longer.

There was a large jet.

A grey or white one with no markings or colors.

It was on the north side of the gas station and didn't hit the light poles or the building the way were were told.

Dachsie - September 25, 2006 02:53 PM (GMT)
The only thing we know for sure is that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

Maybe on mainstream shows Korey and other 9-11 truth spokespersons would do well to just say that and no more.

But in other venues, it is most important to hypothesize (please do not abuse the word "theory").

We do not know what kind of craft or "things" hit the Pentagon, but it is extremely important to explore and discuss plausible hypotheses that DO FIT the availble evidence. The Boeing 757 does NOT FIT the available evidence.

There are some eyewitness who said it looked like a "cruise missile with wings". Well, there is nothing that looks more like a cruise missile with wings than a cruise missile with wings. That needs to be freely and openly dicusses. That is one hypothesis. That is not a "theory."

There are some who say that a smaller jet (such as an A3 Skywarrior) equiped with missiles and remote control technology and made to look somewhat on the exterior like a Boeing 757 best explains the available evidence. There are clear reasons to fully discuss this hypothesis too.

So our reasoning and setting forth of hypotheses springs from "the official story" in relationship to the observed available physical evidence. Can there be scenarios that CAN EXPLAIN all of the evidence? If there can be valid hypotheses, that indicates that what was done was indeed done and quite capable of being done, but just not done in the way of the official story.

Basically when a 9-11 truth person has one of those rare opportunities to be on a mainstream media show, they have to have goals and strategies planned to help them just throw out and get out there the basic outline of the main points of the official story, the ones that are most suspicious and questionable. Not much real discussion or real debate can ever happen on most of these mainstream media shows. The 9-11 truth movement has indeed "gone mainstream" and that is very good, but there must be real, high quality debates and there must be acquisition of more hard evidence released by the government to move the debates forward. The debates have to move closer to mainstream sources, but it is doubtful that they will ever be fully allowed to happen on mainstream outlets in prime time.

Russell Pickering - September 25, 2006 06:44 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Merc @ Sep 25 2006, 01:09 PM)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 24 2006, 04:29 PM)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 24 2006, 10:44 AM)
It is a very good idea. My belief is they should represent all theories of what did or did not hit the Pentagon and not take a personal position at all.

I disagree.

I think they shouldnt show ANY theories.They should present facts to let the viewer make up their own mind/theory.

Ask questions, demand answers.

Yes, there is no need for theories any longer.

There was a large jet.

A grey or white one with no markings or colors.

It was on the north side of the gas station and didn't hit the light poles or the building the way were were told.

People who saw gray were on the shade side of the aircraft. People who saw white were on the sun side.

We have one witness with a maximum viewing time of 1.15 seconds with the shadow of the aircraft passing over him who you say puts the aircraft coming from his left. Watch the youtube video 4:44-4:45 and you can see the store darken for a split second just before everybody reacts. It is the bottom right frame. I am working on a detailed presentation of this if my hard drive is recovered (or I'll have to start over).

You still have not given anything to us in his own words. No report on his audio testimony or graphic as to where he saw the plane as opposed to where he inferred that it came from. You took one statement from him and have ignored the rest including the fact he was in a position to see a flyover and did NOT.

This is not sufficient documentation in light of the physical damage or all of the other witnesses. Present all of what he said, preferably in his own words and give us all a chance to review it. If the mound obscured his view of the impact then the plane was below pole level. Period. If you think we should take this as the final chapter on the Pentagon without further investigation and believe LC Final Cut should reflect this then you should apply your own standards of evidence to it and ask yourself what happens to the film when the hard core critics evaluate your theory.

It will become another straw man to be ridiculed. Is that what you want for the film?





Russell Pickering - September 25, 2006 06:48 PM (GMT)
I chose my words poorly. Hypothesis is correct.

I would combine what the various ideas about what happened are, show all of the mysterious facts about the Pentagon including the recently reinforced wall etc., then highlight the facts that are known such as Hani's flying skills and put it in the government's court.

johndoeX - September 25, 2006 07:00 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 25 2006, 02:48 PM)
I chose my words poorly. Hypothesis is correct.

I would combine what the various ideas about what happened are, show all of the mysterious facts about the Pentagon including the recently reinforced wall etc., then highlight the facts that are known such as Hani's flying skills and put it in the government's court.

What.. no FDR Russ?

You do know that the FDR is stronger evidence in a court of law than physical evidence.. right?

The FDR puts you there... the physical evidence has to be supplemented with circumstance.

Merc - September 25, 2006 07:10 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
People who saw gray were on the shade side of the aircraft. People who saw white were on the sun side.


Right, hence the "grey" and "white" descriptions. And yet no one noticed any colors or markings.

QUOTE
We have one witness with a maximum viewing time of 1.15 seconds with the shadow of the aircraft passing over him who you say puts the aircraft coming from his left. Watch the youtube video 4:44-4:45 and you can see the store darken for a split second just before everybody reacts. It is the bottom right frame. I am working on a detailed presentation of this if my hard drive is recovered (or I'll have to start over).


First of all, we don't know the exact speed of this aircraft. You can say 530 all you want, then that would mean you accept the whole FDR. So we have no idea how long he saw it for. Second, what does 4:44-4:45 have to do with with it, the impact was around 1:51? Third, then you better throw out Christopher Munsey, Terry Morin, Albert Hemphill, William Lagasse, MIKE WALTER-before you even try to scrutinize the Citgo witness who had a better view than anybody, which by the way the sun was NOT behind the plane when it crossed in front of him to the left, unless you're trying to say the sun was behind Rosslyn and the ANC. You can't pick and choose your witnesses Russell when they suit your theory or don't suit your theory.

QUOTE
You still have not given anything to us in his own words. No report on his audio testimony or graphic as to where he saw the plane as opposed to where he inferred that it came from. You took one statement from him and have ignored the rest including the fact he was in a position to see a flyover and did NOT.



More horseshit. I spoke with him 4 times. Verified the information thoroughly, and took more quotes than you did with your Lloyd "interview". He should be in possession right now of the photos and don't worry, there will be a final word on this. More final than it is now. I agree he was in a position to see a flyover, it's not that he "did NOT", it's that I didn't ask him if he saw the plane fly over. You are playing the slimey role again Russell. You should know well and good that I asked him questions with the tone of it revolving around the official story and what he saw. The first and most important part was confirming his account of the plane coming over the north side of the gas station. That has been completed. And as time goes on YOU will get YOUR confirmation. As far as I am concerned, I have mine.

QUOTE
This is not sufficient documentation in light of the physical damage or all of the other witnesses. Present all of what he said, preferably in his own words and give us all a chance to review it.



You hate to lose don't you Russell. Anything it takes huh Russell? My documentation is a HELL OF A LOT more detailed than your Lloyd interview, so you are no one to cast stones. And FYI, I did present all of what he said in his own words, and I don't care to give you or "us" a chance to review it. The only persons I am concerened about reviewing it is my team members and Dylan if he is interested in putting it in the movie.



QUOTE
If the mound obscured his view of the impact then the plane was below pole level. Period.



That is the golden misconception. Again, we essentially skipped over the impact part since he wasn't playing ball with it. I was trying to focus on the part where he talked about pulling up over the highway and not hitting poles. Baby steps, Russell, baby steps.



QUOTE
If you think we should take this as the final chapter on the Pentagon without further investigation and believe LC Final Cut should reflect this then you should apply your own standards of evidence to it and ask yourself what happens to the film when the hard core critics evaluate your theory.


Did I say that? Actually, we are the furthest from that and you will soon see. The hard core critics can do whatever they want. Eventually it will be seen for what is.

QUOTE
It will become another straw man to be ridiculed. Is that what you want for the film?


[yawn] Blah blah blah.

So you're clairvoyant now Russell? What I want for the film?

You still want to talk about all the "theories" and you're questioning what I want for the film? You're twisting flight paths and scrutinizing eye witnesses save the ones that support your theory, and I'm dealing in straw men?

Speaking of witnesses...

Why don't you tell them what you told me Mike Walter said to you Russell about what he actually saw that day?

Merc - September 25, 2006 07:25 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 25 2006, 06:44 PM)
Watch the youtube video 4:44-4:45 and you can see the store darken for a split second just before everybody reacts. It is the bottom right frame.

That's funny, because when you look at the "single pump side" you see NOTHING.

No shadow, no plane. So I have no idea why it "darkens" for a split second nor what it means. It does appear that that whole screen darkens, Yet register 1 doesn't.

But it certainly doesn't support that a plane did it.

This is such a bad analysis I am wondering how you even arrived at that conclusion?

Russell Pickering - September 26, 2006 03:31 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Merc @ Sep 25 2006, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 25 2006, 06:44 PM)
Watch the youtube video 4:44-4:45 and you can see the store darken for a split second just before everybody reacts. It is the bottom right frame.

That's funny, because when you look at the "single pump side" you see NOTHING.

No shadow, no plane. So I have no idea why it "darkens" for a split second nor what it means. It does appear that that whole screen darkens, Yet register 1 doesn't.

But it certainly doesn't support that a plane did it.

This is such a bad analysis I am wondering how you even arrived at that conclusion?

My full shadow analysis is on my old hard drive.

Google ACF or "activity controlled frame rate".

"When there is no motion in the scene, the frame rate is reduced to one frame per second. When motion occurs, the frame rate is increased to the maximum specified by the user."

Watch the various videos closely and see the difference when the "Action" indicator is flashing. The "Action" indicator was not flashing on the single pump side when the shadow went over. That means it might have been recording 1 fps. It is hard to tell but it appears when there is activity the recording is 3-4 fps. 3.75 is typical for stores since that can detect fast hand motion.

The fuselage shadow went right over the building and the windows facing west. The reason the right screen was affected more by the shadow is because the left window is blocked by pop machines. That is why the left register is generally darker throughout than the right register.

When the shadow went over, the pop machines behind the left register blocking the window didn't allow it through. But the unblocked window did and that is why the right register darkened. Look up in the right corner of the right register video and you can see the shadow go by outside too.

EDIT: You can see the instant response of the people when the shadow goes over and then about 2 seconds later, the time it would take for impact to occur, all cameras go to "Action".

Study it a little more and see what you think. The shadow did go over the Citgo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk

From now on I am not responding to your bitter attacks. Anybody else would be warned by you or JDX for similar behavior. But since you guys are monitoring everything and everyone I guess it is OK. I prefer to study and discuss evidence so I can learn. The Pentagon is not a closed case for me.

UnderTow - September 26, 2006 03:36 AM (GMT)
The Pentagon is not a closed case for anyone, imho.


And I thought the Citgo tape was crap'ole. Did someone pull an analysis out of that horrible youtube, or did JudyWatch release thier source file?


Merc - September 26, 2006 01:40 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 26 2006, 03:31 AM)
QUOTE (Merc @ Sep 25 2006, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 25 2006, 06:44 PM)
Watch the youtube video 4:44-4:45 and you can see the store darken for a split second just before everybody reacts. It is the bottom right frame.

That's funny, because when you look at the "single pump side" you see NOTHING.

No shadow, no plane. So I have no idea why it "darkens" for a split second nor what it means. It does appear that that whole screen darkens, Yet register 1 doesn't.

But it certainly doesn't support that a plane did it.

This is such a bad analysis I am wondering how you even arrived at that conclusion?

My full shadow analysis is on my old hard drive.

Google ACF or "activity controlled frame rate".

"When there is no motion in the scene, the frame rate is reduced to one frame per second. When motion occurs, the frame rate is increased to the maximum specified by the user."

Watch the various videos closely and see the difference when the "Action" indicator is flashing. The "Action" indicator was not flashing on the single pump side when the shadow went over. That means it might have been recording 1 fps. It is hard to tell but it appears when there is activity the recording is 3-4 fps. 3.75 is typical for stores since that can detect fast hand motion.

The fuselage shadow went right over the building and the windows facing west. The reason the right screen was affected more by the shadow is because the left window is blocked by pop machines. That is why the left register is generally darker throughout than the right register.

When the shadow went over, the pop machines behind the left register blocking the window didn't allow it through. But the unblocked window did and that is why the right register darkened. Look up in the right corner of the right register video and you can see the shadow go by outside too.

EDIT: You can see the instant response of the people when the shadow goes over and then about 2 seconds later, the time it would take for impact to occur, all cameras go to "Action".

Study it a little more and see what you think. The shadow did go over the Citgo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk

From now on I am not responding to your bitter attacks. Anybody else would be warned by you or JDX for similar behavior. But since you guys are monitoring everything and everyone I guess it is OK. I prefer to study and discuss evidence so I can learn. The Pentagon is not a closed case for me.

Wow.

Wow.

Ok so Russell Pickering is saying the attack is at 4:44-45 now (9:41). Not at 1:50-51 (9:37). All because the screen for register 2 gets a little dark. Wow.

So nevermind "Lagasse" who stops at the SUV after watching the plane fly by?

Are you trying to deliberately confuse people Russell?

Do you realize you just changed the impact time? You are rushing Russell. The other day you said "Lagasse" was out of there in "30 seconds". When it was over 3 minutes. You better slow down Russell. You've got too many irons in the fire.

QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 17 2006, 07:17 AM )
Russell: From impact to turning out of the Citgo towards the Pentagon he was out of there in 30 seconds.


user posted image


Again I pointed this out to you earlier. "Lagasse" pulls up at 1:34 and leaves at 5:03. From 1:43 to 1:52 he walks toward the SUV and stops there.

So are you now saying impact happens at 4:45 on the counter???? All because register 2 cam gets a little darkened???

Cary - September 26, 2006 02:45 PM (GMT)
This is off topic for the most part, but I find it ironic that the gas station that serves Pentagon vehicles is a Citgo station. Citgo is owned by the country of Venezuela -- Hugo Chavez country. The same guy who was calling Bush the devil at the UN the other day. So our defense complex vehicles buy their gas from the government of Venezuela. Amazing. Sorry for the somewhat off topic observation.

Russell Pickering - September 26, 2006 03:12 PM (GMT)
Are you assuming the video clock is correct?

The plane impacted and the people just casually walked around the store, pumped gas etc?

Then over two minutes later they all bolted to the window?

You can clearly see the crowd reaction inside and outside the store starting at 4:44 according to the youtube clock. Then you can see Lagasse start his backing maneuver at 5:03. Then the video ends at 5:09. Why do you think they ended the video then if the attack was minutes earlier?

It is interesting to note that when the people do go to the window they go to the south side where they heard the plane pass by.

You need to watch it again and ask yourself if the impact occurred according to the video clock what the people were doing just being so casual and then over two minutes later caused them to bolt from behind the counter and gather at the south window.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk


Merc - September 26, 2006 03:31 PM (GMT)
No I would assume, that is when they are herded out by the Pentagon police. You can clearly see the citgo witness walk back from the mound and walk into the store.

They go to the south side because the counter exit is on the south side. You see all of them enter and exit from this side. So naturally they exited closest to the south side. And when they exited, they all exited. Do you normally leave registers unattended to go see a car accident, no, one person stays behind. They were evacuated remember?

You were going by the official time. So now you change it?

This is rediculous. You want us to believe a shadow either cut through the canopy or slipped under it and appeared in the store. Get real.

Man how did I know the convenient timing of this Citgo video was going to "coincidentally" support Russell's ongoing obsession with proving the official story correct?

Think about it.


Russell Pickering - September 26, 2006 03:38 PM (GMT)
The other clue you're missing to the 4:44-45 youtube clock impact time is the "Action" light flashing. The only video that was showing action was the right register.

Then they all activate. A few seconds later even the top center one activates and it had never been active for the whole time. The top left window is the same screen we are viewing in this recording.

Russell Pickering - September 26, 2006 04:02 PM (GMT)
The counter exit is on the right side - you are correct. But people went to that window that were not behind the counter. One person exited the left side door that had just walked in. Then another person that was on the left side walked clear over to the right window.

If they were evacuated right then, where is the cop coming in? Why did they rush to the window? At 4:44-45 youtube time the clerk runs out from behind the counter, not a close up the register and evacuate. Are you really saying a plane flew partially over the canopy and caused a huge explosion right at the Pentagon and the people inside and outside the store just went about their business for almost 3 minutes without so much as looking out the window? Then an invisible person evacuates them and they all rush to the window? Why did the white car, who I believe is Lagasse, do a rapid backing maneuver and turn out towards the Pentagon if they were evacuating then??

Watch the video again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk

I am going to start a thread just on this later since this thread is about something else.

Merc - September 26, 2006 04:03 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 26 2006, 03:38 PM)
The other clue you're missing to the 4:44-45 youtube clock impact time is the "Action" light flashing. The only video that was showing action was the right register.

Then they all activate. A few seconds later even the top center one activates and it had never been active for the whole time. The top left window is the same screen we are viewing in this recording.

Yeah OK whatever Russell.

You do your job, that's what you're here for.

You twist and turn the video that has been in the gov't hand for 5 yrs that suddenly appears the same week that I announced the Citgo witness' account.

Merc - September 26, 2006 04:04 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 26 2006, 04:02 PM)
The counter exit is on the right side - you are correct. But people went to that window that were not behind the counter. One person exited the left side door that had just walked in. Then another person that was on the left side walked clear over to the right window.

If they were evacuated right then, where is the cop coming in? Why did they rush to the window? At 4:44-45 youtube time the clerk runs out from behind the counter, not a close up the register and evacuate. Are you really saying a plane flew partially over the canopy and caused a huge explosion right at the Pentagon and the people inside and outside the store just went about their business for almost 3 minutes without so much as looking out the window? Then an invisible person evacuates them and they all rush to the window? Why did the white car, who I believe is Lagasse, do a rapid backing maneuver and turn out towards the Pentagon if they were evacuating then??

Watch the video again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk

I am going to start a thread just on this later since this thread is about something else.

Why did "Lagasse" stop at the SUV at 1:52?

Dachsie - September 26, 2006 04:05 PM (GMT)
"Russell's ongoing obsession with proving the official story correct"

I hope Russell Pickering's motivations are not as this quote suggests.

I have not read many of Russel' postings, but in this thread he does seem to want us to

just focus on requesting more evidence from the government,

and

avoid hypothesizing for the reasons that unsubstantiated "theories" will subject us 9-11 truth seekers to redicule.

As I stated earlier

we should be hypothesizing - it does help our side

we should not pay much attention to being rediculed - fear of redicule to stop our discussions and investigations (such as is possible in this forum and in the 9-11 truth movement as a whole)

Our chances of getting a complete and prompt response to the two main FOIA requests from the government (one by ST911.org and one by Jimmy Walter) for all the evidence and data about 9-11 are greatly increased by hypothesizing. We make the government look "bad and badder" with each one of these solid hypotheses that we put out there. We force them, so to speak, in a corner that does increase the likelihood of the release of the information.

One last thing to remember, all disputes or discussion on this forum are not to be assumed to be having one person who is on the right side and the opponent being on the opposite and wrong side. Sometimes opponents are really on the same basic side. Disputes can be between two people who really have the same overall goal, and maybe that goal is not the true goal of 9-11 truth seekers.

Merc - September 26, 2006 04:05 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dachsie @ Sep 26 2006, 04:05 PM)


I have not read many of Russel' postings

Well therein lies the problem.

Dachsie - September 26, 2006 04:10 PM (GMT)
There is no "problem" because I did not make a judgement about Russel. I just made some observations in regard to this thread.

Maybe after I run across and read many of RP's postings, I could say something more definitive based on strong patterns observed.

I personally appreciate the very detailed nature of the argument about what happened at the CITCO. That is the depth of discussion that needs to be engaged in.

johndoeX - September 26, 2006 04:13 PM (GMT)
Russell is doing everything and anything in his power to "fit" issues into govt theory.

He is ignoring facts from the FDR, witnessess that match the FDR, making diagrams that line up "perfectly" with the physical damage, yet when shown errors in his calculations, fixes those calculations and again lines up "perfectly"...

At this point im :blink: when i read most of Russells posts.

When i first started getting to know Russell, he was never like this. He seemed to want ALL the evidence. Then he went to Washington. When he came back.. it seems he did a complete 180 and is now touting the official story in any way he possibly can "fit" it while ignoring other facts. I cant make any sense of it.

I know Russell was concerned about redesigning his website when we started analyzing the FDR since the FDR is hard data and conflicts with many issues on his site. Is this his motivation for trying to "fit" issues into the govt story? dunno...

johndoeX - September 26, 2006 04:23 PM (GMT)
Also interesting to note... Russells research is exclusive to the Pentagon.

Im of the opinion as an American and someone who is seeking the truth, that i want to look at all events surrounding 9/11. I have done extensive research on the WTC complex and the pentagon (and now starting to get into UA93.. just put up a thread there based on the UA93 FDR conflicts with official story). Russell doesnt seem to want to get involved or isnt curious about what happened up in NY. He is just trying his hardest to fit a 757 into the Pentagon. And thats fine.. but i would think someone who hungers for the truth would be looking at all aspects surrounding 9/11.

Terrorcell - September 26, 2006 05:17 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 25 2006, 07:00 PM)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 25 2006, 02:48 PM)
I chose my words poorly. Hypothesis is correct.

I would combine what the various ideas about what happened are, show all of the mysterious facts about the Pentagon including the recently reinforced wall etc., then highlight the facts that are known such as Hani's flying skills and put it in the government's court.

What.. no FDR Russ?

You do know that the FDR is stronger evidence in a court of law than physical evidence.. right?

The FDR puts you there... the physical evidence has to be supplemented with circumstance.

[cheers]

Terrorcell - September 26, 2006 05:20 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 26 2006, 04:13 PM)
Russell is doing everything and anything in his power to "fit" issues into govt theory.

He is ignoring facts from the FDR, witnessess that match the FDR, making diagrams that line up "perfectly" with the physical damage, yet when shown errors in his calculations, fixes those calculations and again lines up "perfectly"...

At this point im :blink: when i read most of Russells posts.

When i first started getting to know Russell, he was never like this. He seemed to want ALL the evidence. Then he went to Washington. When he came back.. it seems he did a complete 180 and is now touting the official story in any way he possibly can "fit" it while ignoring other facts. I cant make any sense of it.

I know Russell was concerned about redesigning his website when we started analyzing the FDR since the FDR is hard data and conflicts with many issues on his site. Is this his motivation for trying to "fit" issues into the govt story? dunno...

I noticed he totally ignored your fdr post. How convienant for "his theory".

dubitandumest - September 26, 2006 07:49 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 26 2006, 04:23 PM)
Also interesting to note... Russells research is exclusive to the Pentagon.

Im of the opinion as an American and someone who is seeking the truth, that i want to look at all events surrounding 9/11. I have done extensive research on the WTC complex and the pentagon (and now starting to get into UA93.. just put up a thread there based on the UA93 FDR conflicts with official story). Russell doesnt seem to want to get involved or isnt curious about what happened up in NY. He is just trying his hardest to fit a 757 into the Pentagon. And thats fine.. but i would think someone who hungers for the truth would be looking at all aspects surrounding 9/11.

Please, stop this!!
The guys inside the government agencies are surely excited what happens here: instead of dealing with the evidence the truth seekers are fighting each other and insulting each other.
Just according to the old intelligence wisdom: dont attack them, wait till they attack themselves. And maybe give them a helping hand to start it.
The only way to avoid such a development is to impose strict rules of no insulting each other and not to be personal. The dispute should be merely on facts. (And not all assumptions are facts!)

johndoeX - September 26, 2006 07:55 PM (GMT)
Find one insult i made toward Russell in that quote. I stated fact.

I didnt call him names or anything.. Im not trying to insult him. Im stating exactly what he is doing.

Cary - September 26, 2006 08:58 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (dubitandumest @ Sep 26 2006, 02:49 PM)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 26 2006, 04:23 PM)
Also interesting to note... Russells research is exclusive to the Pentagon.

Im of the opinion as an American and someone who is seeking the truth, that i want to look at all events surrounding 9/11. I have done extensive research on the WTC complex and the pentagon (and now starting to get into UA93.. just put up a thread there based on the UA93 FDR conflicts with official story). Russell doesnt seem to want to get involved or isnt curious about what happened up in NY. He is just trying his hardest to fit a 757 into the Pentagon. And thats fine.. but i would think someone who hungers for the truth would be looking at all aspects surrounding 9/11.

Please, stop this!!
The guys inside the government agencies are surely excited what happens here: instead of dealing with the evidence the truth seekers are fighting each other and insulting each other.
Just according to the old intelligence wisdom: dont attack them, wait till they attack themselves. And maybe give them a helping hand to start it.
The only way to avoid such a development is to impose strict rules of no insulting each other and not to be personal. The dispute should be merely on facts. (And not all assumptions are facts!)

While I appreciate your urgent call for calm, who are you, Mr. 5 whole posts at this juncture, to be trying to call an admin, JohnDoeX, on the carpet for something he didn't do -- namely insult Russell in the post you copied. There's a lot of history here that you can't possibly be up on.

Before you start preaching at people, maybe get some posts under your belt and let us see who you are so we know how to guage you.

Thanks for your kind consideration.

Russell Pickering - September 26, 2006 09:23 PM (GMT)
Jim,

Nice to see you here. One side of this debate has one piece of data from the FDR and a theory about how it should be adjusted and 3-4 months researching the Pentagon.

The other side has a preexisting theory of a flyover which is now supported by a new witness with 1.15 seconds viewing time and an irreconcilable flight path. The witness did not report seeing the plane fly over.

Combining those accounts means getting rid of ALL other eyewitnesses except for perhaps one. It also means ignoring the physical damage preceding the Pentagon and the Pentagon wall itself. It is explained as a nighttime black operation deconstruction project with people moving generators tearing down light poles and then driving them back in white vans the next day. No mechanism or accounting for things like a 20 ton generator in any detail that would satisfy a serious researcher.

They have gotten in a tizzy I might be an agent because I have taken the position of looking at the evidence now considering the possibility a plane may have hit the building after 2 1/2 years of being an adamant no planer. I have explained this and all it does is inspire the minds of conspiracy theorists here. Research is a different matter.

The sad part is that all of the people who watch Dylan's hard work and then come here to learn more get warned, edited or banned by a system of information manipulation and suppression that parallels the current administration. In this case authority has gone into the wrong hands and the discussion and learning process regarding the Pentagon is suffering as a result.

I came back from DC with the same realization as the others. A low flying plane was in the area heading towards the Pentagon. One side took the flyover theory and I have decided to represent the impact scenario. The small price of their harassment is not even important to me in regards to getting to the truth. If it ever turns out to be a plane, then it will in my mind have been remotely guided as is most likely the case with the towers.

Instead of taking the opportunity to take my arguments apart factually they just repeat the same stuff over and over and resort to personal attack going so far as to imply I am a government agent. That is fine with me and in the end truth will justify itself either way. This type of conspiracy theory mentality is exactly what puts serious researchers in a poor light and generally discredits 9/11 truth in general.

You and I have had disagreements in the past and we may again. I do know that you fairly consider everything and that is all I ask. I have no desire or need to be "right' on a personal level. I can very much agree to disagree and learn in the process. I will give you a couple of the more significant links at the bottom to threads that have been looking at this issue. Try and ignore the repetitive rhetoric and personal attacks to get through to the information.

I am going to be following through with threads eventually on the Citgo video (as soon as I get my original in the mail), finish some work on the light poles, do a full analysis of the aircraft heading information from the FDR and aircraft shadow, take a hard look at the new Citgo witness description (hopefully we will get more detailed documentation on this but the witness is only allowed to speak through one person right now) and a couple of other items.

The threads below have some inaccuracies in them that will be refined and corrected as things move forward. One of the main reasons I post here is to find my mistakes and faults through the observations of others.

Position Clarification I am going to get more specific in this one as to where I think Pentagon research is going versus the conspiracy theories.

Flyover vs. impact comparison.

Flyover

Generator

Impact hole.

Left and right wing.

Citgo witness.

Like I said several errors I made will be corrected. Bear with the nonsense but it will give you a good idea of what goes on here.

Russell


johndoeX - September 26, 2006 09:29 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 26 2006, 05:23 PM)
Jim,

Nice to see you here. One side of this debate has one piece of data from the FDR and a theory about how it should be adjusted and 3-4 months researching the Pentagon.


There goes Russell twisting words and attempting to show some type of aeronautical knowledge.


russell.. if you think the altimeter shouldnt be adjusted. .you also think AA77 took off 260 feet below the surface at IAD. I wouldnt be surprised if you accepted that just so your theory "fits". If i charged Russ for all the ground instruction i have given him over the phone and on this site it would be in the thousands. Yet, Russell continues to not be able to grasp this material. He continually asks the same questions after being answered.. over and over again. Im almost to the point of thinking Russ may have a learning disorder. Not an attack.. just an observation.


The FDR is not theory.. it is fact. Something you continue to twist, spin, ignore and omit.

Once again.. i have gone over this with Russell ad naseum via the phone and on this site. He still doesnt get that you have to adjust the altimeter for local pressure. Even if its not adjusted.. its still too high to hit the poles.


When i first spoke to Russ on the phone.. i told him that we need to follow the facts no matter where that leads.. even if it means that the govt story is 100% accurate. He agreed. Since then we have facts based on the FDR which i am trying to follow up on.. Russ seems to want to ignore it and expend energy to make his 757 "fit". lol...

dubitandumest - September 26, 2006 10:46 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Cary @ Sep 26 2006, 08:58 PM)
QUOTE (dubitandumest @ Sep 26 2006, 02:49 PM)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 26 2006, 04:23 PM)
Also interesting to note... Russells research is exclusive to the Pentagon.

Im of the opinion as an American and someone who is seeking the truth, that i want to look at all events surrounding 9/11. I have done extensive research on the WTC complex and the pentagon (and now starting to get into UA93.. just put up a thread there based on the UA93 FDR conflicts with official story). Russell doesnt seem to want to get involved or isnt curious about what happened up in NY. He is just trying his hardest to fit a 757 into the Pentagon. And thats fine.. but i would think someone who hungers for the truth would be looking at all aspects surrounding 9/11.

Please, stop this!!
The guys inside the government agencies are surely excited what happens here: instead of dealing with the evidence the truth seekers are fighting each other and insulting each other.
Just according to the old intelligence wisdom: dont attack them, wait till they attack themselves. And maybe give them a helping hand to start it.
The only way to avoid such a development is to impose strict rules of no insulting each other and not to be personal. The dispute should be merely on facts. (And not all assumptions are facts!)

While I appreciate your urgent call for calm, who are you, Mr. 5 whole posts at this juncture, to be trying to call an admin, JohnDoeX, on the carpet for something he didn't do -- namely insult Russell in the post you copied. There's a lot of history here that you can't possibly be up on.

Before you start preaching at people, maybe get some posts under your belt and let us see who you are so we know how to guage you.

Thanks for your kind consideration.

OK! I could certainly be your father maybe, your grandfather. Sitting in europe I unfortunately cannot join your on spot investigations but only use my experience and mind. In this case I am a newbie but I have dealt intensively with a lot of similar issues in the past (like Lockerbie - for instance). I know what a great job you folks from LC have done and I know from own experience how mainstream media people may hate you - since you do the job they should have done but didnīt do. There is a life beyond Bush - soon to come - so donīt develop a bunker mentality!
:)

dubitandumest - September 26, 2006 11:30 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 26 2006, 09:23 PM)
Jim,

Nice to see you here. One side of this debate has one piece of data from the FDR and a theory about how it should be adjusted and 3-4 months researching the Pentagon.

The other side has a preexisting theory of a flyover which is now supported by a new witness with 1.15 seconds viewing time and an irreconcilable flight path. The witness did not report seeing the plane fly over.

Combining those accounts means getting rid of ALL other eyewitnesses except for perhaps one. It also means ignoring the physical damage preceding the Pentagon and the Pentagon wall itself. It is explained as a nighttime black operation deconstruction project with people moving generators tearing down light poles and then driving them back in white vans the next day. No mechanism or accounting for things like a 20 ton generator in any detail that would satisfy a serious researcher.

They have gotten in a tizzy I might be an agent because I have taken the position of looking at the evidence now considering the possibility a plane may have hit the building after 2 1/2 years of being an adamant no planer. I have explained this and all it does is inspire the minds of conspiracy theorists here. Research is a different matter.

The sad part is that all of the people who watch Dylan's hard work and then come here to learn more get warned, edited or banned by a system of information manipulation and suppression that parallels the current administration. In this case authority has gone into the wrong hands and the discussion and learning process regarding the Pentagon is suffering as a result.

I came back from DC with the same realization as the others. A low flying plane was in the area heading towards the Pentagon. One side took the flyover theory and I have decided to represent the impact scenario. The small price of their harassment is not even important to me in regards to getting to the truth. If it ever turns out to be a plane, then it will in my mind have been remotely guided as is most likely the case with the towers.

Instead of taking the opportunity to take my arguments apart factually they just repeat the same stuff over and over and resort to personal attack going so far as to imply I am a government agent. That is fine with me and in the end truth will justify itself either way. This type of conspiracy theory mentality is exactly what puts serious researchers in a poor light and generally discredits 9/11 truth in general.

You and I have had disagreements in the past and we may again. I do know that you fairly consider everything and that is all I ask. I have no desire or need to be "right' on a personal level. I can very much agree to disagree and learn in the process. I will give you a couple of the more significant links at the bottom to threads that have been looking at this issue. Try and ignore the repetitive rhetoric and personal attacks to get through to the information.

I am going to be following through with threads eventually on the Citgo video (as soon as I get my original in the mail), finish some work on the light poles, do a full analysis of the aircraft heading information from the FDR and aircraft shadow, take a hard look at the new Citgo witness description (hopefully we will get more detailed documentation on this but the witness is only allowed to speak through one person right now) and a couple of other items.

The threads below have some inaccuracies in them that will be refined and corrected as things move forward. One of the main reasons I post here is to find my mistakes and faults through the observations of others.

Position Clarification I am going to get more specific in this one as to where I think Pentagon research is going versus the conspiracy theories.

Flyover vs. impact comparison.

Flyover

Generator

Impact hole.

Left and right wing.

Citgo witness.

Like I said several errors I made will be corrected. Bear with the nonsense but it will give you a good idea of what goes on here.

Russell

Let us simply ignore all other aspects, here are some factual questions concerning the Pentagon (questions by a newbie):
1. Isnīt it strange that the light poles surrounding the Pentagon should be of a special "destroyable type" while the Pentagon Walls are fortified? I dont doubt that they told you that but what sense does it make for a Pentagon building/security planer to order such a "breakable" type of poles.
2. The "few-frames-video" from the parking place booth shows an object going totally parallel to the lawn. And the impact traces (as shown officially) in the building are also showing a totally even flight even after the impact. How is that possible? I have been in many planes in those lucky days when the pilots flew with the cockpit door open so that you could have a look at their manouvers. What always astonished me was that the plane was almost "dancing" before landing.
3. Does that parallel path just over the lawn fit with the broken poles.
4. It maybe needs only simple maths to find the apr. speed of the object when we know the distance between the parking place booth and the camera angle.
5. On one of the pictures on pentagonresearch.com (your site) we can see the flight path of the presumed airplane. It is almost a miracle but it seems that no poles were hit by the engines. But - according to that photo - at least the generator was hit by the right engine. I believe someone else has already brought that up somewhere but a gnerator is a farily heavy object. It must have changed the path of the plane and so changed the impact (leaving alone that the engine must have been disrupted fron the plane). Now I read that it may not have been the engine but only a rudder or of that kind. That puzzles me since the first (mentioned) is quite clear.
6. Has anybody fingered out why a Pentagon wall gives in to a simple airplane when it is enforced to resist a missile attack. We know that the Twin Towers were built to resist at least a smaller plane. What are the parameters for the Pentagon wall?
Maybe all of that is already sufficiently cleared up. In that case you maybe could refer to the sites.

dubitandumest - September 26, 2006 11:41 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Sep 26 2006, 09:23 PM)
Jim,

Nice to see you here. One side of this debate has one piece of data from the FDR and a theory about how it should be adjusted and 3-4 months researching the Pentagon.

The other side has a preexisting theory of a flyover which is now supported by a new witness with 1.15 seconds viewing time and an irreconcilable flight path. The witness did not report seeing the plane fly over.

Combining those accounts means getting rid of ALL other eyewitnesses except for perhaps one. It also means ignoring the physical damage preceding the Pentagon and the Pentagon wall itself. It is explained as a nighttime black operation deconstruction project with people moving generators tearing down light poles and then driving them back in white vans the next day. No mechanism or accounting for things like a 20 ton generator in any detail that would satisfy a serious researcher.

They have gotten in a tizzy I might be an agent because I have taken the position of looking at the evidence now considering the possibility a plane may have hit the building after 2 1/2 years of being an adamant no planer. I have explained this and all it does is inspire the minds of conspiracy theorists here. Research is a different matter.

The sad part is that all of the people who watch Dylan's hard work and then come here to learn more get warned, edited or banned by a system of information manipulation and suppression that parallels the current administration. In this case authority has gone into the wrong hands and the discussion and learning process regarding the Pentagon is suffering as a result.

I came back from DC with the same realization as the others. A low flying plane was in the area heading towards the Pentagon. One side took the flyover theory and I have decided to represent the impact scenario. The small price of their harassment is not even important to me in regards to getting to the truth. If it ever turns out to be a plane, then it will in my mind have been remotely guided as is most likely the case with the towers.

Instead of taking the opportunity to take my arguments apart factually they just repeat the same stuff over and over and resort to personal attack going so far as to imply I am a government agent. That is fine with me and in the end truth will justify itself either way. This type of conspiracy theory mentality is exactly what puts serious researchers in a poor light and generally discredits 9/11 truth in general.

You and I have had disagreements in the past and we may again. I do know that you fairly consider everything and that is all I ask. I have no desire or need to be "right' on a personal level. I can very much agree to disagree and learn in the process. I will give you a couple of the more significant links at the bottom to threads that have been looking at this issue. Try and ignore the repetitive rhetoric and personal attacks to get through to the information.

I am going to be following through with threads eventually on the Citgo video (as soon as I get my original in the mail), finish some work on the light poles, do a full analysis of the aircraft heading information from the FDR and aircraft shadow, take a hard look at the new Citgo witness description (hopefully we will get more detailed documentation on this but the witness is only allowed to speak through one person right now) and a couple of other items.

The threads below have some inaccuracies in them that will be refined and corrected as things move forward. One of the main reasons I post here is to find my mistakes and faults through the observations of others.

Position Clarification I am going to get more specific in this one as to where I think Pentagon research is going versus the conspiracy theories.

Flyover vs. impact comparison.

Flyover

Generator

Impact hole.

Left and right wing.

Citgo witness.

Like I said several errors I made will be corrected. Bear with the nonsense but it will give you a good idea of what goes on here.

Russell

Sorry some words just disapeared: 4. .the distance between the booth and the object, and then the angle ....(or simply the path of the object.) The time is given.




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree