That's a bold declaration. Ad hominem noted, and you are a professional video analyst, and are able to refute their claims with claims of your own?
I found this link: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Crash_Evidence There's a quote on your link that the authors couldn't find one witness to a 'south of Citco' approach. It doesn't seem as if they looked very hard. In addition SGT Lagasse clearly states that he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. How does that fit in with the cherry picked statements in your link? Any eyewitnesses of the plane flying over the Pentagon?
So since there is confusion, as well a constant source of scrutiny, eyewitness accounts should be null and voided. Everyone has a story. Did you look at the picture?
The half-wits who started the rumors about what hit the Pentagon have no professional training in forensic investigation of fires and aircraft accidents. I have. They're full of crap.
Okay. 13 witnesses corroborating a north side approach. Versus 104 witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary Again you have to ask yourself -- which is more believable? The list of witnesses are at the link. I provided it for you earlier. Did you read the info on that page? I did. What conclusions do you draw from it? Is it? Is it hard to believe that some terrorists hijacked a jet and crashed it into the Pentagon? Are terrorist hijackings something new? Are suicide attacks something new? Or is it easier to believe that . . . light poles were planted, the entire scene was controlled and any witness in the area that corroborates the "official" account was paid by the government to lie. That is Scott's assertion. [FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT] I never said I was. But I don't need to be to refute their claims with claims of my own. All I have to do is READ the information and note how flimsy their arguement is and how often they cherry pick evidence and or quotes. Do you believe that the analysis that Scott is basing his conclusions on were done by qualified photo and video analysts or amateurs?
I think it should be noted that the 13 witnesses who saw the plane north of the Citgo STILL SAW A PLANE. The truther belief is that there was no plane, yet they like to trot out these witnesses as though they somehow prove something. What do they prove? Do they prove there was no plane? Nope. Do they prove no witness is going to be 100% accurate? Absolutely as the physical evidence (radar track, FDR, C130 witness, light poles, angle of damage at the Pentagon, eyewitnesses who saw the plane fly right over their heads removing any and all doubt as to the direction the plane was traveling) shows that these witnesses got part of what they saw wrong. They are not alone. Does that mean we dismiss them as some have claimed we should? No. It means you take ALL the evidence together as a whole and not try to piecemeal it out and pretend the entire story hinges upon one piece of evidence.
This isn't the nose of a 757. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg There's quite a difference between the above nose and this nose. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing757-G-JMAA.jpg The photo of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon was taken with a fish-eye lens which causes some distortion but the rest of the objects in the picture are not distorted to the same degree as the nose of a 757 would have to be to have that shape. The shadow line is visible under the nose and it's consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon. This alone proves the craft that hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757. A 757 wouldn't fit in the space behind the box in this picture. http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm This alone also proves the craft that hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757. The crash site before the collapse is not consistent with a 757 crash. http://www.physics911.net/missingwings (fifth image from top-read the article too) http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html Again, this alone proves that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. This case is really closed. The proof that it was an inside job is so clear that the only thing you pro-official version posters can do to sway public opinion is to fill up threads with your obfuscation to try to bury it so that people won't come across it. Once objective thinking people have seen it, you've lost.
The other objects in the frame were not moving at 500+ miles an hour. Distortion is not just caused by the type of lens. It's caused by the type of lens, the type of sensor, lens distance from the sensor, lens distance from the object, length of exposure, speed of the object, translation to digital media, and a host of other causes. Your attempts at image analysis are comical. Yup, it is. Why do you keep trying to reopen it when you're so wrong?
And obviously all the people that claim they saw that plane hit the Pentagon, and the workers who picked up identifying pieces, etc... Those are all liars or "in on the conspiracy," right?
According to who? YOU? You're now an expert on plane identification from a distance through a fisheye lens? Give us all a break and quit pretending you're either credible or an expert. How? I mean sure, the pictures are different. One is close up with a good camera taken of a stationary target and one is from a distance on a very fast moving object with a crap camera through a fish eye lens. Yet truthers will pretend they are definitive experts based on very limited data they present and we're just suppose to believe them. I don't think so. Again what are your credentials to make these kinds of claims? You're nobody. You've been caught lying numerous times. You can't back up stuff you claim is true. Yet we're suppose to just "believe" you when you make bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims like this? What kind of an idiot would do that? Only to a truther unwilling to face the truth because it means they can no longer pursue their agenda. Yet another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim you can't back up. Only if one is to get a lobotomy, ignore all other evidence, and be gullible enough to believe a truther. And now you're an expert on crash sites? My my my. You certanly are an expert today in your mind aren't you! Look closely. Is this site "consistent" with a plane crash? No, all it proves is truthers are willing to ignore EVIDENCE and supplant it with OPINION in order to pretend they know what happened. Of course, push for answers and they run like scared dogs. Just like truther minds. Al Qaeda did it. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. All you've done is pretended you're an expert and screwed that up. Or all we have to do is expose your lies and promote the truth. We know you don't like it when we do that, but tough. Get use to it. Really? So where are all these "objective thinking people"? The number of retard members in the truther movement are shrinking by the day, not growing. You can't even defend your own theories and you have to ignore tons of evidence, yet you honestly think an "objective thinker" is going to pick unsubstantiated opinion, lies, and indefensible theories over the evidence? Wow.
The problem is that the CTers expect the aircraft to be in focus. Aint gonna happen even with a good surveilance camera. This video was taken with a good camera with a normal lens and reasonable dept of field, capturing an image of a much slower aircraft. Stop it at exactly 0:03 and tell me how clearly you can see the aircraft. [video=youtube;FIS-aKJMY3E]htpp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIS-aKJMY3E[/video]
AT the 26:55 time mark of part one of this video series... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCHN-1Yk5LI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxorz4jWDMY ...the some good points about the Pentagon are made.
Really? You would think if any truther had made some actual good points about the Pentagon then you wouldn't need a video to try and make your point. Why don't you state them here instead of forcing people to watch yet more videos? Or are you out to bore people to death with videos full of lies and deceit?
Compare it with the good points on this page . . . https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary then come back and resolve the differences. Griffen lies about so many things and just makes other stuff up, it's difficult to keep track of the huge quantity of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) he is spewing forth. Lots of circumstantial details offered in the name of "proof" while completely ignoring the body of evidence. Claiming to know what the terrorists were thinking and what side of the Pentagon they would have chosen is comical. Plus the usual lies about the anti aircraft missile battery and the "failed Cesna pilot".
Griffin inserts about three false statements for every true statement he makes. He has no expertise in structural engineering or fire fighting. I, as a veteran fire fighter, have more training and experience in these matters than has that blithering dork. Further, he takes his cues from a bunch of other people who know sod-all about the matters they address. That he hangsd out with a sociopathic nutbart like Barret should be a major clue in itself that the dude aint got all his headbolts torqued right.
He's totally full of crap about the missile batteries. http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf His "logic" is entertaining to me. If he encounters a situation that he deems implausible or unlikely, then he treats it as evidence that it must me incorrect without bothering to back up his assertion with any actual evidence. And the truthers just eat that stuff up without questioning ANY of it. He does know how to sell books to the gullible though.
Missile batteries less than a mile from Reagan Airport? 'oooops,we missed the attacker and took out a 747'
