911 / Pentagon: Best video yet bar none!

[tarzan]

is it not a possibility tarzan that the plane that flew over the white house was a precaution in case it needed to pick up important officials?

do yourself a favor tarzan and the next time you find something that you think supports your ct look at the evidence against it as well...

Well a plane that resembles a white E4B was in the air BEFORE the Pentagon was hit. And it was seen flying at very low altitude across golf courses, homes, you name it towards the Pentagon. Then 10 minutes after Pentagon explosion they are showing what looks like an E4B flying over White House on TV! This plane flew over the Pentagon right before the explosion.

Apparently the E4B is used as a mobile command center in case of even nuclear war so that the government can still operate.

What I don't get is IF THIS was a CT, why not just fly the damn plane into the Pentagon? Why not change the decals to match AA? Why the elaborate scheme with 3 planes? Could they have determined that the 757 would have caused too much damage to the Pentagon? Or was it a difficult target to hit with a large airplane because of the topography and the fact that it is not a tall building?

[tonymctones]

Well a plane that resembles a white E4B was in the air BEFORE the Pentagon was hit. And it was seen flying at very low altitude across golf courses, homes, you name it towards the Pentagon. Then 10 minutes after Pentagon explosion they are showing what looks like an E4B flying over White House on TV! This plane flew over the Pentagon right before the explosion.

Apparently the E4B is used as a mobile command center in case of even nuclear war so that the government can still operate.

What I don't get is IF THIS was a CT, why not just fly the damn plane into the Pentagon? Why not change the decals to match AA? Why the elaborate scheme with 3 planes? Could they have determined that the 757 would have caused too much damage to the Pentagon? Or was it a difficult target to hit with a large airplane because of the topography and the fact that it is not a tall building?

actually that video never said it flew over the pentagon only the white house...and actually if it did seeing as the pentagon is according to you 2 or 3 miles away it would have flown over the pentagon after the explosion not before ...pentagon explosion 9:40 they saw this plane at 9:50 according to you...that means you think it took 10 mins for a plane to go 2 or 3 miles which is assinine...meaning it would have flown over the pentagon after the plane hit the pentagon...

again do some research not only for your ct but the evidence that goes against your ct  

[OzmO]

That I don't know and am still checking out what's out there. I never knew about the white plane above the White House and now it is classified info. I never knew about the witnesses being interviewed and claiming to see a white airplane with no AA markings. The video is in the link in the post above and the witnesses are very clear about what they saw. Are they lying? Maybe. But then so could the other witnesses that claim to see an AA plane be lying.

As stated earlier some people are talking about the plane being shadowed by another plane. In fact the theory is there were three planes in the sky:

1. C-130 (decoy for white E4B)
2. E4B (white plane that flew over Pentagon / White House and seen by Witnesses and News Media)
3. Object that flew into Pentagon.

I am still checking out the theories.

And yes you are right when looking at this we have to be careful not to make assumptions.

Huh?  So 3 now?  So we are going from the best video ever of some ignorant cabby to 3 planes?

Wow. 

Nearly an hour after the first plane hits and 32 minutes after the second planes hits the pentagon was hit.

What you are seeing is a classified, attack/defense protocol in action. 

Still doesn't take away from the mountains of evidence that support the official story in principle. 

Tarzan even when you list your 3 objects you fill it with assumption.  It's unbelievable.  Do you understand the meaning of the word objective.

[OzmO]

Well a plane that resembles a white E4B was in the air BEFORE the Pentagon was hit. And it was seen flying at very low altitude across golf courses, homes, you name it towards the Pentagon. Then 10 minutes after Pentagon explosion they are showing what looks like an E4B flying over White House on TV! This plane flew over the Pentagon right before the explosion.

Apparently the E4B is used as a mobile command center in case of even nuclear war so that the government can still operate.

What I don't get is IF THIS was a CT, why not just fly the damn plane into the Pentagon? Why not change the decals to match AA? Why the elaborate scheme with 3 planes? Could they have determined that the 757 would have caused too much damage to the Pentagon? Or was it a difficult target to hit with a large airplane because of the topography and the fact that it is not a tall building?

Maybe cause its not a CT!?

 

[tonymctones]

Maybe cause its not a CT!?

 

LOL no no no its easier to shoot a missle into the pentagon and fly the plane to an unknown location without anyone knowing and proceede to excute the passageners, crew and pilots...

 

[tarzan]

Maybe cause its not a CT!?

 

That is my attempt at trying to be objective. You should try it sometime, from the other side of the coin

[tarzan]

Huh?  So 3 now?  So we are going from the best video ever of some ignorant cabby to 3 planes?

Wow. 

Nearly an hour after the first plane hits and 32 minutes after the second planes hits the pentagon was hit.

What you are seeing is a classified, attack/defense protocol in action. 

Still doesn't take away from the mountains of evidence that support the official story in principle. 

Tarzan even when you list your 3 objects you fill it with assumption.  It's unbelievable.  Do you understand the meaning of the word objective.

Some defense my friend. What a massive failure if that's the case. They couldn't prevent an airliner (which is what you believe) from flying into the Pentagon after they had 60 minutes warning and already monitoring the sky with an E4B flying around the Pentagon and White House?? Do you realize how subjective you have to be to believe THAT?

[OzmO]

Some defense my friend. What a massive failure if that's the case. They couldn't prevent an airliner (which is what you believe) from flying into the Pentagon after they had 60 minutes warning and already monitoring the sky with an E4B flying around the Pentagon and White House?? Do you realize how subjective you have to be to believe THAT?

Actually i was one for a time who believed in the 9/11 CT.  After researching deeper and objectively and weighing evidence i came to the conclusion a plane (flt-77) hit the pentagon.

You are trying to point out unsuccessfully that i am being subjective yet in every instance your conclusions are based solely on conjecture and assumption ignoring the density of solid evidence pointing to a plane, but instead focusing on things like a ignorant cabby driver and now, after that being completely shredded, you've redirected to the 3-plane theory where you doing exactly the same thing.  Your method seems to be to make an assumption based on a belief (which is well telegraphed when you say things like "Puppet masters") and then find evidence to support that belief all the while ignoring or diminishing real (the cabby thing is a joke dude) evidence.

I told you, the 9/11 is 100% correct and there are many things in that would damage and embarrass our country if ever found out.  In a weird way i wanted the 9/11 ct to be true, i don't trust the government, but in this case, it is what it is.  

[tonymctones]

actually that video never said it flew over the pentagon only the white house...and actually if it did seeing as the pentagon is according to you 2 or 3 miles away it would have flown over the pentagon after the explosion not before ...pentagon explosion 9:40 they saw this plane at 9:50 according to you...that means you think it took 10 mins for a plane to go 2 or 3 miles which is assinine...meaning it would have flown over the pentagon after the plane hit the pentagon...

again do some research not only for your ct but the evidence that goes against your ct  

this debunks your EB theory right here tarzan...

you say that the explosion at the pentagon was at 9:40 you say that the plane flew over the white house at 9:50 and then you say that its only 2 or 3 miles from the pentagon to the white house...

you think it takes a plane 10 mins to travel 2 or 3 miles? LOL

the simple fact is youre not objective, you look for evidence to support your argument instead of looking at evidence and then forming an argument...

[OzmO]

this debunks your EB theory right here tarzan...

you say that the explosion at the pentagon was at 9:40 you say that the plane flew over the white house at 9:50 and then you say that its only 2 or 3 miles from the pentagon to the white house...

you think it takes a plane 10 mins to travel 2 or 3 miles? LOL

the simple fact is youre not objective, you look for evidence to support your argument instead of looking at evidence and then forming an argument...

Exactly.  That's consistent with just about every CT'er I've talked to.

[tonymctones]

Exactly.  That's consistent with just about every CT'er I've talked to.

I agree Ive asked almost everyone of them on this board(240 multiple times) if they have looked at evidence that goes against their beliefs and every single one, EVERY SINGLE ONE has ignored the question...

[OzmO]

That is my attempt at trying to be objective. You should try it sometime, from the other side of the coin

Tarzan that's all i ever seemingly do, i look at CT'er evidence like over edited you tube vids, articles, graphs etc...

[tarzan]

this debunks your EB theory right here tarzan...

you say that the explosion at the pentagon was at 9:40 you say that the plane flew over the white house at 9:50 and then you say that its only 2 or 3 miles from the pentagon to the white house...

you think it takes a plane 10 mins to travel 2 or 3 miles? LOL

the simple fact is youre not objective, you look for evidence to support your argument instead of looking at evidence and then forming an argument...

I never said what time the plane flew over the White House. I said they aired it at 9:54 AM. However it was not a live feed. There usually is a 10-15 minute delay. Do you know what their lag is?? How can you say the plane flew over the Pentagon at 9:50 AM when it was aired at 9:54 AM?

Bottom line is multiple witnesses are on video tape saying they saw a plane resembling the EB fly low and fast towards the Pentagon and then wouldn't you know a short time later there is an explosion. I saw their video statements with my own eyes. Now we know that the news media video taped a plane that looks like an EB flying over the White House mere minutes after the explosion. What time exactly the news media footage was taken is not known but we know it was aired at 9:54 AM. It does not take a rocket scientist to put two and two together.

Tony, say after me: Four Legs Good, Two Legs BAD!

[tarzan]

Actually i was one for a time who believed in the 9/11 CT.  After researching deeper and objectively and weighing evidence i came to the conclusion a plane (flt-77) hit the pentagon.

You are trying to point out unsuccessfully that i am being subjective yet in every instance your conclusions are based solely on conjecture and assumption ignoring the density of solid evidence pointing to a plane, but instead focusing on things like a ignorant cabby driver and now, after that being completely shredded, you've redirected to the 3-plane theory where you doing exactly the same thing.  Your method seems to be to make an assumption based on a belief (which is well telegraphed when you say things like "Puppet masters") and then find evidence to support that belief all the while ignoring or diminishing real (the cabby thing is a joke dude) evidence.

I told you, the 9/11 is 100% correct and there are many things in that would damage and embarrass our country if ever found out.  In a weird way i wanted the 9/11 ct to be true, i don't trust the government, but in this case, it is what it is.  

Why is the Cab driver a joke? His cab is the one with the broken windshield caused by a light pole that supposedly was toppled by the jet. So according to the government THIS guy was at the scene on the bridge when the plane flew over it and toppled all the light poles. That makes him a VERY IMPORTANT WITNESS.

You have not really watched the video where he is interviewed have you? This shows me you did 0 research on this matter. Please explain to me why the "ignorant" cab driver's confession is not relevant. What do you think he has to gain by saying what he says?

[tarzan]

A classified "White Plane" was reported by the media to be flying over the White House. Time of report and broadcast is 9:54 AM. Pentagon explosion occurred at 9:40 AM. Given the time to prep the broadcast it probably flew over the White House a few minutes earlier than 9:54 AM. The White House is about 2-3 miles from Pentagon and airspace is restricted.

Tony here is my post regarding the timeline. It was broadcast at 9:54 am - that does not mean it happened at 9:54 AM or 9:50 AM for that matter.

[OzmO]

Why is the Cab driver a joke? His cab is the one with the broken windshield caused by a light pole that supposedly was toppled by the jet. So according to the government THIS guy was at the scene on the bridge when the plane flew over it and toppled all the light poles. That makes him a VERY IMPORTANT WITNESS.

You have not really watched the video where he is interviewed have you? This shows me you did 0 research on this matter. Please explain to me why the "ignorant" cab driver's confession is not relevant. What do you think he has to gain by saying what he says?

and all the other witnesses aren't?

Oh and in my post that you quoted i meant to say the 9/11 report is NOT 100% correct. 

I watched from 1:11 to when ever after he was in the car.  The first thing i noticed is that the video/interview in the car was edited.  the interview was not replayed in its entirety.  The second thing i noticed was that the cabbie was a rambling idiot.   

Again you seem to think people give testimonies based on gain or loss.  That's simply not true.  People give incorrect testimonies because they believe that's what they saw or what happened.  And it turns they are incorrect all the dam time.

I'll say again, and i have demonstrated with other examples:  When ever there is a traumatic event witnessed by large groups of people you will always have differieng testimonies from a portion of the witnesses. 

Why is this so hard for you to accept or understand?

Why do you assume there is always a hidden agenda in everything everyone does?

Why do you single this one testimony out and hail it as a critical testimony yet ignore the many many other testimonies supporting the other side?  Especially those people who are not rambling idiots, who are educated coherent, people.

This is why Tony is dead on correct when he says you form and argument and look for evidence to back it up rather than collect evidence and let the evidence form into an argument.  THAT IS NO WAY TO FIND THE TRUTH!

This is the root of your lack of objectivity.  Which is baffling.

[OzmO]

So i wasted another 9 minutes listening to the ramblings of cab driver who is now bordering on senility being led by a bias interviewer.

Great witness.

Great evidence.

Objective.

[Fury]

I'm shocked that you even wasted your time. These are the same posters who were trying to pass off as credible the opinion of a general who claims he can walk through walls and turn invisible. If that doesn't scream "I'm grasping at straws and am borderline retarded" then I don't know what does.

[tarzan]

Oh and in my post that you quoted i meant to say the 9/11 report is NOT 100% correct.

I did catch that part from your earlier post. What part do you think is incorrect?

[tonymctones]

I never said what time the plane flew over the White House. I said they aired it at 9:54 AM. However it was not a live feed. There usually is a 10-15 minute delay. Do you know what their lag is?? How can you say the plane flew over the Pentagon at 9:50 AM when it was aired at 9:54 AM?

Bottom line is multiple witnesses are on video tape saying they saw a plane resembling the EB fly low and fast towards the Pentagon and then wouldn't you know a short time later there is an explosion. I saw their video statements with my own eyes. Now we know that the news media video taped a plane that looks like an EB flying over the White House mere minutes after the explosion. What time exactly the news media footage was taken is not known but we know it was aired at 9:54 AM. It does not take a rocket scientist to put two and two together.

Tony, say after me: Four Legs Good, Two Legs BAD!

I know the power of deduction is severly limited in the minds of CT'ers
lets review you said the pentagon crash happened at 9:40 then you said this...

Then 10 minutes after Pentagon explosion they are showing what looks like an E4B flying over White House on TV!

where is the tape of ppl saying they saw a plane shapped like the EB over the pentagon? that clip was only in regards to the white house...

dont chastise me crack pot someone with the idiocy youve displayed doesnt need to be chastising anyone...

[tarzan]

I know the power of deduction is severly limited in the minds of CT'ers
lets review you said the pentagon crash happened at 9:40 then you said this...where is the tape of ppl saying they saw a plane shapped like the EB over the pentagon? that clip was only in regards to the white house...

dont chastise me crack pot someone with the idiocy youve displayed doesnt need to be chastising anyone...

tony tony tony, oh man. In that quote I am saying 10 minutes later (14 minutes to be exact) they are showing the plane flying over the White House. That is when they showed it on TV but it does not mean that is WHEN it actually flew over the White House. Are you really that dense? Do I need to explain it to you another way? I can try but I don't think you will understand. Do you know what real-time means?

I already posted the link to the video with witnesses seeing a plane that resembles the EB flying towards the Pentagon.

Here is the link AGAIN! Now watch it before opening your mouth.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2604879952877158021&hl=en#

[OzmO]

I did catch that part from your earlier post. What part do you think is incorrect?

Well for one thing its incomplete.  (for example: The ATC tapes were destroyed/seized)  If its incomplete then it's not 100% correct.

Also, there has only been one investigation.   I believe Pearl Harbor had 3.

[tarzan]

Well for one thing its incomplete.  (for example: The ATC tapes were destroyed/seized)  If its incomplete then it's not 100% correct.

Also, there has only been one investigation.   I believe Pearl Harbor had 3.

Why do you think the tapes were destroyed? Why have they only released two vantage point videos of the Pentagon: The checkpoint video and Double Tree Hotel. Both are blurry and choppy as hell. There are 80 videos that they confiscated. They could lay this to rest by just releasing the damn info.

You are giving good reasons though for your doubt about the accuracy of the first investigation. I guess we will have to sit back and see what comes out over the next couple of years. The Double Tree Hotel video was released after pressure. The vantage point and resolution is so bad however that it only shows the explosion in the background. There has to be better videos that they can provide. Citgo Station?

What about the 5 Israeli's in the White Van watching from a distance and laughing as the WTC collapsed in New York? The FBI detained and investigated them for a couple of months and then it became classified after they were returned to Israel.

A few more formal investigations would be a good start.

[OzmO]

Why do you think the tapes were destroyed? Why have they only released two vantage point videos of the Pentagon: The checkpoint video and Double Tree Hotel. Both are blurry and choppy as hell. There are 80 videos that they confiscated. They could lay this to rest by just releasing the damn info.

I agree, i think are some possible things going on here that play into why:

-  There are many things/bits of information in some of this evidence, that are classified and cannot be made public that may show our procedure for responding to attacks and how we verify accidents vs. attacks that would allow our enemies to gain an advantage. 

-  We are dealing with multiple agencies/bureaucracies that don't work together and if they are not being forced to show their cards they will not do so willingly.  Sure there are groups that are asking for the information like those tapes, but in reality 9/11 CT'ers are too few to be heard and most people associate them as loony. 

- In parts of this with held information, there are glaring examples of incompetence and confusion during the event.  If that information were to get out it would damage the government and intelligence agencies greatly.

-If there was an absence of the existing evidence it would be possible they are doing it cover up a missile, or hologram or what have you, but because of the mountains of existing evidence that point to 4 planes being hijacked a 3 of them being plowed into buildings at the hands of terrorists (who have been not so soundly identified), it is very unlikely they are withholding information because of the 9/11 CT i described. 

-  The speed, lack of procedure and sloppiness in which they investigated shows a deliberate desire to politicize the view of the attacks. 


This is why i don't believe in the official report because there is obviously more to the story but not like a 9/11 CT'er would tell it because the evidence just doesn't back it up.

You are giving good reasons though for your doubt about the accuracy of the first investigation. I guess we will have to sit back and see what comes out over the next couple of years. The Double Tree Hotel video was released after pressure. The vantage point and resolution is so bad however that it only shows the explosion in the background. There has to be better videos that they can provide. Citgo Station?

What about the 5 Israeli's in the White Van watching from a distance and laughing as the WTC collapsed in New York? The FBI detained and investigated them for a couple of months and then it became classified after they were returned to Israel.

A few more formal investigations would be a good start.

I really doubt we will see it.  If Obama ain't going to do it I don't see the next guy doing it. 

[Mons Venus]

Why do you think the tapes were destroyed? Why have they only released two vantage point videos of the Pentagon: The checkpoint video and Double Tree Hotel. Both are blurry and choppy as hell. There are 80 videos that they confiscated. They could lay this to rest by just releasing the damn info.

You are giving good reasons though for your doubt about the accuracy of the first investigation. I guess we will have to sit back and see what comes out over the next couple of years. The Double Tree Hotel video was released after pressure. The vantage point and resolution is so bad however that it only shows the explosion in the background. There has to be better videos that they can provide. Citgo Station?

What about the 5 Israeli's in the White Van watching from a distance and laughing as the WTC collapsed in New York? The FBI detained and investigated them for a couple of months and then it became classified after they were returned to Israel.

A few more formal investigations would be a good start.

Mainly because a 757 DID NOT strike the Pentagon.