1. Eric A. Eisenbise

    Eric A. Eisenbise New Member

    Everyone seems to focus on the World Trade towers when discussing 911. Things like Military planes was used or holograms when discussing this topic. The key is the Pentagon, but even when discussing the probability of the 3rd building collapsing, building number 7, we see that it is irrational to believe that it also fell as if demolition explosives was planted. Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is “impossible”, “defies common logic” and “violates the law of physics”

    I'm not even going to get into all the discrepancy's involved when discussing this subject. It's old news and obviously they won that war a long time ago. I feel even though the crux of that matter may never see the light of day, we can still look at the evidence and prepare for a future where the Gov has totalitarian control over our Nation and the World at large. The key in my opinion of uncovering the truth to the atrocity of 911 is The Pentagon.
    Any thoughts to this would be appreciated.
  2. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    There are many threads on 9/11 that cover the Pentagon, including the cruise missile hoax, such as this one.

    What specifically are you suggesting that needs debunking?
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  3. Eric A. Eisenbise

    Eric A. Eisenbise New Member

    Yes, I agree that is ridiculous, but I'm not talking about any one specific picture or video that has been created to be debunked, which is obvious. I'm talking about the over all evidence including the security videos of the planes impact, that doesn't even remotely look like a plane. Or the footage from CNN of the tiny ass little whole that's in the wall of the Pentagon before the roof collapses.
  4. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    im pretty sure this is covered else where here already. i see no 'proof' to debunk. its just a vidya of missiles then a sloppy circular statement using its own points as proof. followed by digital comparisons any 13 yo would pull out of their ass. their analysis of cruddy video is obviously large jumps to support their preconceived notions. i want to debunk almost every line said, but its really not worth the effort. its just some 17 year old's speculation while useing windows movie maker to zoom a video.

    someone with more energy can handle this one.
  5. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    What about wreckage photos of pieces with American Airlines color on it?

  6. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

  7. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    The thing that bugs me about videos like those is that the footage cited for evidence is so incredibly blurry.
  8. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    "someone with more energy can handle this one."
    I'm asking for answers, if you don't want to reply providing nothing but smart ass remarks, then don't bother.
  9. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    ^^ feelsbadman

  10. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Their's plenty of videos that is not blurry, that shows the same thing...

    Mick, I can't access my account, even when I follow the link in my mail??? Have I been booted for some reason, now that would be a conspiracy,,, LOL
    Let me know. My email is eric.eisenbise@gmail.com
    Thanks Eric A. Eisenbise
  11. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    The pentagon isn't really the key... high-definition footage/photos are. Can you point out some of these videos? Thanks.
  12. RolandD

    RolandD Active Member

    While I can't seem to find an unedited copy of Porter Goss at the pentagon, I did find a very good video showing the plane strike.

  13. RolandD

    RolandD Active Member

    After viewing the NatGeo program the Porter Goss video was taken from, it looks legit, in that it hasn't been altered, but I have no experience in jet sounds, so I won't make any assumptions on what any of the background noises are. It would be nice to know exactly what time of day the sounds occur and to see the raw footage cause you know the camera kept rolling past where the edit ends. One thing I did notice is that he is speaking in front of the Capitol, not the Pentagon as I had assumed from the short edits. Also, from the NatGeo program, it appears that we had fighter jets in the air at about the same time.
  14. RolandD

    RolandD Active Member

    Oh, another possible explanation for the boom. You can bet that the fighters were traveling supersonic to get there as fast as possible.
  15. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I had knee surgery that day, and after I was home, my hubby had to go and get my pain meds. He happened to look up into a sky, clear of planes, except for the 2 fighter jets patrolling overhead. He came home and he was some taken aback by that. (Where we live, we get a lot of overhead plane traffic of all types, We are almost due south of Dallas' in town airport, there is smaller airport, primarily private planes just SW of us, and we are not that far from some of the flight paths to DFW.
  16. xenon

    xenon Active Member

    News Live from CBS 9, Washington, D.C Sept. 11, 2001 9:54 am - 10:36 am (September 11, 2001)
    See the pentagon before the collapse of the front section
    Air Time: 09:54:32 EDT Length: 0:41:41
    This movie is part of the collection: September 11 Television Archive
    Producer: CBS 9, Washington, D.C.


    Streaming only- unable to re-upload or embed here due to PHPBB limitations- can't even figure out how to d/l for myself...
    Fantastic rare footage


    When was the explosion on the Porter Goss video?

    Good arguments all around...

    especially this-

    1) Capitol Hill evacuation began as soon as 9:48 (see History Commons, 9:48 a.m. September 11, 2001: Capitol Building Evacuated due to Reports of Approaching Plane, but Evacuation Is Chaotic)
    All sources report that the atmosphere at Capitol Hill after the Pentagon was hit was frantic, with congressmen, staffers, journalists and even tourists rushing to the streets around the House and the Capitol Police screaming very loudly to evacuate (see CNN transcripts, 9/11 2001). Also, it should be noted that the Capitol Police had had "word that an airplane is heading this way and could hit the building anytime."

    [...] I was coming into the building, trying to get to work, but the Capitol police were screaming very loudly, evacuate. We need to get everybody out of the building right away! I ran around to the Senate side of the Capitol here, by the Senate plaza, and saw senators, staffers streaming out of the building, down the Capitol steps.

    But they put us right here, probably about 100 yards from the Capitol. And we were here for several minutes, not knowing really what to do or where to go. But it was -- it was really chaos. But the chaos, Tony, turned to panic quickly because the Capitol police were hearing, in their radio, that there was a plane -- another plane in the air, likely headed for the Capitol. And they screamed like I've never heard screaming before, run as fast as you can, run for your life, because there's a plane headed for the Capitol.

    (CNN transcripts, 9/11 2001)

    Question. Is such a frantic and chaotic scenario compatible with what we see in the footage? Is that apparently peaceful and uneventful setting (at least until the blast at 0:20 is heard) what you would expect to see at 10:10 AM?

    2) Two tourists are clearly visible in Porter Goss' footage
    Two young girls with a backpack are clearly visible during Porter Goss' interview. They show up on the left behind Porter Goss at around 0:07-0:08 (one is wearing glasses), then both show up again for some frames on his right (at around 0:10-0:11) before disappearing. No doubt they are tourists.

    Question. Is it plausible that two young tourists would be still visiting the House at 10:10, apparently calmly and walking at their leisure, almost 25 minutes after the Capitol evacuation began and when the Capitol Police was frantically ordering people to leave the House because another plane was expected to hit the building within minutes?

    3) A guard is clearly visible in the footage
    A guard appears on the background for almost the whole lenght of the footage. He paces calmly and does not appear as someone who's nervously trying to evacuate hundreds of people due to an upcoming plane possibly hitting the building.

    Question. Is the behavior of this guard compatible with the 10:10 expected scenario?

    4) No smoke visible, no sirens audible
    After 9:37 smoke was clearly visible from Capitol Hill. There are many reports about this, here are some:

    DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Tony. And that's right, it was especially the attack on the Pentagon that immediately affected the people in the building, inside the Capitol, because the Pentagon is probably about two miles that way, behind the Capitol, and senators and staffers who were in meetings inside the Capitol could actually see the smoke billowing up from across the river at the Pentagon.

    (CNN transcripts, 9/11 2001)

    Another interesting source is Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001:

    Daschle was meeting Tuesday morning with his leadership team--a dozen Democratic senators--when the news came on television about planes crashing into the World Trade Center. As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) watched the screen, he saw words scrolling across the bottom saying that the Pentagon had been bombed and announced it to his colleagues.

    "Everyone stood up, looked out the window and saw smoke billowing up," Durbin said.

    Question. While one could speculate that smoke is not visibile in Porter Goss' interview possibly due to the location of the interview (what can be easily proven as false, but let's forget about this detail for a moment), then why no sirens are audible during the clip as we would expect in a 10:10 AM scenario? Again, is the footage setting actually compatible with what we would expect to see and hear at Capitol Hill at 10:10?

    All the above information and facts point to an earlier scenario than 10:10 AM, whereas 9:37 appears to me as the most probable.
    So, which conflicting facts could possibly rule out a 9:37 scenario?
    The first is the Congressional Record of the House, from which we know that at 9:52 Goss was the House speaker pro tempore:

    The House was called to order by the
    Speaker pro tempore (Mr. GOSS) at 9
    o’clock and 52 minutes a.m., thereby
    terminating the recess.
    The SPEAKER pro tempore. Due to
    the circumstances of today, the Chair
    calls the House to order at this time.
    The prayer will be offered by the
    guest chaplain.

    The Reverend Gerard Creedon, St.
    Charles Borromeo Catholic Church, offered the following prayer:
    God of peace and life, send Your spirit to heal our country; bring consolation to all injured in today’s tragedy in
    New York and Washington. Protect us
    and help our leaders to lead us out of
    this moment of crisis to a new day of
    peace. Amen.
    The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
    House will stand in recess subject to
    the call of the Chair, pursuant to
    clause 12 of rule I.
    Accordingly (at 9 o’clock and 53 minutes a.m.), the House stood in recess
    subject to the call of the Chair.fb 1003
    The recess having expired, the House
    was called to order at 10 o’clock and 3
    minutes a.m.

    a) Please note that 9:52 is well 15 minutes after 9:37. What did prevent Goss to be outside of the building at 9:37 giving an interview and being two floors up inside the Capitol building at 9:52? There would have been all the time for him to do that.
    b) Also, how can you explain that Goss and other people would gather just outside the building at 10:10 AM to give an interview when all people had long been evacuated and the word had spread that another plane could possibly hit the building? Is it plausible?

    The second conflicting "fact" is the statement of Goss himself in the BBC documentary. In my opinion, his own statement does not prove that he was really inside the building at the time of the Pentagon attack. Along with the possibility he's lying (which I would not completely dismiss at all in the case of Porter Goss), I can also speculate that his recollections may be inaccurate or overlapping (for example he didn't associate the blast heard during the interview to the moment when the Pentagon was allegedly hit by Flight 77). While one could object that I am only speculating (which is basically true), I could reply that assuming Goss was giving an interview just outside the building at 10:10 AM in such an unplausible and unexpected setting in a location that had begun to be evacuated 25 minutes before under the upcoming threat of another plane hitting the building is probably a bigger and bolder speculation.

    While no conclusive evidence of the flyover can in any case be drawn from the low pass jet noise we hear in the footage, facts and other sources do not rule out completely the possibility that Goss' interview took place at 9:37. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to question that the footage scenario is compatible with what we would expect to see at 10:10 AM.
  17. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Eric, how do you explain the huge plume of a jet fuel fire, supposedly from a cruise missile which could never carry anything like that amount of fuel? Answer that satisfactorily, which I am sure you cannot, and then you may have something.
  18. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    I'd just like to point out the Pentagon is roughly 3 miles away from the Capitol building, with a good 8-10 city blocks occupied by large buildings and a river in between them. Many of the buildings are the same height as the Capitol building. I doubt they could see anything but smoke from the Capitol building, if even that.
  19. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    What can I say... either the one time chief of all Counter Intelligence is as batty as hell... in which case why was he in such a powerful position... or his views and expertise are insightful and to be taken note of.

    Guessing he will come under the same heading as Lord Blackheath... 'used to be the goto man until he went batty'.


  20. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Considering that he retired in 1984- it is certainly possible that 20+yrs later his analysis skills, his faculties in general have degraded. Its been known to happen to elderly people- Look at Ted Gunderson.

    BE that has it may- lets look at what he actually says:

    "There should have been wing marks on the pentagon- I have been unable to find wing marks"

    Others have found them - perhaps his analysis skills are not what they once were?

    starboard-wing2. PentWingHole-full.

    I wonder what his thoughts are about all the 757 parts found inside the pentagon? Any thoughts?

    skin_firetruck. planepartsinpentagon.
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I doubt he would have missed those marks... He certainly looks on the ball enough to see them and no doubt his colleagues would have shown them to him if he had. Yes... 17 years since retirement but he still looks all there.

    That would be interesting. They have been hotly debated on this site certainly:)
  22. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Apparently he did.
  23. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    The rubbish they come out with never ceases to amaze me. Can't get hold of the full article from the Independent but here is an except. Amazing what they can find out in a few weeks. Strange they didn't talk about Bojinka or foreknowledge!

  24. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Maybe they didn't mention it, because it wasn't linked to this plot. Different people, duh.
  25. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    duh... yeah like they didn't have foreknowledge of plans to ram planes int U.S landmark buildings... double duh
  26. Steve

    Steve Active Member

    • Informative Informative x 1
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Informative Informative x 1