That last link does much more to hurt your argument, than to help it.

I don't know if I made you sick, but at least you seem to recognize that there may be a problem in that area. That's a real good first step...... take another.

1) What was it?

- and -

2) Where are the people?

Frank

Better believe it.

You gonna go the distance Frank? Bundle up in that flag and come up here and be a patriot?

You weren't in NYC in 07 were you Frank?

To paraphrase the conspiracy theorists: "Oh, now we've devolved into ad hominen attacks and straw men."...... as said by the biggest ad hominem straw man bearers of all time.



No, I worked in the City for a long time, but left in '94. I turned my card over to the guy in the blue shirt who's talking to you. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />



I don't think Michael Reagan likes you very much. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />



I have no idea what that means....... maybe some sort of Mossad code, eh? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> If you mean am I going to come up to Milwaukee and kick your <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/butwiggle.gif" alt="" />, then no - you're free to say what you want...... just don't be surprised when a guy in a blue shirt (or white coat) shows up.

I just want to know 2 simple answers from you:

1) What was it?
2) Where are the people?

If you know so much, that shouldn't be hard to explain, right?

Frank

Where's the 757? The one with no engines?

If you know so much, that shouldn't be hard to explain, right?

Baby steps <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ...here's for your viewing pleasure Stony. The second clip can be downloaded at NASA's video archive. The sneaker prints off of NASA's archive did it for me, but the whole journey was a 'blast'.

No, the one that first had no damage to its tail - then wasn't there at all - and now has no engines.

So, what was it?

And where are the people?



In the "Shoes" thread, I believe you appointed yourself as the "better informed":



So, what was it?

- and -

Where are those people?

Frank

Well, I guess Phil needs a little help with the simple questions:

1) If it wasn't a plane what was it?

- and -

2) Where are the people?

Let's see if this helps:



Goddard's Journal - Pentagon

You can click on the web link to access the full story by each news source.

And for those who would like to see the debunking of this "conspiracy theory" by Goddard, here it is:

web page - main

I particularly like this part:



I think I can answer that:

1) The plane hit the Pentagon.

- and -

2) The passengers are all dead.

See, the problem with the "Takers of the Red Pill" is that they begin with a false premise - that others have already taken the blue pill and their course of seeking the Red Pill Truth is all that matters. They believe that most of the world's population lives under an illusion and are nothing but sheep that don't think - but are conditioned to accept the rationale of the day en mass. Only the "Takers of the Red Pill" can find real truth..... and it will be different than whatever the others believe, no matter what. They then set about trying to prove a predisposed Truth that contradicts the real Truth that they believe the "others" to be predisposed and/or brainwashed to believe.

And so, in formulating the hypothesis that gives them their self-import, they insist they won't live under the perceived illusion (itself an illusion) - and instead enter the delusional state of illusion that presumes that commonly held wisdom can't possibly be correct - because it's represented by the blue pill swallowers - not knowing if all of the majority has swallowed the pill or not, but under the deluded and brainwashed idea that they have. The "Masters of the Takers of the Red Pill" now have these "Super Sheep" under their spell and send them out to disrupt society.

But wait...... society challenges their lies and asks them simple questions that they can't answer, causing the "Takers of the Red Pill" to become confused because all that they have been fed and brainwashed to believe by their Masters has not been quite so easy to explain. And the desire to prove that Truth is never what it seems, coupled with the reality that the simplest questions of their version of Truth cannot be answered by them.... confound them to the point of madness.

And so it goes - around and around - from one conspiracy to another - all the time certain that the next conspiracy theory will turn out to be accurate and they shall be righteous.

They even gather in groups in coffee houses and on the internet to exchange theory - like old men in a barber shop.... one lie begets another and is topped by yet another until anyone left standing is quite insane. Ahhhh, but he's their leader - the leader of the insane...... and now qualified to become ordained as a "Grand Master of the Red Pill Takers".

This head guy will of course someday go out in a blazing gunfight with the FBI, CIA or the Mossad <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> - a shame.... when he could have been saved by one simple Truth:

EASE UP ON THE RED PILLS AND TRY A COUPLE OF THE BLUE ONES!

Frank <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

Hmmm. Quite a selective list of quotes there. One would almost think that an AA 757 is what everyone saw hit the building wouldn't ya?

I'm not gonna get into an eyewitness quote battle. And it should be noted that some of those quotes have been condensed from their complete context - some of which contradict what we are told actually happened. (BTW Frank - Goddard is a 'conspiracy theorist'...and the links to articles from which they were sourced are gone <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cyclops.gif" alt="" />) It doesn't prove anything for a 757 hitting the Pentagon, just as contradictory quotes from eyewitness wouldn't PROVE a 757 didn't hit the pentagon. (Pentagon employees retelling a strong smell of cordite within the building might get interesting... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

Neither have I stated anywhere that it was impossible for an AA designated airliner to be in the vicinity. There is a large contingent of truthers (based on witness testimony) that believe the best explanation involves a flyover.

Fact: The FBI rounded up and confiscated 80+ tapes from surveillance cameras around the Pentagon that very day. Why not show us the tapes? (Hell, why confiscate tapes?)

The lame Goddard page is telling. What proponents of a 757 hitting the Pentagon (which includes some truthers) don't want to get into is the 16 foot hole through which presumably a 60 ton, 124 foot wingspan, 44 foot tail height aircraft squeezed. The tail height is significant in light of this hole - as the external surface surrounding this hole - including windows - remains intact with absolutely no indication of even contact - let alone damage. Support columns within the building that withstood the impact are also indicative of a smaller craft. Of course a physics simulation paraded out by a respected university is convenient - especially when the simulation has neither of the two 6 ton ea. engines comprised mostly of titanium factored into the model. Also convenient is the fate of the tail - which remains attached and laughably collapses into the fuselage as it plows through a wall section that, in reality, sustains no damage.



Thinking is good. So do you think or do you know what hit the Pentagon?

I don't know. I'd like to. There is evidence that existed that should have readily dispelled any doubt. We are not allowed to see it.

Frank likes to hide behind the false premise that: If a 757 didn't hit the pentagon, then I should somehow omnisciently know what did and what happened to the passengers of 77 (I would assume they are dead as I've already stated). Beyond the obvious absurdity of such a claim, it reveals the predisposition to dismissing any evidence to the contrary that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon. Instead of debating the evidence or lack thereof, we hear round after round of character assassination. In one post its Cynthia McKinney. In another its the rank of a witness. In another its 'bloggers'... It's very telling of what the official conspiracy theory can actually produce to back up their claims. When I counter Frank's defense of the Purdue simulation with objective observations, Frank moves on. When I counter with testiment to the fact that a significant portion of rescue workers and victims families are 'truthers', Frank moves on...



Wow - you've really got me pegged there Frank. Talk about conspiracy theory... Just a couple of problems with that:

Few people with in the '9-11 Truth' movement, including myself, initially believed the event was an inside job. Like most, I implicitly believed my government was telling me the truth. Once upon a time I ran into some counter claims to the official story regarding the Pentagon crash and looked into it. At the time one of the defacto references for debunking the Pentagon/inside job claim was a thread on the ATS boards. I read it. It was very convincing and I believed it and moved on, content that any claim contrary to the official story was bogus in light of this systematic rebuttal.

A couple of years later I had my own experience with the Israeli art student op. The response I got from my government began to make me doubt the trustworthiness of my government, however it wasn't until 2yrs beyond that I really started looking into the facts of 9-11 and coming to some disturbing conclusions.

Incidentally that thread I had read years ago on ATS lingered on itself for years afterwards. Come to find out the 'debunker' poster of the thread was traced down from IP and other boards as Pentagon intelligence. When proof of this was produced on his own thread, he was never seen there again. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cyclops.gif" alt="" />



What supercedes the truth Frank? What matters more?

Its interesting how you pit this us vs. them fictional assesment when you say:

If that is true. Then why is the main if not only thrust of the 'Truth movment' an information awareness campaign? What would be the point of me handing out flyers on my own dime and time in freezing weather to "sheep that don't think"?

There are some who refuse to think, who are so emotionally attached to their perceptions that they will do anything to maintain them. Unfortunately any chance of a rational discussion is lost as the best defense lies in an argument appealing to emotion...'unpatriotic', 'disrepectful of victim families', 'disrupting society', 'delusional', 'quite insane'...



Its a shame...and troubling ain't it Frank - exercising the right to free and open assembly is very dangerous. Perhaps you should advocate for 'Conspiracy Theory' Zones to ensure that correct perceptions are maintained and society is not disrupted. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/mrt.gif" alt="" />



Speaking of history Frank, exactly how preposterous is it to conjure up the insane idea that our government could ever conceive of such a dastardly deed based on this document (starting at pdf pg 10, and particularly pdf pg 13(doc pg 10))?

<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/patriot.gif" alt="" />

Of course not - you'd lose.



The heart of it is there - I don't think you could find that many folks who saw an AA airplane fly into the Pentagon if it didn't happen.



Yes, he took the Super-Duper Red Pill which is used to make Truth from half-truth.



Some are, but enough remain for most folks to get the idea - and if you really want to see them, try Lexis-Nexis.



OK, show me where they can disprove eyewitness accounts and get those eyewitnesses to agree that the plane didn't really hit the Pentagon.



So what does that prove? I suspect some of the same has been done with the airliners that hit the WTC - because I saw something on TV that day that I have not seen since - what I thought was an F-16 rolling in (too late) behind the second airliner - but I can't be sure - all I know is that another airplane appeared flying left-to-right across the path of the incoming airliner that hit the second WTC building long after all aircraft were supposed to be on the ground. Does that mean that the airliner didn't hit the WTC? Nope.



The explanation is there if you want to read it..... and believe it.



Since neither of us saw the airplane hit, we're left with what we think - based on a preponderance of evidence. I accept the evidence I see and find it plausible. You don't. Yet you have no alternative theory - except to use your disbelief and distrust of the government to state that it wasn't American Airlines 757 Flight 77 that hit the building..... and in the doing you contradict yourself over and over - (an airplane didn't hit it - how is the tail section intact?).... and you cannot tell us what happened to Flight 77 or the passengers..... a completely flawed theory..... yet you expect folks to use it as the basis to disbelieve the more plausible one.



There is nothing wrong with asking questions and seeking truth.... except when the line is crossed and anomalies or misunderstood science is used in an attempt to create a scenario that can't hold water - and can't answer basic challenges like:

1) What hit the Pentagon?

- and -

2) Where are the people?



Now there's an idea. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

As usual, you make the attempt to lay credence to a conspiracy theory by pointing to another situation as proof that the other is true..... IOW, because the government has fooled you once, it tries to fool you in all things - but since you've taken the Red Pill, you're too "informed" for them to fool. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

So, let's get back to the original questions:

1) What is it if not Flight 77 and if it wasn't Flight 77, then where is it?

2) Where are those people?

Frank