Pentagon On Back Burner In Lcfc?


 Discuss all aspects of the Pentagon incident here.   Discuss all aspects of the Pentagon incident here.

Pentagon On Back Burner In Lcfc?

john_in_CT
Member
Joined: Sep 24 2006, 01:37 PM

Sep 24 2006, 02:35 PM #1

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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Sep 23 2006, 05:35 AM

Sep 24 2006, 02:37 PM #2

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.
Exodus 1831
Quote
Like
Share

UnderTow
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2 2006, 03:33 PM

Sep 24 2006, 02:44 PM #3

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.
Clear your mind. There is no emotion, no religion, no politics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you BELIEVE the Official Story, then you should believe the NTSB.
If you BELIEVE the NTSB, then you have a serious problem with the Official Story

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 24 2006, 02:44 PM #4

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!
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Dachsie
Advanced Member
Dachsie
Advanced Member
Joined: Sep 4 2006, 10:44 PM

Sep 24 2006, 03:58 PM #5

I generally agree with Russel Pickering.
"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
Quote
Like
Share

johndoeX
Veteran
Joined: May 18 2006, 01:24 PM

Sep 24 2006, 04:29 PM #6

Russell Pickering @ Sep 24 2006, 10:44 AM wrote: 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.
Pilots For Truth Forum
www.universalseed.org for truth
Freedom To Fascism

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.- Mark Twain
Quote
Like
Share

MJChicago
Veteran
Joined: May 19 2006, 06:56 PM

Sep 24 2006, 04:49 PM #7

johndoeX @ Sep 24 2006, 04:29 PM wrote: 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.
Quote
Like
Share

john_in_CT
Member
Joined: Sep 24 2006, 01:37 PM

Sep 24 2006, 04:57 PM #8

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.
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 25 2006, 01:09 PM #9

johndoeX @ Sep 24 2006, 04:29 PM wrote:
Russell Pickering @ Sep 24 2006, 10:44 AM wrote: 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.
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Dachsie
Advanced Member
Dachsie
Advanced Member
Joined: Sep 4 2006, 10:44 PM

Sep 25 2006, 02:53 PM #10

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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 25 2006, 06:44 PM #11

Merc @ Sep 25 2006, 01:09 PM wrote:
johndoeX @ Sep 24 2006, 04:29 PM wrote:
Russell Pickering @ Sep 24 2006, 10:44 AM wrote: 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
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 25 2006, 06:48 PM #12

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.
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

johndoeX
Veteran
Joined: May 18 2006, 01:24 PM

Sep 25 2006, 07:00 PM #13

Russell Pickering @ Sep 25 2006, 02:48 PM wrote: 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.
Pilots For Truth Forum
www.universalseed.org for truth
Freedom To Fascism

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.- Mark Twain
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 25 2006, 07:10 PM #14

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.
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.
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.
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.


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.


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.
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?
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 25 2006, 07:25 PM #15

Russell Pickering @ Sep 25 2006, 06:44 PM wrote: 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?
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 26 2006, 03:31 AM #16

Merc @ Sep 25 2006, 07:25 PM wrote:
Russell Pickering @ Sep 25 2006, 06:44 PM wrote: 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.
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

UnderTow
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2 2006, 03:33 PM

Sep 26 2006, 03:36 AM #17

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?
Clear your mind. There is no emotion, no religion, no politics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you BELIEVE the Official Story, then you should believe the NTSB.
If you BELIEVE the NTSB, then you have a serious problem with the Official Story

Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 26 2006, 01:40 PM #18

Russell Pickering @ Sep 26 2006, 03:31 AM wrote:
Merc @ Sep 25 2006, 07:25 PM wrote:
Russell Pickering @ Sep 25 2006, 06:44 PM wrote: 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.
Russell Pickering @ Sep 17 2006, 07:17 AM wrote:Russell: From impact to turning out of the Citgo towards the Pentagon he was out of there in 30 seconds.


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???
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Cary
Veteran
Cary
Veteran
Joined: Jun 7 2006, 10:18 PM

Sep 26 2006, 02:45 PM #19

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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 26 2006, 03:12 PM #20

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
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 26 2006, 03:31 PM #21

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.
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 26 2006, 03:38 PM #22

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
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 3 2006, 11:46 PM

Sep 26 2006, 04:02 PM #23

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.
Russell Pickering
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 26 2006, 04:03 PM #24

Russell Pickering @ Sep 26 2006, 03:38 PM wrote: 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.
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 26 2006, 04:04 PM #25

Russell Pickering @ Sep 26 2006, 04:02 PM wrote: 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?
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Dachsie
Advanced Member
Dachsie
Advanced Member
Joined: Sep 4 2006, 10:44 PM

Sep 26 2006, 04:05 PM #26

"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.
Quote
Like
Share

Merc
Veteran
Merc
Veteran
Joined: Apr 6 2006, 02:26 PM

Sep 26 2006, 04:05 PM #27

Dachsie @ Sep 26 2006, 04:05 PM wrote:

I have not read many of Russel' postings
Well therein lies the problem.
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Becomes a Revolutionary Act.
Quote
Like
Share

Dachsie
Advanced Member
Dachsie
Advanced Member
Joined: Sep 4 2006, 10:44 PM

Sep 26 2006, 04:10 PM #28

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.
Quote
Like
Share

johndoeX
Veteran
Joined: May 18 2006, 01:24 PM

Sep 26 2006, 04:13 PM #29

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...
Pilots For Truth Forum
www.universalseed.org for truth
Freedom To Fascism

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.- Mark Twain
Quote
Like
Share

johndoeX
Veteran
Joined: May 18 2006, 01:24 PM

Sep 26 2006, 04:23 PM #30

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.
Pilots For Truth Forum
www.universalseed.org for truth
Freedom To Fascism

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.- Mark Twain
Quote
Like
Share