Film of Missile Going into Pentagon

[Duane Daman]

Good afternoon Mr. Daman. Your mission Duane, should you choose to accept it, is to go through the 104 names listed in the spreadsheet as having seen the impact and show that none of them actually said they saw it or were not in a position to have seen it

Mission Impossible now? .. Well, that explains your sunglasses then.

I don't need to discredit all of the ALLEGED 104 ( does that number keep changing?) "eye witnesses", when discredting only one will do .. Along with discrediting Mr. Rumsfeld of course!

"Let's go back to Mr Walter's words on the day itself - Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out.... Does that sound anything like I saw... ...the actual jet going in with the wings folded back? Of course it does not. Apparently Mr Walter subsequently developed x-ray vision and travelled backwards in time to see through the great ball of fire. Mr Walter's estimate of the airplane's speed is also fatuous. By what standard, one must ask, did he judge the speed of the airplane to be about 500mph? Misjudge would perhaps be a more appropriate word to use since a large passenger jet airplane simply cannot in any case travel that fast that close to the ground. At the impossible speed that Mr Walter claims the time the airplane would take to travel through its own length would be one fifth of a second (0.2 sec). Even at a more realistic speed, say 200mph, that time would be a mere one half of a second (0.5 sec). And yet in that time Mr Walter now claims to have seen the wings folded back and, despite necessarily having become detached from the fuselage, get dragged inside by the fuselage. Given that the soft-nosed fuselage could not have penetrated the hardened bunker-concrete Pentagon wall in the first place, is any of that credible?

What is more, Mr Walter was looking at the western face of the Pentagon, which was in deep shadow in contrast to the background of a dazzlingly bright sky with the morning Sun in the same quadrant. It is well known that in such circumstances it is impossible for the human eye to see what is in the shade because of the extreme contrast.

None of this is to say that Mr Walter did not see a large airplane flying low overhead. He undoubtedly did see a large twin-engined airplane, the one that felled the lamp-posts to clear the attack path of the incoming cruise missile, the one that subsequently overflew Porter Goss's press conference at the Capitol. However, the physical evidence of what hit the Pentagon does not include an airplane, planted stage-prop evidence on the lawn notwithstanding."

A Cruise Missile at The Pentagon

10. Donald Rumsfeld

Mike Walter was not the only person to use the word missile in describing the object that hit the Pentagon. On October 12th 2001 then U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave an interview to Parade magazine.

Parade: This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?

Rumsfeld: There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing ­­­ the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues.

They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building [the Pentagon] and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.

The evidence of the statements of Mike Walter and Donald Rumsfeld does not seem so tenuous and the statements themselves are not so easily dismissed as metaphorical when viewed in the context of the flight characteristics of the UFO and of the smoke trail that followed behind it. Both statements may well instead have been unintended slips of the tongue that reveal the true nature of the object.

That would not be Donald Rumsfeld's only slip of the tongue regarding 9/11...

The people who... ...shot down the plane over Pennsylvania - Donald Rumsfeld (December 24th 2004, Iraq)

In vino veritas - Pliny the Elder

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/index.html

Edited May 15, 2011 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

You do understand Duane that just because someone says something that conforms with your preconceived beliefs doesnt make it true. Unlike you I actually provide documentation for my claims.

The irony of that statement is also priceless!.. Along with the government disinformation "documentation" of your claims.

btw, the sunglasses really do suit you, considering your preconceived beliefs..

Edited May 15, 2011 by Duane Daman

[Len Colby]

Good afternoon Mr. Daman. Your mission Duane, should you choose to accept it, is to go through the 104 names listed in the spreadsheet as having seen the impact and show that none of them actually said they saw it or were not in a position to have seen it

Mission Impossible now? .. Well, that explains your sunglasses then.

I've been inspired since Jim Phelps joined the forum

I don't need to discredit all of the ALLEGED 104 ( does that number keep changing?) "eye witnesses", when discredting only one will do .. Along with discrediting Mr. Rumsfeld of course!

Logical fallacy one witness being mistaken does not mean that other numerous unrelated ones were as well. You claimed only ONE witness claimed to see the impact, why are you unable to admit you were wrong?

"ALLEGED 104 ( does that number keep changing?)"

Perhaps math was not your best subject Evan and I said there were "over 100 witnesses", 'over' means 'more than' and 104 is more than 100, hope this helps.

I still don't follow your 'truther' "logic" what was false about Walter's statement?

[Duane Daman]

Logical fallacy one witness being mistaken does not mean that other numerous unrelated ones were as well. You claimed only ONE witness claimed to see the impact, why are you unable to admit you were wrong?

I was only referring to the list of 19 witnesses you linked me to, when I claimed that only one of them claimed to have seen the plane actually impact the Pentagon.. The rest of thoses "witnesses" were actually told what they had seen after the fact.. It's understandable to say that you saw a plane hit the buliding if you saw a plane fly too low over the building, and then saw a huge fireball, coinciding with a loud explosion .. Under those circumstances I'm sure most people would would have assumed the plane hit the Pentagon, instead of a cruise missile.

Perhaps math was not your best subject Evan and I said there were "over 100 witnesses", 'over' means 'more than' and 104 is more than 100, hope this helps.

No, math is not by best subject.. Music and psychology are.

As for the other alleged "104 witnesses", where is the proof that even exist, much less really saw a plane impact the Pentagon? .. They could have also assumed that's what they saw, considering the circumstances.

I still don't follow your 'truther' "logic" what was false about Walter's statement?

I still don't follow your 'defender of 911 lies' logic..Here's Walter's claim again..

Let's go back to Mr Walter's words on the day itself - “Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out...”. Does that sound anything like “I saw... ...the actual jet going in with the wings folded back”? Of course it does not. Apparently Mr Walter subsequently developed x-ray vision and travelled backwards in time to see through the “great ball of fire”. Mr Walter's estimate of the airplane's speed is also fatuous. By what standard, one must ask, did he judge the speed of the airplane to be “about 500mph”? ‘Misjudge’ would perhaps be a more appropriate word to use since a large passenger jet airplane simply cannot in any case travel that fast that close to the ground. At the impossible speed that Mr Walter claims the time the airplane would take to travel through its own length would be one fifth of a second (0.2 sec). Even at a more realistic speed, say 200mph, that time would be a mere one half of a second (0.5 sec). And yet in that time Mr Walter now claims to have seen the wings “folded back” and, despite necessarily having become detached from the fuselage, get dragged inside by the fuselage. Given that the soft-nosed fuselage could not have penetrated the hardened bunker-concrete Pentagon wall in the first place, is any of that credible?

[Kevin M. West]

Why do you say "Here's Walter's claim" then post something written by someone else?

[Len Colby]

Why do you say "Here's Walter's claim" then post something written by someone else?

Because that's how truthers' minds work

[Len Colby]

Logical fallacy one witness being mistaken does not mean that other numerous unrelated ones were as well. You claimed only ONE witness claimed to see the impact, why are you unable to admit you were wrong?

I was only referring to the list of 19 witnesses you linked me to, when I claimed that only one of them claimed to have seen the plane actually impact the Pentagon.

In other words you were too lazy to look at the witnesses lists linked of that page.

The rest of thoses "witnesses" were actually told what they had seen after the fact.

I’d love to see you analysis in support of that claim.

It's understandable to say that you saw a plane hit the buliding if you saw a plane fly too low over the building, and then saw a huge fireball, coinciding with a loud explosion .. Under those circumstances I'm sure most people would would have assumed the plane hit the Pentagon, instead of a cruise missile.

That is very, very debatable. What is not understandable is that why after 10 years IF the scenario you spell out were true no witnesses have come forward who said they saw the plane flyover the Pentagon or that they saw a missile

No, math is not by best subject.. Music and psychology are.

As for the other alleged "104 witnesses", where is the proof that even exist, much less really saw a plane impact the Pentagon? .. They could have also assumed that's what they saw, considering the circumstances.

They were interviewed by dozens of different media outlets, some on video, there is no reason to doubt what they said much less their existence, you want to dismiss them because they contradict you strange fantasy.

I still don't follow your 'truther' "logic" what was false about Walter's statement?

I still don't follow your 'defender of 911 lies' logic..Here's Walter's claim again..

Let's go back to Mr Walter's words on the day itself - “Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out...”. Does that sound anything like “I saw... ...the actual jet going in with the wings folded back”? Of course it does not. Apparently Mr Walter subsequently developed x-ray vision and travelled backwards in time to see through the “great ball of fire”. Mr Walter's estimate of the airplane's speed is also fatuous. By what standard, one must ask, did he judge the speed of the airplane to be “about 500mph”? ‘Misjudge’ would perhaps be a more appropriate word to use since a large passenger jet airplane simply cannot in any case travel that fast that close to the ground. At the impossible speed that Mr Walter claims the time the airplane would take to travel through its own length would be one fifth of a second (0.2 sec). Even at a more realistic speed, say 200mph, that time would be a mere one half of a second (0.5 sec). And yet in that time Mr Walter now claims to have seen the wings “folded back” and, despite necessarily having become detached from the fuselage, get dragged inside by the fuselage. Given that the soft-nosed fuselage could not have penetrated the hardened bunker-concrete Pentagon wall in the first place, is any of that credible?

You should try and go back to original sources rather than blindly accept others spin. These quotes are as excerpted on a leading TRUTHER site, the CNN link is still working, the Digipresse one isn’t but IS on the Internet Archive:

“"I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out."

– CNN

"...I saw a big silver plane and those double A's."

- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Lexis-Nexis)

"...it turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there." "Now there are some people who say that it skipped and went into the Pentagon and it may have gone that way, but that’s not what I saw. What I saw was the jet went very low into the Pentagon and it went straight." "It seemed like it was a slow, graceful bank and then once it straightened out, that's when it sped up." "...you could see chunks of the wreckage on the ground, pieces of the plane.... It literally disintegrated on impact. It hit, and as it went into the side of the building it sheared off the wings."

... a cruise missile with wings? "I said that as a metaphor. To me it was like a missile was fired at a building. It exploded as you'd imagine a missile to explode. ... It was an American Airlines jet. And I watched it go into the building. I saw the big 'AA' on the side.."

- Digipresse interview

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html

Edited May 19, 2011 by Len Colby

[Duane Daman]

They were interviewed by dozens of different media outlets, some on video, there is no reason to doubt what they said much less their existence, you want to dismiss them because they contradict you strange fantasy.

There might not be a reason to doubt what they said, but there's very much reason to doubt what they really saw, or more like, really didn't see.

My opinion about what took place on 911 is not some "strange fantasy", as much as I'm sure you would like people to believe that .. Unfortunately for people like you, and for the US government, millions of people all over the world have discoverd that 911 was a false flag operation, orchestrated by certain people within the government.. There's even evidence that the lead "terrorist", Mohammad Atta, was an under cover CIA agent who had been trained in Germany by the US government.. He was set up, just like Le Harvey Oswald was, for a crime he didn't commit.

I think what really clinched it for me that Atta and company had been placed on those planes to take the fall that day, was the fact that he and his fellow "terrorists" were video taped at a Wallmart, buying presents for their wives and kids, the night before the attacks.. Men who know they're going to die the next day don't buy presents that their family's will never see.. Nor do they cancel orders for porn movies at the hotel they were staying at, because they cost too much .. Why would they care what something cost, if they knew they were going to be with Allah and 40 virgins the very next day???

I have no idea what the CIA was thinking when they allowed that type of information out about the "terrorists", but it was not a very wise thing to do.

[Len Colby]

They were interviewed by dozens of different media outlets, some on video, there is no reason to doubt what they said much less their existence, you want to dismiss them because they contradict you strange fantasy.

There might not be a reason to doubt what they said, but there's very much reason to doubt what they really saw, or more like, really didn't see.

My opinion about what took place on 911 is not some "strange fantasy", as much as I'm sure you would like people to believe that .. Unfortunately for people like you, and for the US government, millions of people all over the world have discoverd that 911 was a false flag operation, orchestrated by certain people within the government..

Millions of people believe that Elvis is still alive and the people who doubt evolution far out number toofers

There's even evidence that the lead "terrorist", Mohammad Atta, was an under cover CIA agent who had been trained in Germany by the US government.

This ought to be good what is the evidence to that effect?

I think what really clinched it for me that Atta and company had been placed on those planes to take the fall that day, was the fact that he and his fellow "terrorists" were video taped at a Wallmart, buying presents for their wives and kids, the night before the attacks.. Men who know they're going to die the next day don't buy presents that their family's will never see.. Nor do they cancel orders for porn movies at the hotel they were staying at, because they cost too much .. Why would they care what something cost, if they knew they were going to be with Allah and 40 virgins the very next day???

That’s hilarious “what really clinched it” for you was your own delusion. The closest any of the hijackers came to having “wives and kids” was Jarrah who had an on again off again fiancé he had not seen for several months. I am unaware of any videos of them buying presents for friends and family although they did shop at Wal-Mart a few times including for box cutters and knives.

http://www.911myths.com/images/a/a1/Team7_Box18_HijackerKnifePurchases.pdf

[Duane Daman]

That’s hilarious “what really clinched it” for you was your own delusion. The closest any of the hijackers came to having “wives and kids” was Jarrah who had an on again off again fiancé he had not seen for several months. I am unaware of any videos of them buying presents for friends and family although they did shop at Wal-Mart a few times including for box cutters and knives.

What's really hilarious is your continued defense of government disinformation .. Maybe Atta didn't have a wife and kids but he obviously purchased items at that Walmart that the FBI doesn't want anyone to know about.

We are also suppossed to believe that he purchased the infamous box cutters at this store as his only weapons in taking down all of NORAD and the American government on Sept. 11, 2001 .. Along with cave dweller Osama bin Boogeyman's orders, of course.

Colby's replies are as laughably predictable as the government's version of what happened on 911.

Here's some info on the on going cover up of what Mohammed Atta really bought at Walmart before the 911 attacks.

"Atta spent 17 minutes in the store.

One security picture appears to show him in the store's electronics department.

He is seen leaving at 9:39 p.m., carrying a plastic bag with his purchases.

The FBI refused to say what Atta bought during one of his final encounters with American capitalism.

A store manager and a Wal-Mart spokesman at the company's Arkansas headquarters refused to give details of Atta's visit, and said only that they are cooperating with the FBI.”

(New York Post, 10/5/01)

(Cox News, 10/4/01)

Comment: Why is it a secret what Atta bought?

Why does Atta spend much time in the electronic department? Why is this photo not released? Would it imply what (else) he bought?

“In South Portland, Atta and Alomari had found a Wal-Mart and were on a spending spree. They blew about $ 200 on T-shirts alone, and Atta was so impressed with one of the sports shirts he had bought that he put it on before he left the store. ”

(Independent, 9/8/02)

Comment: Most likely this account is simply BS as the security photos show Atta leaving (alone) Wal Mart with his black and white shirt on. Did the “Independent” make up the story about the buying of a T-Shirt as well?

One week later the workers at Wal-Mart finally reveal a piece of info:

“Staff members at the Wal-Mart in South Portland told The Post yesterday that Atta bought the $1.84 boxcutters he used to hijack American Airlines Flight 11 less than 12 hours before he commandeered the plane.

(…)

He got there just in time. The store closed for the day at 10.

The staffers, who asked not to be identified, said they had been warned not to give details.

"We all know what he bought," one of them said. "We're just not allowed to talk about it."

The staffer was surprised the hijackers had not made their deadly purchase earlier.

"It's unbelievable they would leave it to the last minute," the staffer said.

Wal-Mart spokesman Tom Williams refused to talk about what Atta purchased.”

(New York Post, 10/12/01)

Comment: So, to make this clear: The hijackers wait till the very last second before buying the central weapon of their suicide mission and are even so little prepared that they have to ask the way to the Wal-Mart?

Why are the workers not allowed to talk at all? Then a bit but their chief remains completely silent?

Or is there another possibility? The staffer inventing the boxcutter story because it seemed plausible knowing Atta bought something else? How else to explain that they say what he bought and at the same time telling the journalist Atta bought cutters?

"It was shocking to the employees that they were in the parking lot and in our store, but nobody has come out and said they saw anyone ," said Cheryl Giordano, a photo lab technician at Wal-Mart.”

(New York Times , 10/5/01)

Comment: Nobody saw anyone. Too bad although Atta had this eye-catching shirt.

Comment: But the secrecy surrounding Atta and Al Omari and their activity on September 10 goes even further:

“The FBI has ordered a blackout on how much money the men withdrew from the bank and what they bought at the Wal-Mart.”

(Evening Standard, 10/5/01)

“The banks have not released how much or even if Mr. Atta and Mr. Alomari withdrew money from the A.T.M.’s”

(New York Times, 10/5/01)

“Today in South Portland and Scarborough, employees at the Comfort Inn, Pizza Hut and other places in the chronology said they had been told not to talk. Most said they had no recollection of the men anyway.”

(New York Times, 10/5/01)

Comment: Again: Why this secrecy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=30484

AGAIN: WHY THIS SECRECY???

[Ron Ecker]

AGAIN: WHY THIS SECRECY???

For the same reason it is still a secret why a supposedly civilian NetJet was tracking Flight 93 when it crashed or was shot down (with Popular Mechanics and other lapdog media putting out a false story, debunked, perhaps unwittingly, by the government itself, about it being some other identified plane).

The government alone will decide what it will or will not let us know about 9/11. That includes everything from NIST reports and the 9/11 Omissions Report right on down to muzzled store clerks at Walmart.

I had not heard the Walmart story before, but why am I not surprised? It fits right in with the whole monstrous crime and cover-up of 9/11.

[Len Colby]

You are hilarious Duane you keep making assertions that are shown to be false but that doesn't shake your undying faith in Trutherism, you are a 'true believer'.

"All of NORAD" was not very formidable on 9/11, it only had 4 fighters none of which were based close to NYC or DC and it as geared to intercepting incoming international flights which is hy it normally took hours to intercept wayward domestic flights before that date

Why the secrecy? Hate to break it to you but this is SOP during ongoing criminal investigations.

As for the last minute box cutter purchase:

-See if you can post a link to the source article

- the clerks could have been mistaken

- Atta or Alomari could have lost one or more of their box cutters

-they could have decided they wanted more or different ones etc.

1466840401

[Len Colby]

AGAIN: WHY THIS SECRECY???

For the same reason it is still a secret why a supposedly civilian NetJet was tracking Flight 93 when it crashed or was shot down (with Popular Mechanics and other lapdog media putting out a false story, debunked, perhaps unwittingly, by the government itself, about it being some other identified plane).

The government alone will decide what it will or will not let us know about 9/11. That includes everything from NIST reports and the 9/11 Omissions Report right on down to muzzled store clerks at Walmart.

I had not heard the Walmart story before, but why am I not surprised? It fits right in with the whole monstrous crime and cover-up of 9/11.

Civilian controllers asked the NetJet to verify if 93 had crashed. It wouldn't have been the 1st time ACT's had asked a pilot do such a thing.

[Ron Ecker]

Civilian controllers asked the NetJet to verify if 93 had crashed. It wouldn't have been the 1st time ACT's had asked a pilot do such a thing.

Where did you get this information? Who was the pilot? And why was it tracking Flight 93 before it was asked to "verify" a crash?

[Len Colby]

Civilian controllers asked the NetJet to verify if 93 had crashed. It wouldn't have been the 1st time ACT's had asked a pilot do such a thing.

Where did you get this information? Who was the pilot? And why was it tracking Flight 93 before it was asked to "verify" a crash?

I've read about other incidents where ATCs asked pilots for assitence. My info about flight 93 is based on recall but IIRC the ATC tape/transcript was released and on them one of the ATC's asks the pilot to take a look. Also IIRC the pilot as named by Popular Mechanics and other sources.