| Viewing Single Post From: Are there any flyover witnesses? | |
|---|---|
| dbalsdon | Jan 16 2008, 06:07 AM |
|
"Clearly there WERE reports of a plane that flew over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion. They simply refer to it as a "2nd plane"." This doesn't say how close the plane was to the building after the collision. "So if there really was a "2nd plane" that flew over the building why wasn't it more widely reported?" As you saw, the buildings near to an airport. Reasonable to assume, that when you're near an airport, you'll see... yep, planes. OMFG!!!!! "Why didn't ALL the witnesses see this?" Maybe because a second plane, high up in the sky, and clearly having nothing to do with the crash, is of no importance at all? HUNDREDS of people say they saw a commercial jet hitting the pentagon, and not one mentioned a second plane. Why do you continue to dispute a plane hit? "Does the fact that this wasn't widely reported prove that these reports are fabricated? " Yes. "You have to realize that the media reported that the government told them about AA77 allegedly impacting the building within about 4 minutes after the attack." Eye witnesses probably reported it to the media quicker then that. "n all the hysteria of that day the only reports that were considered truly valid are the ones that came from the government." Eye witnesses were also spoken to. They ALL said a plane hit the building. "If someone reported something that contradicted the official story it was considered "anomalous" and not widely reported by the media." No. If one person contradicted the accounts of hundreds of other eye witnesses, then it was considered anomalous, and rightfully so. "So these accounts of a "2nd plane" or ANY plane that flew over the Pentagon would have been shrugged off and not reported because the government said that AA77 hit the building." Nope. Hundreds of eyewitnesses back up the "official story", and don't mention a 2nd plane. To a sane person, that would suggest there was no second plane, or that if there was, it wasn't anywhere near enough to have been relevant. "The only way to know what people REALLY reported without the filter of the complicit and/or manipulated mainstream media is to get a hold of the 911 call tapes and transcripts." So you're disregarding the eyewitness accounts of HUNDREDS of people, because a few 911 calls havent been made public? "But that will never happen because suspiciously......they have been confiscated by the FBI and never released to this day UNLIKE in New York." Nobody needs to listen to the tapes considering there were hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit, and made official statements. "This is clearly because they have something to hide in Arlington." Nope "It's very important that the movement focuses attention on this because this evidence is just as important as the video tape of the event that will never be released." So you the truth movement to focus on a few phone calls that havent been released, and ignore EVERY eyewitness account? Typical. "Because these tapes have been hidden we will NEVER know what people really first reported so you can not accurately say that "nobody reported the flyover"." Do you really think EVERY single one of the eyewitnesses phoned 911? They didn't. Most of the statements were made in person, either to the media, or officials. "The fact that the mainstream media only reported witnesses who supported the official story is not surprising. People who contradicted it were simply written off as anomalous and incorrect." Yep, thats because EVERYONE who made statements regarding the crash, saw a plane hitting the pentagon, thus backing up the "official story". Kinda hard to mention an alternative story, when nobody(or one of two) reported anything to the contrary. "anyone who saw it could easily think it was air traffic from Reagan National Airport which is RIGHT NEXT to the Pentagon." Yep, and theres the explanation for the other plane that you keep going on about. "You can even see and hear it happening during our interviews." Can you post links to these interviews? "So even if someone was suspicious or curious about the plane they saw flying away after the explosion they would write it off as inconsequential after hearing the media start reporting that AA77 hit the building 4 minutes after the event." So, you're saying that if anyone thought there was anything suspicious about a second plane near the pentagon, they'd have forgotton about it 4 minutes later??/ Couldn't have been that suspicious then could it? You sound surprised that it took the media 4 minutes to report it?? You do realize there is usual a delay between something major happening, and the media reporting it? ""Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane, " Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane" So, first off, she says she's glad someone else saw it, but then says, its so frustrating because nobody else knows about it??? Kinda contradicts herself there. The image of the explosion, and the plane flying away is fake. If that was real, it would've been front page of every newspaper in the world. Its not ven a good fake either. "Scott Cook had one of the closest views possible and this is a shot from his office window:" Except for the hundreds of witnesses, who were on the road right next to the pentagon, unobscurred by trees or other buildings, who saw the plane hit. Oh, and to suggest that the nearest person to the pentagon who saw the plane hit, was around half a mile away(i'm guessing that figure from the image posted, so is probably well off), is, to put it bluntly, retarded. In summary, your theory sucks. You blatantly disregard the witness accounts of hundreds of people, because..... um.. that bit i'm not clear on... because they AGREE with the "official story"?????? Has it even occurred to you, that maybe thats because the "official story" is right???? Or are you thinking to yourself "Since i'm accusing the government of a major crime, i'm gonna dismiss their claims, along with the claims of everybody who agrees with them?" That what your saying? Sure seems like it. Edited by dbalsdon, Jan 16 2008, 06:13 AM.
|
 |
|
| Are there any flyover witnesses? · Pentagon | |
12:28 AM Dec 1
