18 Minute Error In Pentagon Collapse Time.

Minadin said:
Sometimes with Russell and the other "more sensible / honest" conspiracy theorists, it's hard to tell if they are trying to connect dots with their own theories, or debunk some of the more crazy stuff that other people come up with.
Click to expand...

Both.

You have to have a stance to contest another POV and find out you are wrong.

The other POV has to have a stance to contest you and find out they are wrong.

I get excited at new data. Being wrong does not phase me one bit.

If it all turns out to factually be video fakery then I will surrender and go to the casino and get really drunk and play slot machines!
 
This means, that Wedge 1 collapsed 38 minutes after the impact, not 20 minutes after. I can't think of any remarkable difference this additional time makes.
 
ref said:
This means, that Wedge 1 collapsed 38 minutes after the impact, not 20 minutes after. I can't think of any remarkable difference this additional time makes.
Click to expand...

I can't think of any nefarious purpose for it either.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Wolfman,

I retract my compliment.

I had the benefit of listening to ALL of the transmission tapes and watching private video.

Your rhetorical crap is silly.

There was one building evacuation and one fireground evacuation.

Talking with people who have a couple of hours of Pentagon understanding is pointless.

I was hoping for a couple of your honorable members.

YOU MUST REALIZE many of you are only a upside down and backwards conspiracy theorist. EXACTLY the same qaulitatively!!!!!!
Click to expand...
ROTFLMAO

The "retraction" of a compliment from someone who is incapable of responding to the simplest of questions, and who continues to flog a dead horse based on a foundation for which they can offer no support other than personal opinion, is hardly going to cause me any loss of sleep.
 
Now, if we could come to some reasonably good conclusion on how the discrepencies in the timeline that have Honnegger all excited got so twisted around....
 
Russell Pickering said:
ref,

I am a CT.

I differentiate myself from hard core CT's.

I believe 100% that AA77 with said passengers and crew impacted the Pentagon.

I do not believe Hani was in control. I have ZERO proof for this. It is a BELIEF and as far as I know the country I have served allows me to do this.

I also believe that 9/11 was the justification for invading the Middle East 27 days later.

I believe the primary organization involved in this was the PNAC.
Click to expand...

Russ,

Of course you can believe what you want to believe. And of course 9-11 was the justification for "invading" (really bombing) Afghanistan (which is not really part of the Middle East) somewhere around 27 days later. And PNAC... well, they're really not that important, never were. Yes, some of their members are very influential, but Bill Kristol? He shot his political capital on McCain in 2000. This is one of those things that people don't seem to understand; the neocons didn't support Bush in 2000 in the primaries.

I have come to the conclusion that debating the Pentagon is a waste of my time, mostly, and really you are not debating the Pentagon, you are debating what happened aboard Flight 77. That's almost impossible to determine except by obvious inference; let's see, each group was supposed to have 4 muscle hijackers (Flight 93 was short) who would take control of the aircraft and turn it over to the pilot hijacker, let's look at Flight 77 and who was aboard to see if we can find a similar situation, oh yeah, four muscle guys and a pilot. There are of course the phone calls, but you can write most of those off to Ted Olsen, Bush Administration insider.

I realize that you specialize in the Pentagon, but could you explain to me the theory you somehow use to tie "no Hani Hanjour at the controls of Flight 77" together with whatever you believe happened in terms of planes and the WTC? What I have see with all the conspiracy theorists is that they mostly seize ground they think they can defend, but they are prepared to retreat to a safer position if necessary; see your abandonment of the no-AA77 at the Pentagon theories, or Dylan's dropping of the voice-morphed phone calls and Cleveland Airport landing of Flight 93 for examples. To those of us in the rationalist movement, where proof goes from evidence to conclusion, it seems odd that abandoning major items of evidence earlier cited does not result in revised conclusions.
 
Russell is correct; I had noticed the same thing myself from CBS video. I should also point out that Paul Thompson also has had the correct time in his 9/11 timeline, at least since 2003. He used to cite the CBS video for the time, but it looks like this isn't the case anymore.

BTW, this wasn't the only incorrect time in the After Action Report...check out when it claims Flight 93 crashed.
 
Russell Pickering said:
I also believe that 9/11 was the justification for invading the Middle East 27 days later.
Click to expand...

1. Afganistan is not in the middle east.

2. I am loving the fact that throughout my reading of this thread Russel's post count was 911! OMG INSIDE JOO!
 
Last edited:
Good to hear from you again Russell. I don't know why such an agreeable CT as yourself gets the knee-jerk 'treatment' here. I always enjoy your contributions.

Interesting that a warning about a coming collapse got confused with the collapse itself. Much like the BBC report about building 7. What was your take on that?
 
I don't understand how, in a world of mistakes under mundane circumstances, people presume "conspiracy" instead of "mistake" under extraordinary circumstances.
 
Beyond who is right, and who is wrong, on this particular point, might I ask the reason for asking...ie, what is the significance if there is a 20 minute discrepency for the Pentagon Collapse, wrt 9/11 who dun it and why? Thanks.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Beyond who is right, and who is wrong, on this particular point, might I ask the reason for asking...ie, what is the significance if there is a 20 minute discrepency for the Pentagon Collapse, wrt 9/11 who dun it and why? Thanks.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I took it that Russell didn't really speculate on what such a discrpancy might mean. He was just exploring. Can you blame a Pentagon specialist like Russell for simply exploring a discrepancy to see where it might lead?
Not that I assume you, TAM, were doing that.
 
T.A.M. said:
Beyond who is right, and who is wrong, on this particular point, might I ask the reason for asking...ie, what is the significance if there is a 20 minute discrepency for the Pentagon Collapse, wrt 9/11 who dun it and why? Thanks.
Click to expand...

The reason you or I don't understand is that we don't believe it was an insoid yob. Since there is no real evidence of an insoid yob, anything that is a mistake becomes of paramount importance in the CT mind even though it is insignificant minutiae. Even the most minuscule mistakes becomes significant in the quest to prove the insoid yob theory.

So, in essence, it proves to the CT mind that the investigation was superficial and incomplete therefore a conspiracy to cover up the insoid yob becomes more evident.
 
alexg said:
I took it that Russell didn't really speculate on what such a discrpancy might mean. He was just exploring. Can you blame a Pentagon specialist like Russell for simply exploring a discrepancy to see where it might lead?
Not that I assume you, TAM, were doing that.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I was not blaming, or insinuating, as I know Russ is a rare bird in his flock...an honest truther.

However, I am curious as to whether there is any significance, to Russ, for this discrepancy.

TAM:)
 
The discrepancy has no conspiracy value. It's just another opportunity to toot his own horn. Notice the emphasis Russell placed on being smarter and having done more research than other people in here. He calmed down only after other posters acknowledged that he was 'right'. He'll interview people and send e-mails when it comes to a meaningless bit of trivia, but he won't dig into precious conspiracy beliefs that give him currency with true believers.

Russell, you don't need 'proof' to make a decision. You can go with "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "majority of the evidence." Not having 'proof' that Hani was running the roost is not a valid reason to support a fallback position that allows you to stay within the conspiracy fold.
 
T.A.M. said:
However, I am curious as to whether there is any significance, to Russ, for this discrepancy.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Have you seen what Honnegger is making of the discrepency between the official narrative and the time it states for impact, and the time that she claims the clocks stopped?

I would be interested in how the official timeline was established for any of the events.

In the case of the Honnegger theory, it allowed a window for a truck bomb.

As absurd as that theory is, given the nature of the damage observed, some people buy into it on the basis of the time line.
 
On a side note Russell, I couldn't help but notice the number of posts under your join date. Neat coincidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom