or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › That pesky Pentagon footage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

That pesky Pentagon footage

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pen...deo/index.html

The media are LYING AGAIN on behalf of the (sic) Defense Department. CNN (and the rest of the mainstream media) fraudulently claim that this footage is "new"; it was actually released by the Defense Dept. shortly after the 9-11 attacks in response to author Thierry Meyssan's (incorrect) claim that a truck bomb had hit the Pentagon. The video was released after the DoD lied to the American people about having neither video nor pictures of the Pentagon event.

The material released today is the same old frames, with more added after the explosion. The original (perhaps doctored) timecode showing an incorrect date "9-12, 2001", and an incorrect time of day (17:37) has been removed from the frames that were originally released.
Some have put forward material that suggests the official story of a large plane hitting the Pentagon is correct, (whether it was the real Flight 77, or something else), while others point to discrepancies and problems in the official account.

The Pentagon event has given rise to all kinds of controversy since that day, and the whole mess can be put down to the fault of FBI and the DoD, and their paranoia, intransigence and continued refusal to release the videotaped footage that was hurriedly confiscated from the nearby Citgo gas station, the Sheraton Hotel and several other locations. Some 4.5 years have elapsed, and they still "justify" this blackout due to "national security concerns", and that the release of this material "would compromise the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui". Well, the trial is now over, Moussaoui is in jail for life, and we have all been shown thousands of times over, footage of planes being flown into the World Trade Center, without "national security" considerations.

The best way of resolving this seemingly intractible controversy is for the various federal agencies involved to release the tapes now. The stuff they presented today is OLD NEWS, presented by the weasel-media-cowards as "new". Only then can we the long-suffering people see evidence of what actually happened on that morning, instead of being told to have eternal faith in officials and departments which have had a record of 'serial dishonesty' during the past 5 or 6 years.

This (absurd and) unnecessary secrecy is what has given rise to the the wave of so-called conspiracy theories re. the Pentagon event. So whats the big problem, Mr. Mueller? Are you lying to us? Why the delay, Mr. Rumsfeld? The continued non-release of the evidence suggests that the government is hiding something: to what other conclusions can one arrive in the face of such obfuscations? It is their stupid conduct what has fueled the controversy.

edit for typo
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2 of 38
I think Saddam did it. That's why we is at war.
post #3 of 38
Sheesh sj, will you PUHLEEZ let it be so we (the American people...) can go back to more important things...

9/11 is old news man...
You know, what's interesting about our country is that for years we were isolated from the world by two great oceans, and for a while we got a false sense of security as a result of that. We...
Reply
You know, what's interesting about our country is that for years we were isolated from the world by two great oceans, and for a while we got a false sense of security as a result of that. We...
Reply
post #4 of 38
Still no sign of the footage from the other cams at the nearby garage....those are the ones that no-one will ever see.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #5 of 38
Confirmed. There is no plane in those videos. Here are the 3 "new" ones.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

--B
...


...
Reply
...


...
Reply
post #6 of 38
Yeah, I remember seeing some video about this a while back where the guy HAD this "new" footage and made the whole claim that it was a bomb and not an airplane that blew up the Pentagon. Maybe it was on Dvorak's blog....can't remember.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #7 of 38
Thread Starter 
THIS IS WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE if the camera had caught a Boeing 757 plowing into the Pentagon.

Instead they give us this: http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

The tail of a 757 is a large feature some 40 feet tall .. this approximately 1000 square foot feature should be clearly visible in at least one of the frames... but there's nothing there, save that trail of smoke or condensed water vapor in the top right hand corner, which is not characteristic of the way commercial jet engines behave at NTP at sealevel. How many times has anyone watched a commercial jet come in to land trailing thick white smoke behind it?

Perhaps a Boeing 757 did hit the Pentagon, as reported by some eyewitnesses, but the frames released yesterday by the Pentagon only heighten the controversy. Incidentally there were as many eyewitnesses who said they saw a small commercial jet/military plane/cruise missile etc etc. hit the Pentagon as those who rfeported seeing a 757. And... several of these eyewitnesses saw a 757 (or similar) fly directly over the top of the Pentagon shortly before the time of the impact, to land at Dulles International a few minutes later.

We are still waiting for the definitive proof to either lay the conspiracy theories to rest, or to render the official version lies. The Pentagon/FBI has the proof: there are some 8 4 Videotapes from security cameras in and around the Pentagon and various other properties in the immediate area which were confiscated rapidly after the impact, and are still in the possession of the DoD and/or FBI. They still refuse to release them.

WHAT IS THEIR FVCKING PROBLEM??

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #8 of 38
Freaking Islamo terrorists flew a plane into the freaking Pentagon and blew it up.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #9 of 38
well, if that footage shows a plane that is supposed to be 155 feet long and 44 feet high (20 for the cylinder), then one can rightly assume that it was God himself who was flying it a foot of the ground, perfectly horizontal, and Osama is his true messenger.

Jeez, people are actually going to 'buy' that?
Jeez*10 - and they are arrogant enough to actually release 'that' as the supposed proof we've all been waiting for?
post #10 of 38
what the release of this 'new' footage really shows...

An attempt to rekindle the emotions of 9/11 - which invariably evoke solidarity behind George666Bush, solely because his approval rating has tanked, and there are mid-terms coming up.
post #11 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by southside grabowski
Freaking Islamo terrorists flew a plane into the freaking Pentagon and blew it up.

Lets see your proof. Let's see the Administration's evidence. All we have to go on is blind faith and a video that shows nothing.

We need material evidence; faith doesn't cut anything round here, especially regarding the words of people who have a long record of telling lies.

Try one more take, this time with some passion. 3..4..
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #12 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
I think Saddam did it. That's why we is at war.

Almost but move over one country, Saudi Arabia. The 911 attackers if from any country were from this is one. Still waiting for those WMDs to show. Bin Laden Family & Bush & gang were big time partners,buddies,coworkers,tea Partners, you name it so George attacked someone else. Saddam though a bastard and murderer,didnt attack the U.S. 2,400 dead,3 times as many missing limbs,4000 billion later, Thousands & thousands of Iraqi's dead for?How many insurgents did that create? As long as extreme Islam is being marketed its all a waste of time,money and lots of lives. Where Islam goes, Extreme Islam follows. Thats the fact Jack!
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #13 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
well, if that footage shows a plane that is supposed to be 155 feet long and 44 feet high (20 for the cylinder), then one can rightly assume that it was God himself who was flying it a foot of the ground, perfectly horizontal, and Osama is his true messenger.

NO NO NO!! I was a 'terrorist' with a few hours in a Cessna he could barely land solo who was at the stick, don't you listen to the Free Press®??

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #14 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by iPoster
NO NO NO!! I was a 'terrorist' with a few hours in a Cessna he could barely land solo who was at the stick, don't you listen to the Free Press®??


Don't forget the 270-degree spiral dive that put him into position for his precision low-altitude approach.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #15 of 38
It's possible that, due to the limited number of captured frames on the original tape, that we WOULDN'T see anything of the plane at all. I personally see one frame where something is seen at ground level or slightly above entering the right side of the frame. Looks like it could be the nose of the plane.

You have to realize that surveillance tapes almost never capture 30 frames per second. They're often tied into a multiplexer that records frames from all the connected cameras in a sequence and then starts over again. What you get -- if you play that raw tape on a regular VCR -- is footage of camera shots flashing by at a high rate of speed. The demultiplexer or a specific VCR then can undo that craziness and show multiple cameras playing simultaneously. I worked with this stuff for a job a few years ago.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that camera only recorded 3 or 4 frames each second or less. The gap between frames is enough time for a 757 at high speed to never be seen before impact.

Do I see people's concerns and conspiracy theories? Yes. Do I believe them? No, sorry. Anybody that's worked with surveillance recording equipment knows what they're looking at.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #16 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Don't forget the 270-degree spiral dive that put him into position for his precision low-altitude approach.

.... straight into the (then) recently reinforced section of the Pentagon, where few people were working. Those in control of the aircraft executed a high precision maneuver, described by radar controllers as "an extraordinarily skilled", to deliberately ram the almost empty side of the Pentagon. All the high ranking military officials (including Defense Secretary Rumsfeld) worked in offices are all on the opposite side (of the Pentagon), which wasn't affected.

Is it not peculiar that a terrorist gang which wanted to cause as much death and destruction on the centerpiece of the US military establishment, would hijack a plane shortly after take off from the East Coast, fly it all the way to Kentucky before turning back? Is it not peculiar that they chose to go so far and so long,, knowing full well that they would be picked up and monitored by so many ground-based radars, whilst headed over numerous military bases for almost ONE HOUR until they reached their goal? Surely they knew that they would be challenged immediately by multiple F15s and F16s piloted by highly skilled combat-ready USAF and Air National Guard airmen en route, (whose routine it is to scramble at the first sign of trouble), over some of the most heavily monitored and guarded airspace on the planet? ....

... and then go to the trouble of executing a near-impossibly difficult maneuver in order to avoid the parts of the Pentagon staffed by the highest ranking military officials, as well as senior government figures? All the while, expecting everyone to believe that the Boeing 757 was under the control of a man who wasn't even capable of piloting a Cessna?

The official conspiracy theory isBOGUS in every aspect.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #17 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
[B]It's possible that, due to the limited number of captured frames on the original tape, that we WOULDN'T see anything of the plane at all. I personally see one frame where something is seen at ground level or slightly above entering the right side of the frame. Looks like it could be the nose of the plane.

You have to realize that surveillance tapes almost never capture 30 frames per second. They're often tied into a multiplexer that records frames from all the connected cameras in a sequence and then starts over again. What you get -- if you play that raw tape on a regular VCR -- is footage of camera shots flashing by at a high rate of speed. The demultiplexer or a specific VCR then can undo that craziness and show multiple cameras playing simultaneously. I worked with this stuff for a job a few years ago.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that camera only recorded 3 or 4 frames each second or less. The gap between frames is enough time for a 757 at high speed to never be seen before impact.

Do I see people's concerns and conspiracy theories? Yes. Do I believe them? No, sorry. Anybody that's worked with surveillance recording equipment knows what they're looking at.

There were 84 surveillance cameras which were in operation that morning. Every single tape from these cameras was confiscated by the FBI shortly after the impact. The Government claims there's nothing on the tapes, but the workers at the Sheraton Hotel who replayed the securitycam tape in an office there, were "horrified by the images they saw". Then the FBI arrived, instructing everyone who had seen the tapes never to divulge the contents.

To clear up the matter once and for all, they could release the tapes on the mainstream media and put the "alternative conspiracy theories" to rest. But to this day, they refuse. They asked for this mess by being so damned officious and intransigent.

The obvious question springs to mind... why do "they" not want the public to see whats on those tapes?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #18 of 38
Where is the missing flight?
What purpose did attacking the Pentagon serve?

For all the wild-eyed conspiracy theories out there, these are two large questions that need answering.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #19 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Where is the missing flight?
What purpose did attacking the Pentagon serve?

For all the wild-eyed conspiracy theories out there, these are two large questions that need answering.

Agreed. These are the questions that need answering but it is a non sequtur to use the complete absence of answers as a proof nothing is wrong.

If someone commits the perfect robbery for example, and leaves no clues at all to his identity, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It just means he is very, very good.

The second is easier than the first to answer. What is the 'purpose' of hitting the WTC?

To know the purpose we would need to know the perp and if the perp is in question (even hypothetically by a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist) then this framework cannot be ascertained.

But re the first question, there is a possibility that Flight 92, the one that crashed (which was heading to the WH allegedly) actually landed and was evacuated.

This is not a conspiracy theory but derives from press reports. It was first reported on the morning of 9/11 at 11:43:57 AM by WCPO Cincinnati based on an AP report.

If you go to the WCPO site today you will see this:

Quote:
This story has been removed from WCPO.com.

It was a preliminary AP story, and was factually incorrect.

However, there are cached copies all over the place and so we know the original report. It was very specific. This is what it said:

Quote:
A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

"White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

"United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.

"United said it was also 'deeply concerned' about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

"On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: 'The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved. United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights,' he said."

Quoted here with link to mirror of original.

This is something that could be investigated - the Mayor's comments, the CEO's, where the story came from, who replaced it etc.

What is interesting about it in relation to the question of what happened to the Pentagon plane is that it allegedly happened while the attacks were underway - that is to say it is not a conspiracy theory fabricated after the fact but an anomaly arising simultaneously.

The further relevance is that if it is true then it clearly shows how a plane can be 'disappeared' - if this one could be proved then you have proved the MO for all.

And remember, no-one made this report up. No-one is denying it was reported. It existed - and now it doesn't.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #20 of 38
It's possible that the whole 9/11-attacks were executed cooperatively between Al-Qaeeda and parts of the US-administration.

The US-administration prepared long before the attacks their ideology of a new american century, it needed just a strong motivation, while Al-Qaeeda, the ex-ally of the US against the Soviets, were bored and rotting in Afghanistan and other countries, and needed equally a revitalising impulse and motivation...

I would guess that the entry of the terrorists to the US was not only monitored but also helped along by US-contacts, while the FBI got deliberately disturbed in their work.

The training in the flight-school probably merely served to build up a history and explanation of the abilities of the terrorists, while in reality the planes were probably equipped with technology to allow for guiding them from far away. The terrorists probably should only storm the cockpits, kill the pilots and activate that guiding-technology..

The Pentagon was probably hit by a rocket fired from a truck or from a nearby building. Maybe it was too difficult to guide a plane into it in the right way without risking hitting the important parts of it. The motive was probably to hit the pride of the US-military so that they would be behind the new project and motivated to regain its stature.

It's also possible that the terrorists had thought they would hit the white house or the capitol, too, but obviously the planners in the US thought otherwise and guided the planecrashing down on a field, or after the other attacks, the counterterrorism machinery jammed all guiding-frequencies leading to the crashing of the plane..

This is off course merely a conspiracy-theory but before a thorough and independent investigation we will probably never know for sure.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #21 of 38
Seems as likely a scenario as any. The majority of the operatives would not need to know that it was a suicide mission - if it was.

I think there is much to the possibility that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland. This is the key to the whole thing.

If it went down this way then there had to be a reason they landed there instead of completing the mission - perhaps something went wrong - and then the 'planecrash' scenario was quickly put in place.

Even without this 'evacuation' story, the crashed plane motif completely stinks.

Consider this eyewitness report:

Quote:
Susan Mcelwain, 51, who lives two miles from the site, knows what she saw - the white plane rocketed directly over her head.

"It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van," she recalled. "It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was travelling real fast, but hardly made any sound.

"Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialled 911 and told them what happened.

"I'd heard nothing about the other attacks and it was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realised it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93.

But what if it was the 'jet'? She didn't see Flight 93 - just a jet. And she thought it had crashed - maybe it had. Deliberately.

And then it was labelled as Flight 93.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #22 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
...it is a non sequtur to use the complete absence of answers as a proof nothing is wrong.

This makes me think of that saying that goes something like,

"In the absence of compelling evidence, the simplest explanation is the most likely."

I don't remember the exact verbiage. My point is that if my government tells me that a 757 flew into the Pentagon and I haven't seen any COMPELLING evidence that convinces me to even consider another explanation, I'm going to believe that a 757 flew into the Pentagon. Sure, the damage to the Pentagon makes me a little skeptical about the 757 story, but that's all it is: skepticism.

The video I've seen has something entering from the right side of the frame and then the Pentagon explodes. That jives with the 757 story. Give me better, irrefutable evidence that suggests otherwise and I'll change my view.

You're welcome to your opinions. Let me be welcome to mine.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #23 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
You're welcome to your opinions. Let me be welcome to mine.

You are. No one is trying to convince you of anything.

Those of us who are more than skeptical (or less) are merely having a discussion. That's all.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #24 of 38


this is the rough size of what were talking about, whats nice here is that it is compared to a typical bus, or coach, so we can get a feel for just how big this thing really is.

What is in that frame, is something of similar size to a bus. Infact I'd guess 'missile' sized.

Infact, looking at the explosion created, and having seen bombs go off in Iraq on TV, that explosion doesn't even compare to an explosion caused by the "Mother Of All Bombs" we dropped in Iraq.

Also, this footage - Can we believe that this is the best footage showing what happened - It virtually shows Nothing at all. A fuzzy 'object' and an explosion. If there are 84 cameras recording this, and you wanted to prove to the sceptics that a jumbo really hit, IS this the best you could come up with. Are we to really believe that all the other security cameras pointed on the Pentagon (probably one of the most fortified buildings in the world) had no tape in them?

What utter crap!
post #25 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK


this is the rough size of what were talking about, whats nice here is that it is compared to a typical bus, or coach, so we can get a feel for just how big this thing really is.

What is in that frame, is something of similar size to a bus. Infact I'd guess 'missile' sized.

Infact, looking at the explosion created, and having seen bombs go off in Iraq on TV, that explosion doesn't even compare to an explosion caused by the "Mother Of All Bombs" we dropped in Iraq.

Also, this footage - Can we believe that this is the best footage showing what happened - It virtually shows Nothing at all. A fuzzy 'object' and an explosion. If there are 84 cameras recording this, and you wanted to prove to the sceptics that a jumbo really hit, IS this the best you could come up with. Are we to really believe that all the other security cameras pointed on the Pentagon (probably one of the most fortified buildings in the world) had no tape in them?

What utter crap!

They did have tape in them - the Government are refusing to release them.

We know they exist because eyewitnesses were watching them in the gas station shortly after the impact when the Feds burst in and stole the tapes.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #26 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius


We know they exist because eyewitnesses were watching them in the gas station shortly after the impact when the Feds burst in and stole the tapes.

I know, it was just a figure of speech, though technically I was 'Lying'. Don't tell CC im a liar too!
post #27 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
I know, it was just a figure of speech, though technically I was 'Lying'. Don't tell CC im a liar too!

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #28 of 38
How many of those 84 cameras do we KNOW were pointing at the crash site and not just on Pentagon property (like the other side of the building)?
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #29 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
How many of those 84 cameras do we KNOW were pointing at the crash site and not just on Pentagon property (like the other side of the building)?

Two for sure - the Sheraton and the gas station. They were the ones the feds confiscated 20 minutes in.

I think the main problem with the missile theory is that there are many, many eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the building - and none saw a missile afaik. To get this many people onside in a blag is impossible.

Therefore they saw a plane hit. The question is though, what type of plane?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #30 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Two for sure - the Sheraton and the gas station. They were the ones the feds confiscated 20 minutes in.

I think the main problem with the missile theory is that there are many, many eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the building - and none saw a missile afaik. To get this many people onside in a blag is impossible.

Therefore they saw a plane hit. The question is though, what type of plane?

well, I think a plane did fly over which many people saw, but it landed at the airport. Stretching it a bit - if the plane was on a scheduled flight, its whereabouts would be well known, so if a missile was fired to coincide with the plane passing over the pentagon, it would easily confuse many people, when the emotions set in.

Regardless of what size plane it is, its still an act of God to fly a plane 1 foot off the ground at 500 mph - after you've cleared all the nearby obstacles. Only one technology could do that - a giuded missile.
post #31 of 38
Re the cameras, let's look at it another way:

We know there are 84 cameras which may (or may not) show the impact. We know the Feds have the footage - significant or otherwise.

Why would they not release it? What possible reason could there be? If there is a plane on there then what's the problem?

They didn't use it at the Massoui trial, they won't release it to the families and they won't release it (so far) under FOIA. What possible reason could there be for this?

I am not postulating a conspiracy - I just fail to see what security considerations could be in play.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
[B]

this is the rough size of what were talking about, whats nice here is that it is compared to a typical bus, or coach, so we can get a feel for just how big this thing

What is in that frame, is something of similar size to a bus. Infact I'd guess 'missile' sized.

A 757 is much smaller than either of those planes.

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101

Quote:
What utter crap!

You got that right. Its neither a jumbo, nor is the pentagon "fortified". They built the thing in 1941-1943 prior to nukes or any threat of bombings of any kind in the US.

It is made from reinforced concrete...because they had a lot of concrete and using it didn't impact war efforts like using metal would.

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history...ignette_34.htm

The thing has windows and offices in the outside. The office areas are not what I'd call fortified but it is well constructed. Whatever is in the basement is up to your imagination.

Vinea
post #33 of 38
Thread Starter 
One of the most infernally frustrating aspect of the entire 9-11 thing is this:

The US Government presents a conspiracy scenario chock full of impossibilities, improbabilities, inexplicable anomalies and bizarre coincidences, red flags are everywhere, but the public, led by the nose (by themainstream media) believe them on face value, because, perhaps, they are the government, and elements within the US Government couldn't pull off such a heinous act...and the official story is always the truth, by default.

Anyone who poses an awkward question re. the official story gets lambasted as a "conspiracy theorist", just for asking a question! That is how low the discussion has gotten. The name-calling starts well before any alternative postulation ot theory is put forward.

Here we have a clearcut case of faith trumping rationality... or how the public prefer not to have their comfort zone invaded by difficult and upsetting notions. It's a denial not unlike the patient who knows he's really sick but dares not to see a doctor for fear of knowing the worst.

If the media demanded that the US Government follow the same evidenciary standards that are demanded of the skeptics, the official story would be in very deep trouble, very quickly.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #34 of 38
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
One of the most infernally frustrating aspect of the entire 9-11 thing is this:

The US Government presents a conspiracy scenario chock full of impossibilities, improbabilities, inexplicable anomalies and bizarre coincidences, red flags are everywhere...

As if the "alternate explanations" are better?

Why rig the WTC with explosives when you're planning on slamming planes into the buildings anyway? What nefarious political and/or economic motive would require assuring that the buildings fall down, no matter what? Yes, Bush and many others benefited enormously from the tragedy of 9/11, but planes slamming into buildings alone would have done the job, or blowing up the WTC without using planes would have been quite sufficient.

What do you imagine? The planes were needed for grand showmanship, and the ensured collapse was needed by real estate developers who wanted to build something new? Given the long delays redeveloping the WTC site, those evil real estate developers don't seem to have thought this out ahead of time very well.

I will grant that the collapse of WTC 7 still seems kind of odd, but there's nothing at all strange about the collapse of the twin towers. From what I've heard, those who seem to think "alternate explanations" are needed tend to focus on single causes. The impact wouldn't have been enough! The fire wouldn't have been enough! The idea that, oh, massive structural damage plus fire (which only has to slightly soften structural support to cause problems -- melting steel is not required) would be enough to destroy these buildings doesn't seem to occur these people.

I have yet to hear a single compelling reason for thinking it took more than those two planes to bring down the twin towers, nor have I heard any alternate explanations that weren't based on misunderstandings of the physics involved and/or citations of supposedly suspicious details (Look at that puff of smoke on frame 1:10:27! How did Mr. X on floor Y survive?") which really aren't that suspicious at all on further examination.

As for the Pentagon, what possible purpose would have been served by making Flight 77 disappear, the plane and all of the people aboard, but instead of using this plane, which would have done the job quite nicely, use a missile or a small plane to hit the Pentagon?

What happened to all of the people on that flight if their plane didn't hit the Pentagon? Being used for medical experiments? Sent to Gitmo? Stranded on a tropical island somewhere, forced to relive numerous flashbacks into their sordid pasts?

Are some things about 9/11 strange? Sure. Is there something being covered up? I wouldn't doubt it -- but hiding incompetence or just the Bush administration's reflexive penchant for paranoid secrecy is enough to explain that.

Quote:
...but the public, led by the nose (by themainstream media) believe them on face value, because, perhaps, they are the government, and elements within the US Government couldn't pull off such a heinous act...and the official story is always the truth, by default.

Anyone who poses an awkward question re. the official story gets lambasted as a "conspiracy theorist", just for asking a question! That is how low the discussion has gotten. The name-calling starts well before any alternative postulation ot theory is put forward.

Here we have a clearcut case of faith trumping rationality...

You know, sometimes distrust and paranoia trump rationality too.

I have no love of nor trust in the Bush administration. Considering how well 9/11 worked out for Bush for a time, I even worry that it's not beyond these people to cause, or fail to prevent, another such tragedy in order to shore up Bush's power. I think the MSM (mainstream media) have been doing a terrible job, and a suspiciously biased job at times.

Yet, even given those feelings, lacking little in the way of imagining people in power in this country doing bad things, I still don't see much wrong with the "official story" about 9/11, I have yet to see any well-founded "alternate explanations", and I have yet to hear a single sensible explanation of a credible motivation for anyone to go through all of the weird, and to me quite senseless, complexity that would have to be behind many such "alternate explanations".

Are large commercial aircraft, and such aircraft alone, enough to cause the damage which occurred on 9/11? Check.

Are there plenty of real-life Muslim extremists willing to die to kill a large number of Americans in a spectacular act of terrorism? Check.

Would it have been easy for such extremists to pull off such an act, with limited resources and no collaboration beyond their own small numbers? Check.

Hell, the sad thing is that it's still easy. One thing conspiracy theorists... err, I mean "those who offer alternation explanations"... seldom ever seem to grasp is the fact that it can be EASY to cause massive destruction, that it can be easy to kill even important and powerful people, and that effort behind a destructive act in no way, shape, or form has to equal the impact of that act. Faced with a big and terrible event some people simply will never be satisfied with anything less than a properly intricate and nefarious explanation.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #35 of 38
Such a plot would lead to the fall of the American Gov. Makes no sense.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #36 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
As if the "alternate explanations" are better?

Why rig the WTC with explosives when you're planning on slamming planes into the buildings anyway? What nefarious political and/or economic motive would require assuring that the buildings fall down, no matter what? Yes, Bush and many others benefited enormously from the tragedy of 9/11, but planes slamming into buildings alone would have done the job, or blowing up the WTC without using planes would have been quite sufficient.

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand a hit by a Boeing 707, of a similar dimension to the 767s which hit on 9-11. The perps, knowing the Twin Towers were designed as such, would have been well aware that the impacts of planes might not have sufficient to bring the buildings down. If either of the buildings had remained standing, the remains of the planes would have been recovered, and that, one would imagine, is something the perps would have wanted to avoid?

Quote:
What do you imagine? The planes were needed for grand showmanship,

Grand showmanship, namely the live and subsequent multiple repeated images of a 767 jet slamming into a building is exactly what fueled the public shock, horror and revulsion which enabled the pre-desired "Long War" aka War n Terror. Cui Bono? Surely not the Muslim community?

Quote:
and the ensured collapse was needed by real estate developers who wanted to build something new? Given the long delays redeveloping the WTC site, those evil real estate developers don't seem to have thought this out ahead of time very well.

Considering that the entire site is now a graveyard, I can see why there have been delays. IMHO, I feel the site should remain as such, with no development whatsoever. (But thats just my "metaphysical" take on it).

Quote:
I will grant that the collapse of WTC 7 still seems kind of odd,

"Kinda odd". Not at all! Leaseholder Larry Silverstein told everyone how WTC#7 collapsed on a PBS show. But the MSM has never taken him up on it. Why not? Interestingly, the explanation in the above link touches on the "pull it" comment, and how that term is not necessarily synomymous with "demolition". But to what else would he have been referring?
The fires on floors 7 and 12 were small. If a 47 story building can collapse (initiating from the basement) in such a perfectly symmetrical fashion at free-fall acceleration, then one would imagine the architects and construction contractors would be immersed in a long drawn out series of lawsuits, with allegations of gross negligence, breaches of code, etc etc. But nothing...silence. From the performance of this building, if such a fire was solely responsible for that skyscaper's demise, one would be fearful that any highrise fire would put any city center in extreme jeopardy. There are dozens of cases of much hotter, longer-lasting and much larger (in some cases from the base right to the top of the building).. and on each occasion, the buildings remained structurally sound and remained standing. On no occasion in history has a modern concrete and steel highrise collapsed due to fire.

Quote:
but there's nothing at all strange about the collapse of the twin towers. From what I've heard, those who seem to think "alternate explanations" are needed tend to focus on single causes. The impact wouldn't have been enough! The fire wouldn't have been enough! The idea that, oh, massive structural damage plus fire (which only has to slightly soften structural support to cause problems -- melting steel is not required) would be enough to destroy these buildings doesn't seem to occur these people.

(1) Both of the Twin Towers collapsed in under 10 seconds, ie freefall speed. This contravenes the law of conservation of momentum if a purely gravity induced collapse.
See detailed explanation by Prof. Steven Jones

Quote:
I have yet to hear a single compelling reason for thinking it took more than those two planes to bring down the twin towers, nor have I heard any alternate explanations that weren't based on misunderstandings of the physics involved and/or citations of supposedly suspicious details (Look at that puff of smoke on frame 1:10:27! How did Mr. X on floor Y survive?") which really aren't that suspicious at all on further examination.

Even if there was any truth in the official "pancake collapse" explanation, the towers would have taken far longer than 10 seconds to collapse. Simple explanation here

Significantly, the 911 Commission must have known there is a scientific/mathematical problem with the "Pancake theory" because in order to bolster that official claims, they deliberately lied about the internal structure of the Twin Towers in their final Report on Page 541 note 1 where they baldly state:

Quote:
... the outside if each tower was covered by a frame of 14 inch wide steel columns.... These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buioldings was a hollow steel shaft in which elevators and stairwells were grouped.

The above quote is a gross misrepresentation. In reality most of the weight of the Towers was borne by 47 massive steel columns arranged in the center of the buildings, in between which were the stairwells and elevators.

The other point that the Commission failed to make was the fact that the fire caused by the the impact was a relatively low-temperature oxygen-starved fire, as evidenced by the thick black smoke. Most of the jet fuel burned off in the initial fireballs, and structural steel (as used in the Towers) is an extremely good conductor of heat, meaning that it would have been most unlikely that any part of the steel structure could have attained a temperature even hot enough to even compromise the strength of the steel in small localized places, the huge steel frame of the building acting as a very efficient heatsink.

Furthermore, there were numerous reports from firefighters of 'bombs' in the Twin Towers. Also, there was a huge explosion in the basement of the North Tower some 10 seconds prior to the impact of "Flight 11", which injured many people and wrecked the lobby.

This is the tip of the iceberg...

Quote:
As for the Pentagon, what possible purpose would have been served by making Flight 77 disappear, the plane and all of the people aboard, but instead of using this plane, which would have done the job quite nicely, use a missile or a small plane to hit the Pentagon?

What happened to all of the people on that flight if their plane didn't hit the Pentagon? Being used for medical experiments? Sent to Gitmo? Stranded on a tropical island somewhere, forced to relive numerous flashbacks into their sordid pasts?

Yet again, silence from the officials. The Pentagon case is strange; as I mentioned further back in the thread, if there are 84 cameras within the grounds of the Pentagon, as well as on other properties in the immediate area, (some of which did] catch images of the craft that impacted), why is this footage being denied to the public? If they have nothing inconsistent or incriminating to hide, then they could clear up the (Pentagon aspect) of the conspiracy theories once and for all by being forthright and upfront. But all we get is a roaring slience. Incidentally, how did all those Pentagon officials carefully clear up the debris on the lawn without being challenged by the FBI? Tampering with a crime scene is a serious federal offense, especially in what is probably the most heinous crime scene in the nation's history. I guess certain privileged folk are immune to prosecution.

Quote:
Are some things about 9/11 strange? Sure. Is there something being covered up? I wouldn't doubt it -- but hiding incompetence or just the Bush administration's reflexive penchant for paranoid secrecy is enough to explain that.

If the 4 simultaneous military exercises personally overseen by Vice President Cheney on the morning of 9/11 (Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, and Northern Vigilance) which resulted in the effective standing down the nation's air defenses that morning is "incompetence", then I dread to imagine what would be constituted as "criminal" or "negligent"?

Quote:
You know, sometimes distrust and paranoia trump rationality too.
I have no love of nor trust in the Bush administration. Considering how well 9/11 worked out for Bush for a time, I even worry that it's not beyond these people to cause, or fail to prevent, another such tragedy in order to shore up Bush's power. I think the MSM (mainstream media) have been doing a terrible job, and a suspiciously biased job at times.

Yet, even given those feelings, lacking little in the way of imagining people in power in this country doing bad things, I still don't see much wrong with the "official story" about 9/11, I have yet to see any well-founded "alternate explanations", and I have yet to hear a single sensible explanation of a credible motivation for anyone to go through all of the weird, and to me quite senseless, complexity that would have to be behind many such "alternate explanations".

As mentioned in my previous entry, the standards of proof, logic, science, rationality and whichever other parameter you may care to mention, that have been by the Government's case are laughably sad. Why are alternative explanations required to be of a degree of bullet-proof-ness and integrity far in excess of what has been presented by the official version? But that is not really the point here: many of the 9-11 skeptics are not even postulating alternative theories; they are not pointing fingers, they are merely asking questions and addressing the garbage that many have accepted purely on blind faith. The MSM have imposed a blanket taboo on awkward questions, and most people havent the time or inclination to dig in and investigate for themselves.

Quote:
Are large commercial aircraft, and such aircraft alone, enough to cause the damage which occurred on 9/11? Check.

See above: the perps did not know that the planes impacts alone would cause the Towers to collapse since those buildings were designed to withstand exactly such impacts.

Quote:
Are there plenty of real-life Muslim extremists willing to die to kill a large number of Americans in a spectacular act of terrorism? Check.

There probably are, granted. How 19 of these guys, several of which have been reported alive and well managed to all simultaneously board those planes unchallenged remains a mystery however.

Quote:
Would it have been easy for such extremists to pull off such an act, with limited resources and no collaboration beyond their own small numbers? Check.

Such an assumption renders the entire military/security/intelligence apparatus of the U.S, the most powerful and technologically advanced in human history, with a budget and combined inventory of perhaps hundeds of TRILLIONS a complete waste of money, a folly of astronmical proportions. Did 19 flight school flunkies ran rings around us that morning without help?

Quote:
Hell, the sad thing is that it's still easy. One thing conspiracy theorists... err, I mean "those who offer alternation explanations"... seldom ever seem to grasp is the fact that it can be EASY to cause massive destruction, that it can be easy to kill even important and powerful people, and that effort behind a destructive act in no way, shape, or form has to equal the impact of that act. Faced with a big and terrible event some people simply will never be satisfied with anything less than a properly intricate and nefarious explanation.

It is normal in the case of a national disaster to set up a Commission of inquiry, grand juries, etc. In the case of the JFK assassinations, this took days,.. as it did for the Challenger and Columbia Space Shuttle accidents. What about 9/11? It took the Bush Administration 411 days of balking, avoidance, refusals, deferments, technicalities, throwing up every imaginable obstacle, until finally the potential bad PR (the anger from the bereaved families) finally persuaded them to set up a "Commission". What a sick joke that happened to be. directed by White House insider and arch neoCon Philip Zelikow, they refused point blank to consider any aspect of the story that didn't gel with their pre-ordained conclusion.

It's impossible to get into all stuff that doesn't fit, re. the official explanation, ie the parts that prompt the difficult questions. If so, this entry would be hundreds of times larger than this.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #37 of 38
Guys, look.

My brother was at the Pentagon a few hours after the plane hit to investigate. He was standing right there.

A plane hit it.




Unless they managed to scatter plane debris all over hell's half acre in front of a national television audience before he showed up.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #38 of 38
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Guys, look.

My brother was at the Pentagon a few hours after the plane hit to investigate. He was standing right there.

A plane hit it.

Yes, it did. Of that there is no doubt.

Quote:
Unless they managed to scatter plane debris all over hell's half acre in front of a national television audience before he showed up.

I don't think [b]anyone[/be is disputing that a plane of some variety hit the Pentagon, apart from a couple of disinformation folks out there muddying the waters.

Eyewitnesses saw a lot of things that morning, for example:
(1) a large commercial jet ram the Pentagon
(2) a smaller "corporate jet" size plane ram the Pentagon
(3) something that looked like a "cruise missile"
(4) a single engine military plane
(5) a large commercial jet fly *over* the Pentagon to land at Dulles.

What we don't know for sure, because our paranoid Government refuses to release the footage, is the true identity of the plane. The few frames they did produce, with much prior fanfare, which have been out for years, do not show a Boeing 757, or anything remotely resembling such. Apparently there are far better images on some of the confiscated tapes in which the plane is plainly visible.

So, lets see the evidence and put this one to bed finally. It's been going on 4 and a half years too long, and we are supposed to be an open society with an open government. Why are they balking?

btw... here is a reasonably sensible explanation, (just one of many... some ludicrous, others plausible).: It's speculative for sure, but mostly fits in with what evidence is there to go on, including the eyewitnesses: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › That pesky Pentagon footage