This will answer 99% of your questions about 9/11.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: 3n19m470

Yes there is no other surveillance anywhere around the Pentagon,

None.

even none at the Pentagon to capture what vehicles come and go, none right, there was none ...oops there was but because its not set up top capture planes Its an inside job or according to OP a nuke.

Yet so many of us complain about surveillance states that we live in.

The poster I was replying too mentioned OKC, if a similar attack happened on the Pentagon where the plane hit it would have been secure for those inside.

Yeah, your version of reality makes plenty of sense.

I guess it doesn't to many conspiracy theorists that can only parrot things and cannot think for themselves.

I was quite embarrassed when I woke up out of my initial awakening that so many conspiracy theorists are stuck in.

The alternative news and conspiracy circles are simply another box to get stuck in that conspiracy theorists realize they were in before their awakening and what they say most of society is in, they use terms like sheeple, asleep, etc.

stuck in the same box just with a different inner lining to make you think you are awake and its others that are asleep.


logic and reality don't make much sense to those that don't spend much time experiencing reality.

Ok. I apologize. I did not know the Pentagon had no surveillance at that time.

I don't really believe that, but, since that is what you believe, I see little point going further until one of us can show proof and for me that takes a little time.

I know what you mean about waking up only to be thrown into another dream though. I don't believe 9/11 skepticism falls into that category though.

Good day.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: 3n19m470

Well, it's called security. DUH!!!
People toss a rock onto the white house lawn, and secret service will always know exactly where it landed.

But the Pentagon?

You are trying to compare 2018 security to 2001.
Back in 2001 all recording devices used video tape. Expensive.
As such you didn't have a separate recorder for every camera.
I serviced the recorders and most had 4 cameras on what was less than 480p quality tape decks.
Cameras were angled to watch entry doors and loading docks. Normal entry points.
You certainly didn't aim them at the streets and open skys.
I challenge you to show us ANY business that has cameras aimed at the sky.

Back in 2001 all recording devices used video tape.

How old are you? 😂

a reply to: 3n19m470

and the hijackers passports were all found within minutes, undamaged

1 hijackers passport found some distance away that was damaged.

What other hijackers passports were found within minutes and undamaged, never heard of this?

and a plane crashed in Pennsylvania but only left as much wreckage as the Wright Brothers first plane

So the 90% or whatever high percentage it was of wreckage recovered from Flight 93 is just all propaganda?

the unconstitutional Patriot Act was already written, waiting and ready for a disaster of opportunity to strike before 9/11 occured and dozens of other strange coincidences...

Yes,

now you are starting to make sense.

The other BS is just to obfuscate. Demolitions, nukes , holograms , space weapons.


Prior knowledge is something they had, It could have been vague with vague time-frame and targets or it could have been extremely precise.

Just recently a new movie came out about first squad that went to Afghanistan, the film starts with a clip or Putin saying they warned the US. That is in a Hollywood movie, yes it based on actual event but its the entertainment industry telling viewer that US Gov. at least knew something was up, you look into 9/11 and what other warning the US was receiving for a few years prior with more detailed warnings coming closer to the event when obviously the plan was already established and known

I lean more to the precise knowledge, I believe that knew planes would be used and its why Condi Rice and maybe a few others in the Admin. said they never even imagined Terrorists using hijacked planes as weapons to attack infrastructure.

The cameras at the Pentagon capture what comes up to the building, the building is reinforced so a truck bomb wont destroy and take as many lives if it wasn't reinforced.

For security reasons there is no need to install cameras pointing away from where 100% of the traffic is coming from when approaching the Pentagon.

There would be something to the cameras issue so many have if months before or sometime before 9/11 a request was put in by security to add cameras that would capture planes on approach or something in that direction with good reason and the request was denied then its suspicious.

There was no reason to place cameras on the Pentagon facing the sky.

But, like I said I believe the admin. knew it would be planes and knew that Washington and New York would be targeted.

If there is anything to suggest a denial of more security then that is something to look into.

I have heard nothing as far as I remember about anything like that.

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
I linked this on page 1 but seems appropriate here too. This theory suggests it was Cantor Fitzgerald that was targeted by Russia due to their laundering of Russian money.

Twitter Thread

"@ToestringRd For example, I now understand that Cantor Fitzgerald, the brokerage firm that suffered such massive casualties that day, is in fact a Russian mob front. This is not to say that the Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died that day were bad people. Usually, in cases like this, 10/ 5:10am · 11 Sep 2018 · Twitter Web Client 17 REPLIES 86 RETWEETS 272 273 LIKES Reply Retweet Like Options Reply to @ToestringRd ToestringRd's avatar Chris Nethery @ToestringRd 1d only the firm's top echelon is involved. It's a disturbing thing to come to grips with. And it's confusing, in the context of what I'm about to share with you."

I would agree that primarily financial institutions, insurance firms, and intelligence offices appear to have been targeted for destruction. Brokers also appear to have been targeted for murder. Banking regulations were lifted in the days following 9/11.

If one considers that there were targets and objectives...and the destruction & deaths were not random, then the events of 9/11 suggest a massive financial crime coverup may have contributed to motive. However, there is no reason to insist there was only a single motive, at play. Given the scope of 9/11, there could be many governments, groups, enterprises, etc. that contributed and had motive.

Perhaps relevant to your thoughts on the Russian mob...

The Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting United States intelligence operations while bringing the war on terrorism dangerously close to home for America's spy agency, government officials say.

The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, one of the smaller office towers destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning. All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers, the officials said.

(AND)

Immediately after the attack, the C.I.A. dispatched a special team to scour the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports that had been stored in the New York station, either on paper or in computers, officials said. It could not be learned whether the agency was successful in retrieving its classified records from the wreckage.

A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment.

The agency's New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to spy on and recruit foreign diplomats stationed at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and others willing to talk to the C.I.A. after returning from overseas.

(AND)

The agency's New York officers have been deeply involved in counterterrorism efforts in the New York area, working jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies. Many of the most important counterterrorism cases of the last few years, including the bureau's criminal investigations of the August 1998 bombings of two United States Embassies in East Africa and the October 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen have been handled out of New York.

The United States has accused Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network of conducting both of those attacks.

(AND)

The agency is prohibited from conducting domestic espionage operations against Americans, but the agency maintains stations in a number of major United States cities, where C.I.A. case officers try to meet and recruit students and other foreigners to return to their countries and spy for the United States. The New York station, which has been led by its first female station chief for the last year, is believed to have been the largest and most important C.I.A. domestic station outside the Washington area.

The station has for years played an important role in espionage operations against Russian intelligence officers, many of whom work undercover as diplomats at the United Nations. Agency officers in New York often work with the F.B.I. to recruit and then help manage foreign agents spying for the United States.

Link

There is so much compelling motive that warranted investigation..."Muslims hate our freedom" is the least compelling of all of them, IMO.


***

Also, I am fond of 'EP Heidner's' well-researched paper 'Collateral Damage: US Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001'. I highly recommend it if you are interested.

a reply to: 3n19m470

I don't believe 9/11 skepticism falls into that category though.

It does when you fall for the obfuscation that I mentioned above, nukes, demolitions, etc

Ok. I apologize. I did not know the Pentagon had no surveillance at that time.

So how can you skeptical about things you don't even know?

You haven't seen the footage of what many claim is a missile while say its the plane that was captured by a slow frame by frame camera?

I thing 2 frames were captured and that is why so many are suspicious, you cant really tell what it is

Anyone saying they can is just falling for finding shapes in clouds basically because both a plane and missile would look very similar if it was captured the same way as what we have.

Many of the arguments points like the cameras at the pentagon, what they actually captured, demolitions of the towers, the towers rigged that day, the towers rigged on construction, etc.

are just to keep conspiracy theorists occupied in debating nonsense with each other.

I would even argue that there was a disinfo campaign to push many differing ideas to obfuscate and create shills that work for free.

But I find it hard to believe anyone would do such a job for money, knowing that they are pushing false info to help a cover up of prior knowledge that lead to 1000s dead that day and many 1000s with the reactions that day created.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

So we both agree, there are reasons to be suspicious about 9/11. Thats basically all I was trying to say. Sorry if I was rude or anything like that.


Cameras at the Pentagon would not have to be designed to "watch planes". They would only have to watch the building and the grounds.

Remember the video of "a blur" they released? They had other videos they flat out admitted they were refusing to release.

But you were just saying "what purpose would they have for surveillance cameras at the Pentagon?" That may have been a gas station camera, or the gas ststion one was the one they had taken and refused to show... i cant fully remember.

But i do remember they took Forever just to reveal "the blur"... I guess we can blame that on red tape? But that doesnt explain there should've been multiple camera angles. The blur was obviously at a very level angle like a runway approach. It did not come in at a nose dive. Therefore it had to be below treetop level for like 500+ feet, but only one camera caught a quick blip of something going by.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
You haven't seen the footage of what many claim is a missile while say its the plane that was captured by a slow frame by frame camera?

I thing 2 frames were captured and that is why so many are suspicious, you cant really tell what it is

Anyone saying they can is just falling for finding shapes in clouds basically because both a plane and missile would look very similar if it was captured the same way as what we have.

Of course you can't see a plane or missile in either of the two videos from the Pentagon -- because the frame in which it should appear -- completely unobstructed -- was tampered with.


Regardless of what hit the Pentagon, that critical frame was demonstrably edited and the federal government was the sole custodian of the video. In a court of law, a juror is free to interpret evidence-tampering as evidence of 'consciousness of guilt.'

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don’t care about the spun narrative, didn’t you just post video frames of a large jet headed into the pentagon?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Ok, i literally did not see your post where you also mentioned "the blur".

I agree that it probably was not a nuke or holograms. And there is obfuscation. But nobody even Tried to understand what op was talking about. They heard the word nuke and became hostile.

I dont believe that in 100 years we are still flying with "wright brothers" technology, using only the principles of aerodynamics. The government was using cellphones in the 50s ok?

I dont believe we still have only the same kind of nukes after 73 years. Yeah I know there have been advancements that were made public, like the Hydrogen bomb, dirty bomb, the new one that can switch between 3 different kilotonnages on the fly...

But until we have a definitive answer about what happened, the use of some exotic technology is definitely on the table as far as I'm concerned.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes exactly! Maybe it was a plane. But they just didn't want us to see what kind of plane it was.

a reply to: 3n19m470

So we both agree, there are reasons to be suspicious about 9/11.

I think everyone is.

Remember the video of "a blur" they released? They had other videos they flat out admitted they were refusing to release.

Yes,

How do you?

you were implying that you thought he Pentagon had none whatsoever.

I guess the reasons from not releasing the other footage captured around the building are logical for some but suspicious for others.

That may have been a gas station camera, or the gas ststion one was the one they had taken and refused to show... i cant fully remember.

Gas station one is viewable. all it shows is a fireball.

The ones not that were said to held back were done so because it doesn't show anything.

I can only see one reason why one cannot accept that and that is because they believe it wasn't a plane but a missile or something else.

That goes against too much witness testimony.

But i do remember they took Forever just to reveal "the blur"... I guess we can blame that on red tape?

We are lucky to get to see it at all.

are all crimes that are caught on camera available for public viewing?

Maybe the footage is needed to investigate the crime before its released if it even is.


Sorry but these points are exactly the obfuscation question to lead people away from the real questions.

The blur was obviously at a very level angle like a runway approach. It did not come in at a nise dive. Therefore it had to be below treetop level for like 500 feet, but only one camera caught a quick blip of something going by.

No one is saying it nose dived.


Yes,

the plane moved very fast,

the camera that did capture where the plane hit had a very slow frame rate, I think it was 1 frame per second.

Something moving that fast captured on a camera like that would look like that.

You cant tell what it is.

But from everything else available around the Pentagon including witnesses and radar tracking you get a good idea of what happened.

But to some that idea is just swallowing the official story.

No, Its just accepting what happened at the Pentagon because its the most likely fit with the most reason and logic and evidence backing it.

a reply to: purplemer


To be there's very little actual discussion. The subject is a lot like flat earth arguments. It just goes on with no resolution like it's been doing for 17 years .

911speakout.org...

Blink Comparator Views of
the Plane at the Pentagon

a reply to: dfnj2015
Because when certain facts are hidden then they are hiding something else. Why lie. Just tell the truth if the current explanation or paradigm is truthful.

a reply to: Ansuzrune

Because when certain facts are hidden then they are hiding something else. Why lie. Just tell the truth if the current explanation or paradigm is truthful.

I don't think the official stories have changed.
Youtube stories have changed.
Website stories have changed.
So if your main source comes from that little LCD screen you have been hit with all kinds of conflicting stories.
But the official story hasn't changed.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Of course you can't see a plane or missile in either of the two videos from the Pentagon -- because the frame in which it should appear -- completely unobstructed -- was tampered with.

completely unobstructed?

What type of camera was it?

How many frames per second did it take?

Once you find that out you can work out how many frames would capture something 200 feet long traveling at 500 miles an hour.

It wouldn't be clearly seen, it would be a blur.

Regardless of what hit the Pentagon, that critical frame was demonstrably edited and the federal government was the sole custodian of the video.

If it really was and there is repeatable evidence that isn't being misinterpreted then that is a good talking point.


I remember this about tampering of the footage but why hasn't it become the main talking point and piece of evidence truth seekers use to point out conspiracy?

Look around, real stuff like that does get mentioned and talked about here and there, maybe a thread or 2 but no where near as much as other things that really divide the crowd like missiles, Nukes, holograms, demolitions.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Of course you can't see a plane or missile in either of the two videos from the Pentagon -- because the frame in which it should appear -- completely unobstructed -- was tampered with.

completely unobstructed?

What type of camera was it?

How many frames per second did it take?

Once you find that out you can work out how many frames would capture something 200 feet long traveling at 500 miles an hour.

It wouldn't be clearly seen, it would be a blur.

The video I posted answers all of the above. It's only about 5 minutes long:



I mean, I could just answer your questions, however, given we are talking about video, here, I think your questions would be better answered by just watching it when you have a chance.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The old plea to forget everything you know, and watch this propaganda video with information out of context and half truths.....

a reply to: neutronflux

I am sure the poster to whom I was replying is capable of deciding for themselves whether they see credible evidence of tampering and what, if anything, they should make of it if they do.

You? Sorry, but I don't care what you do or what you think about anything..especially 9/11.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then maybe you should message the person instead of being in an open 9/11 forum?

Did you read and watch my cited information concerning the pentagon jet?

Blink Comparator Views of
the Plane at the Pentagon

911speakout.org...

Note that when barrel distortion is eliminated, the image compression near the edge of the field is eliminated, so the plane appears longer, with proportions resembling a 757. (Remember, the plane is also moving toward us at about a 45 degree angle.)

One feature of the plane image helps us identify it as an American Airlines plane. Note the purple stripe along the side of the plane. American Airlines planes have parallel red and blue stripes. At the small scale of the original image it is quite likely that this purple stripe is a merger of the color information from a red and a blue stripe.