Exposed !! Hidden Video Showing What Really Hit The Pentagon !!

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: putnam6

Can We at Least All Agree that a American Airlines Boeing 757 Could Not have Hit the Pentagon as Claimed ? To this Day the Evidence of that is Still in Question IMO .

It seems that all evidence points to an airliner hitting the Pentagon and there is no reason why it couldn't have.

What evidence.

But that means NO PLANE. Heresy! Unpatriotic! tinfoil hat nutjob!
ground effect doesn't exist nor does the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Trust the science and we'll tell what the current science is.
9/11 worked well as a "shut up and don't question" operation.
they couldn't have pulled off the plandemic without that prior training.

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

Because the story is false.

I agree, I just think the question is worth asking. We have high definition pictures from Mars and from the sea floor of Earth, but only a few clips from that day showing something. A building that is covered with cameras, cameras we pay for, but the footage is somehow above our pay grade.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

Because the story is false.

I agree, I just think the question is worth asking. We have high definition pictures from Mars and from the sea floor of Earth, but only a few clips from that day showing something. A building that is covered with cameras, cameras we pay for, but the footage is somehow above our pay grade.

Evidently you weren’t in the military and don’t understand the capabilities of video surveillance at the time. Or more like limitations and cost.


The Pentagon is an over glorified office building that relied heavily on man watch standing for security supplemented by a CCTV system probably acquired from the cheapest bidder to monitor foot and car traffic at entry points. With resolution and memory still very expensive at that time. With no intention the CCTV system being designed for sky surveillance. That is why there is a national radar system to monitor the sky.

Now. What does radar data show for that day.


Note. I stood watch more than once with a rifle, but no ammunition…..

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
We have high definition pictures from Mars and from the sea floor of Earth,

What was the digital and video quality like at the time of 9/11. Vs standard video and memory capacity of CCTV during 9/11.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

Because the story is false.

I agree, I just think the question is worth asking. We have high definition pictures from Mars and from the sea floor of Earth, but only a few clips from that day showing something. A building that is covered with cameras, cameras we pay for, but the footage is somehow above our pay grade.

High “definition” tech from 2001 cellphone..


en.m.wikipedia.org...

174 kB of memory…. I guess no camera?


More here

The first commercial camera phone was the Kyocera Visual Phone VP-210, released in Japan in May 1999.[99] It was called a "mobile videophone" at the time,[100] and had a 110,000-pixel front-facing camera.[99] It stored up to 20 JPEG digital images, which could be sent over e-mail, or the phone could send up to two images per second over Japan's Personal Handy-phone System (PHS) cellular network.[99] The Samsung SCH-V200, released in South Korea in June 2000, was also one of the first phones with a built-in camera. It had a TFT liquid-crystal display (LCD) and stored up to 20 digital photos at 350,000-pixel resolution. However, it could not send the resulting image over the telephone function, but required a computer connection to access photos.[101]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: WhatItIs

I never said there should be hi definition pictures of that day. I just suggested that we have hi definition pictures from Mars and the Ocean floor but very few pictures from a place that should have had many angles covered. Maybe I should have left hi def out because you got stuck there.

The "plane" was said to have came in level from the interstate, so no need for sky surveillance.

And you are seriously comparing cellphone cameras of the time with cameras of the time? Were you even born in 2001?

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: putnam6

Can We at Least All Agree that a American Airlines Boeing 757 Could Not have Hit the Pentagon as Claimed ? To this Day the Evidence of that is Still in Question IMO .

It seems that all evidence points to an airliner hitting the Pentagon and there is no reason why it couldn't have.

What evidence.

For starters, the eyewitnesses. Then, the physical evidence. It wasn't holograms and it wasn't a cruise missile.
Those that invoke a cruise missile don't seem to understand that a fully fueled, large passenger aircraft is far more destructive than any conventional cruise missile. Why complicate the plan with a contrived plot about killing off the passengers at a remote location, using demolitions, and all other schemes with too many moving parts to succeed and likely to cause discovery. What is the simplest thing to do? Allow the hijackers to succeed. That is the conspiracy.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive


And you are seriously comparing cellphone cameras of the time with cameras of the time? Were you even born in 2001?

Me? You are the one that thinks there should be all this footage and completely ignoring the limitations and media storage problems of early 2000’s CCTV.

The "plane" was said to have came in level from the interstate, so no need for sky surveillance.

Tracked by radar to the Pentagon, complemented with an in air pilot sighting.

An airplane was detected again by Dulles controllers on radar screens as it approached Washington, turning and descending rapidly. Controllers initially thought this was a military fighter, due to its high speed and maneuvering.[43] Reagan Airport controllers asked a passing Air National Guard Lockheed C-130 Hercules to identify and follow the aircraft. The pilot, Lieutenant Colonel Steven O'Brien, told them it was a Boeing 757 or 767, and that its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. He had difficulty picking out the airplane in the "East Coast haze", but then saw a "huge" fireball and assumed it had hit the ground. Approaching the Pentagon, he saw the impact site on the building's west side and reported to Reagan control, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir."[23][44]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Funny how certain items are cherry picked by people believing in the 9/11 conspiracies involving US gov, with not attempt to explain the whole account and all the physical evidence.

a reply to: WhatItIs

Multiple people with cameras were able to capture the second plane slamming into trade center, but somehow you are trying to suggest the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Department of Defense, did not have the technology to capture anything showing a plane on any of their cameras…because of budgets?

If the cameras were not capable of seeing anything why did they confiscate all footage from surrounding businesses?
Again, 20 years have passed, we aren’t even in Afghanistan, why not release the footage?

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: putnam6

Can We at Least All Agree that a American Airlines Boeing 757 Could Not have Hit the Pentagon as Claimed ? To this Day the Evidence of that is Still in Question IMO .

It seems that all evidence points to an airliner hitting the Pentagon and there is no reason why it couldn't have.

What evidence.

For starters, the eyewitnesses. Then, the physical evidence. It wasn't holograms and it wasn't a cruise missile.
Those that invoke a cruise missile don't seem to understand that a fully fueled, large passenger aircraft is far more destructive than any conventional cruise missile. Why complicate the plan with a contrived plot about killing off the passengers at a remote location, using demolitions, and all other schemes with too many moving parts to succeed and likely to cause discovery. What is the simplest thing to do? Allow the hijackers to succeed. That is the conspiracy.

Ok you say eyewitness is your evidence. I have first responder eyewitnesses that say the twin towers had bombs going off and building seven was demolished with explosions. I also have them with Bigfoot, aliens, and the lock ness monster.

You have a theory supported by known liars whose first priority is self preservation and profit based on the need for massive amounts of coincidence and luck to converge perfectly. The planes incinerated but passports survived. We didn’t know for a fact the fbi was corrupt then but we do now.

It may have happened like you say but evidence isn’t on your side.

Listen, people called from their cell phones to people on the ground. You can not do that today much less 2001. There are too many lies.

In court you are instructed that if a person lies once you can and probably should disregard their other testimony. Has the government lied once? Have they lied about anything with 911? Yes.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: WhatItIs

Multiple people with cameras were able to capture the second plane slamming into trade center, but somehow you are trying to suggest the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Department of Defense, did not have the technology to capture anything showing a plane on any of their cameras…because of budgets?

The context of what was actually posted..

Evidently you weren’t in the military and don’t understand the capabilities of video surveillance at the time. Or more like limitations and cost.


The Pentagon is an over glorified office building that relied heavily on man watch standing for security supplemented by a CCTV system probably acquired from the cheapest bidder to monitor foot and car traffic at entry points. With resolution and memory still very expensive at that time. With no intention the CCTV system being designed for sky surveillance. That is why there is a national radar system to monitor the sky.

If the cameras were not capable of seeing anything why did they confiscate all footage from surrounding businesses?

Why does law enforcement “confiscate” any evidence.


Anyway..

Judicial Watch Interest Group Reacts To 9/11 Image Release

The head of a public interest group that forced the release of Nine-Eleven video images says "it's distressing to see a plane full of people hit" the Pentagon.

Author: WFMYStaff
Published: 12:19 PM EDT May 16, 2006
Updated: 12:19 PM EDT May 16, 2006
Washington, DC -- The head of a public interest group that forced the release of Nine-Eleven video images says "it's distressing to see a plane full of people hit" the Pentagon. But Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton says he hopes the video ends conspiracy theories that it wasn't actually American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the building. He says dispelling such rumors is a way to honor the memory of the victims. Fitton says so many people are looking for the video that his group's Web site has collapsed. Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request to release the images taken by a Pentagon security camera. The images had been leaked and circulated before, but this is the first official release.

Again, 20 years have passed, we aren’t even in Afghanistan, why not release the footage?

www.wfmynews2.com...

Do you want to clarify no jet images from the Pentagon videos?

Can I see those images?

The content of what was actually posted was you responding to me. I asked where is all of the footage and you go on some tirade about being in the military when it’s obvious, how you dodged the age jab, that you weren’t old enough to remember 9/11. Especially when you don’t remember what technology was and wasn’t in the last 50 years without Google to assist you.

And it’s too horrible to see a plane slam into a building, the good old folks cannot stomach that, but no problem with an American contractor getting beheaded on film a couple years later. I guess those censors were asleep that day…or maybe, just maybe there was another narrative to be had.

Believe what you want, that is your freedom..or are you still stuck on me?

a reply to: pteridine

" It seems that all evidence points to an airliner hitting the Pentagon and there is no reason why it couldn't have."

Yeah , Keep Believing that Fantasy . Do you Remember the Videos of the Wreckage Outside the Pentagon Walls ? Maybe Enough to Fill a Pickup Truck . No Tail Section or Wing Sections Visible on the Lawn . The Wreckage Seen on Videos was Obviously FAKE .

Well, it is not a 'SCUD Missile'. SCUDs go vertical and fall almost vertically on top of their target. This vehicle is almost horizontal. Truth be known, there was a high level intelligence conference on the path of the vehicle, if it was 50 foot lower it would have taken out some of the top US intell personnel.
So much of the video is obvious misinformation as to make the entire thing a charade...but why?

Remembered this footage from years ago
Original video,


looks fake to me

cnn's correspondent jamie mcintyre was reporting from pentagon then :





jamie mcintyre starts about 5:38:11


Did he say there was no wing or tail sections visible in the site ?

I feel vindicated!!

As well as ALL the pilots and engineers for 911 as well!!!!!!

It is my hope, that those that commited murder to get US into a war, will be brought to justice.

We all know the names, faces and the entire cover-up is actually what we all thought it was. I'm am sorry and praying for those who have to come to grips of this horrible truth!!

May the Lord have His vengeance without hesitation!!

1. Governments lie
2. Governments lie
3. Governments lie
4.