Pentagon Video Closeups

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
6800+ videos and 6900+ images of 9/11?

WOW! So far I've seen CTers claiming 80 videos
As for the pictures, here also weren't released the thousands of pictures taken upon investigating the flooding of Prague subway, so I guess there must be a coverup...

Also what was under that blue tarp that it took like 8 people to carry???

The blue tarp was a tent being carried to its place. And so many people carry it because it is rather cumbersome item, you know? I can carry my built tent all alone but it would be rather hard not due to weight but due to its dimensions so I'd welcome another one who will hold the other side.
Same case here, just the tent is larger so more people to carry it.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by tuccy]

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
6800+ videos and 6900+ images of 9/11?

WOW! So far I've seen CTers claiming 80 videos

As for the pictures, here also weren't released the thousands of pictures taken upon investigating the flooding of Prague subway, so I guess there must be a coverup...

Answer here

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is great news! Now if someone can get them to release the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage and all the other information that should be investigated.

Discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Source here

www.thepetitionsite.com...
2. Immediate release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST, largely from private photographers, regarding the collapses of WTC buildings on 9/11/2001 (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, all footage relating to the collapse of WTC 7 (including shots before, during and after the collapse) must be released immediately, without waiting for the NIST report on WTC 7, which is long overdue and may be prolonged indefinitely.

[edit on 7/17/2006 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 7/17/2006 by ThichHeaded]

And "segment of video footage" is what? Isn't it something that's called "frame"?
Oh and btw as I've said, the fact that the authorities aren't giving you all pics they have is not a sign of conspiracy. It's normal. Even the investigation doesn't usually use all the pic as some are of bad quality or don't provide any fact needed for the investigation.
Oh and btw I don't believe you'll be convinced even if all the photos were given to you on a silver platter. I already hear "Fake! Staged! Just another proof of a conspiracy, the videos are low quality obviously fake, on the pics I cannot see the entire Boeing, fake!"

[edit on 17-7-2006 by tuccy]

Since you missed the the part where I asked to answer some of the questions on Killtowns site. I will start out by asking a few here..

Question 1

What are the odds that the crash happened in the very spot that was being renovated? Notice the mysterious line mark in the lawn before 9/11 that is just to right of the actual trajectory of the aircraft in question that hit the Pentagon. Was this line mark in the lawn put there on purpose to help "guide" the aircraft in question to crash into the building?

Odd Line mark he is refering to is here.


A Bigger image can be seen here, just incase someone says photoshop
www.spaceimaging.com...


Question 2

Are we supposed to believe that the military had no anti-aircraft defenses protect their own headquarters?

A few things from his site for this answer.

"Among the questions being asked here: How could the Pentagon, the center of the U.S. defense establishment, not be prepared to defend itself against an attack by an airplane?
Spokesman Rear Adm. Craig Quigley said the Pentagon has no anti-aircraft defense system that he is aware of. The White House is assumed to have surface-to-air missiles available for protection." -USA Today (09/11/01)

"For years, staff at the Pentagon joked that they worked at "Ground Zero", the spot at which an incoming nuclear missile aimed at America's defenses would explode. There is even a snack bar of that name in the central courtyard of the five-sided building, America's most obvious military bullseye." -Telegraph (9/16/01)

"The Pentagon itself was built to be a fortress, virtually impregnable; it had long been considered a prime target for an enemy attack." -Fire Engineering Magazine (11/02)

Question 3

Did Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld accidentally admit to a missile crashing into the Pentagon and not Flight 77 in this interview?

Rumsfeld: "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." -DoD (10/12/01)

Question 4

Who was telling the media what crashed into the Pentagon?

"Law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the plane that struck the Pentagon was an American Airlines jetliner that had taken off from Dulles International Airport on a scheduled flight to Los Angeles." - The Post (09/11/01)

Question 5

What does the Pentagon say about the accusations that Flight 77 didn't crash there?

...we spoke with The Pentagon about the conspiracy theory, and they said, "it's so ridiculous, we don't even address it." -7 News Online (05/23/05)

There is 5 questions there... All can be found on Killtowns site. If the offical story holds up. Then answer these with no problems.

Question 1: The side that was renovated is the ONLY side of the building that DOESN'T have something blocking it. Every other side of the building has a park, a parking structure, or SOMETHING blocking it. This side has a long open stretch leading up to the wall.

Question 2: Name one defense system we had on 9/11 that was capable of defending against a nuclear warhead. Notice from your own quote that they said GROUND ZERO FOR A NUCLEAR WARHEAD. What is the point of having AAA sites around the building if they can't defend against a nuke. Not only that, prior to the mid to late 90s, there were dozens of bases with alert fighters. Any incoming attack would have had to fight through all our fighters that were ready to scramble, and if they could hit the Pentagon after getting through all those defenses, we were screwed anyway.

"Question 1
Pentagon mystery path in the grass

The real questions on #1 for you should be;
What does the path have to do with any thing?It looks to be errosion of some sort.
Would a missile need to lookdown and have a line to follow?If so,why did it not follow it exact?If it was a highjacker,which you don't seem to believe,why would a fadded marker help?Pentagon not large enough of a marker? Another coincidence turned into deep dark suspicion!Ooohhh!Dylan loves you guys,and I don't mean Bob.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by Duhh]

i can understand why people would find it supsicious

but do you guys think it would be almost difficult to see with the movement and speed of the aircraft?

NIST, largely from private photographers,, regarding the collapses of WTC buildings on 9/11/2001 (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, all footage relating to the collapse of WTC 7 (including shots before, during and after the collapse) must be released immediately, without waiting for the NIST report on WTC 7, which is long overdue and may be prolonged indefinitely.

They don't own the pics. They can't just release them.

Why should they release anything? I don't get it. Go ahead and demand ALL the evidence from any investigation and see what you get. I'm guessing zero and rightfully so. And then trump that request with "If you don't release the evidence to an ongoing investigation to a bunch of CTs....thats further proof of a cover up."

If you got it...what would you do with it? WHO would be doing the investigating and where would it be done? In someones garage with a bunsun burner and a couple of Q-tips?


Its just another deflection thats meant to imply coverup.

3. No.

4. For one, eyewitness accounts from people who SAW THE PLANE.

5. It is too ridiculous to respond to.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by Vushta]

I think this extreme close-up pretty much proves it:

Cheap ground glass fisheye closeups.I love that shot!

I fail to accept that that picture proves or disproves anything. Wow that black patch there...well thats a jet, and that little bit on the front thats steven hawking guiding it in. Now comon lets get real, you cant go on hearsay and crappy evidence to fuel the 9/11 witch hunt.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by Vushta]

havent posted here in a while but all the old timers know my views on this, for those that dont...

ok, for a second, just scratch that video altogether. just think about this: there are 2 other videos known to exist but never released. That PROVES there is a cover up and conspiracy. How deep the rabbit hole goes i cannot tell you. i beleive one video was from a webcam on the highway, and one from a hotel.

as far as this video goes, it is 2 frames of unanswerd questions for sure.

is that really supposed to be a plane?
why was the video released on september 12th with a september 12th timestamp?
why was there one and only one lonely webcam on the pentagon? the whole pentagon, the military epicenter of the country only has one webcam?