another flight 77 video, again no plane!

One simple example of how there was not a plane that hit the Pentagon.

Even the tape the government used to prove that a plane hit it, the 5 frames of it they released, clearly showed a MISSLE, not a plane!

But they will show the tape, show the missle hitting, and just say its a plane, and tell you to believe it, and you do! I mean they just lie to you, and you just believe it!

Its obvious, from the footage and the damage, that a MISSLE hit the Pentagon, at the exact spot that had been renovated to withstand that kind of impact.

Did you know they have a automated missle defense system, that will blow any plane out of the sky if it does not type in a passcode that allows entry into the no fly zone above the defense building...they have this in AUSTRALIA.

The Pentagon? The most powerful defense building in the world, Headquarters for the US military? Nothing! This hijacked plane can come in, come around, come back, come around again, at 500 miles an hour, and hit the building. Are you saying the Pentagon is not defended? Of course it is! But why not on 911?

And its also known that there are literally hundreds of cameras from the surrounding area that wouldve caught the impact on tape, indeed they did capture it, but they were confiscated by the FBI literally within minutes of the impact...

If the cameras show a plane hitting it, you play them in the media, you play them for the 911 commission, you play the tapes for the people, thered be no debate, game set and match.

But they didnt, and now they say they cant ever release them. Why?? If it only shows what you want us to believe, why not just show it? Well, because it shows something else thats why.

indeed a trial is the culprit behind the initial thwarting of the FOIA. what i am trying to find out is about the 82 remaining videos. They have admitted to 85, 3 have been released as i mentioned before. the article i read wasn't clear on if the other 82 tapes were being withheld also because of the trial or not. their release has been filed for by at least one entity. i regret not saving the link because it didnt have the info i wanted then. i am positive i have seen the request, but forget what the official reply said (in so many words other than no).

honestly, if they released the videos it would satisfy me. why? man, one thing i learned from ATS is that people love to debunk. if the video was fake it would have to be good to fool all the debunkers out there.

also, i doubt if all of the remaining videos are from the pentagon, as a source i mean. more than one source is always good.

to talk about the ops originally posted video.. close in, it's just to blurry to be definitive about anything, imho, but in standard, the highway nearly lines up with where the plane should be, and if anything i see a metal reflection come in from the side(the left side the wrong side?), which my eye can't decide between car or truck or whatever, it's just a bad video and it's not really going to help either side imo.

the second video, wreaks of a guided missle, a bunker buster or what not, some of those things look like small planes and are designed to do just what the darn thing did. that is assuming it isn't digital, which up untill the last few seconds, i would have guessed it to be so and said pretty artwork, good job.

-meoow. truth.

Looking at the OP's first post, The video does not show a plane, and there is more than enough frames in the film to be able to have seen one, "IF" there was a plane, but there definitely wasn't.

Watch the traffic drive by, there is no huge chunk missing, the motion moves at a steady pace and all you see is a boom, but no plane.

Have a good read of this (and remember, the maintainers of this website are equally keen to examine evidence from before, after and during 9/11 to build a case for complicity against the various government intelligence and military/industrial agencies):

www.oilempire.us...

Maybe good video evidence of the plane hitting the Pentagon has been withheld because it shows just how precise the flying must have been, hence strong evidence for remote control.


And since the trend on these boards is to dive on a piece of YouTube video as 'evidence' - try this for remote control airliner possibility (I know this has been seen many times before) -

Google Video Link

The video is fake.

There are PLENTY of eyewitness' on the ground that saw the plane that day. Common everyday people going about their business in DC. I talked to one myself - a taxi driver.

Face it people .... a plane hit the pentagon. It was hijacked by radical islamic terrorists. UBL set it up. The people on board died. So did the people at the Pentagon.

That's just the truth.

[edit on 6/26/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by LightWorker13
Did you know they have a automated missle defense system, that will blow any plane out of the sky….

According to this site that’s just a rumor. The Pentagon had transmitters that would send a warning signal of incoming aircraft/missiles to the US Airforce planes to go intercept … but it had no missiles of it’s own. Also, the Pentagon won’t discuss what it’s defenses were at the time (this is classified) therefore the ‘missile defense system’ that people talk about can’t be confirmed or denied.

This hijacked plane can come in, come around, come back, come around again, at 500 miles an hour,

This former air force pilot analyzes the flight path and speed . Also many people believe that the original target was the White House, which the hijackers missed. (however, I’m of the opinion flight 93 was intended for the White House – because of Todd Beamer’s dream of a few years prior)

there are literally hundreds of cameras from the surrounding area that wouldve caught the impact on tape,

Provide information that show ‘hundreds’ of cameras. The Pentagon has SOME... but show who has the ‘hundreds’ of cameras and show that they were pointed in the direction of the impact.

indeed they did capture it, but they were confiscated by the FBI literally within minutes of the impact...

OF COURSE any footage showing the impact would be gathered as evidence for an investigation. That is the way law enforcement works all over the country. Gather evidence.



[edit on 6/26/2007 by FlyersFan]

I just want to qualify my reference to remote controlled planes - as mentioned here ; the main idea being that the hijackers were 'hijacked' remotely in the closing stages of the flight to ensure an accurate hit.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Skunky]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The video is fake.

There are PLENTY of eyewitness' on the ground that saw the plane that day. Common everyday people going about their business in DC. I talked to one myself - a taxi driver.

Face it people .... a plane hit the pentagon. It was hijacked by radical islamic terrorists. UBL set it up. The people on board died. So did the people at the Pentagon.

That's just the truth.

[edit on 6/26/2007 by FlyersFan]

which one? the first video is indeed real. there was a lawsuit in place to obtain its release. what do you think, they erased the plane from the video?

agreed that there are plenty of eyewitnesses that saw a plane hit. there are also plenty of eyewitnesses that say a plane did not hit. you cant 'debunk' it by saying witnesses saw a plane but ignore the other witnesses. thats not debunking thats basing your opinion on what you want to hear.

i would like to ask you what makes you so sure a plane hit the pentagon if you have never seen a video of it, and there are 85 known videos? blind faith? so far no one has presented any evidence that a plane hit other than eyewitness accounts. since there are equal eyewitness accounts that something other than a plane hit i arrive at 2 conclusions:

there is not enough evidence to infer that a plane hit.
the official story is not valid.

im not saying anything else about it until i have more evidence. it just amazes me that people can draw a conclusion based on inconclusive evidence.

Originally posted by Skunky
I just want to qualify my reference to remote controlled planes - as mentioned here ; the main idea being that the hijackers were 'hijacked' remotely in the closing stages of the flight to ensure an accurate hit.

So, the highjackers were highjacked? JUST when you thought you heard it all!
I just don't understand this.

No one can answer the one simple question....If your using a plane on the other 3 flights/ attacks.... why decide to use a missel on the 4th one? Risking someone seeing it!! After all it was rush hour....oh and DOZENS of people DID in fact see a plane!!

Originally posted by jprophet420
there is not enough evidence to infer that a plane hit.
the official story is not valid.

No, to the hardcore believers there's not enough evidence that a plane hit.

The rest of us haven't discredited every eyewitness. The rest of us don't think that the plane debris and the charred bodies of passengers were planted there. The rest of us can understand how such a "small hole" was initially created.

The most glaring thing is that the believers in the no plane camp can't all get on board a theory of what, other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Was it a globalhawk, a "missile", or a different jumbo jet?

Even the admittedly inconclusive videos conclusively show that something hit the Pentagon.

The "unofficial" story is more invalid than the official story, in this case. Even many 9-11 truthers think this is disinfo.

If it wasnt a missle, the plane was remotely controlled.

Do you actually know of the flight path that the plane took? It got hi-jacked out of Washington Dulles Airport, it was flown 45 minutes out into the midwest, "hijacked" and flown all the way back!

So you are a highly professional terrorists, you know about the NORAD response to hijackings, you take off from Washington and you want to hit a target in Washington....so what do you do? You sit on the plane for 45 minutes as it goes west, you hijack it, and fly it all the way back!

Not only that but the hijacker pilot, a man named Hanjour, was supposed to have flied that plane. According to the 911 commission report, he actually missed the Pentagon, so he has to do a U-turn, come around, do another U-turn, come within feet of the ground, and fly smack into the building, at 530 miles an hour, this is according to the 911 commission report.

He and others were trained at Zorbys flying school in Florida. The flight instructor is quoted as saying "it was like dumb and dumber, they were clueless! It was obvious they werent gonna make it as pilots." Rick Garba..

One instructor for other hijackers is famous for saying, they had such a lack of basic english language skills and basic coordination skills, they probably couldnt even drive a car....these hijackers probably couldnt even drive a damn car, nevermind a plane! I mean theyre used to driving a camel I guess!

They were trained with little Cessnas which they couldnt fly properly, but they can hijack a jumbo 757 jet airliner, and pull superman moves with it to crash it into the Pentagon.

Its ridiculous, if it wasnt a missle that hit it, it surely was a remote controlled plane. Yea there were eyewitness's who said there was a plane, but almost all of them said the plane had no markings...funny, people in New York also said the same thing..hmmm.

if you watch the original video putout by the gov't you can see the tail of some kind of plane, leave that up to everyone to debate, go over the pentagon after the initial impact. Now i am not a total believer of either side of the story. Some truth about 911 and some lies = us never "truly" knowing. But some kind of plane hit that pentagon!

Originally posted by PistolPete

Originally posted by jprophet420
there is not enough evidence to infer that a plane hit.
the official story is not valid.

No, to the hardcore believers there's not enough evidence that a plane hit.

The rest of us haven't discredited every eyewitness. The rest of us don't think that the plane debris and the charred bodies of passengers were planted there. The rest of us can understand how such a "small hole" was initially created.

The most glaring thing is that the believers in the no plane camp can't all get on board a theory of what, other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Was it a globalhawk, a "missile", or a different jumbo jet?

Even the admittedly inconclusive videos conclusively show that something hit the Pentagon.

The "unofficial" story is more invalid than the official story, in this case. Even many 9-11 truthers think this is disinfo.

you make the point for me. every witness hasnt been discredited. ive mentioned it before ill say it again, i dont know what hit the pentagon. i didnt see a plane hit, ever. i didnt see charred bodies. some people say they saw an american airlines jetliner hit, some people claim to have not seen one hit.

some people say they saw charred bodies, some people say the lack of bodies confused them.

have you ever taken a college level psychology class? one of the most common experiments is to pull a person from class at the begining of class and then ask the rest of the class what they were wearing. usually less than 1/2 of the class gets it right.

so which half saw what really happened?

well, video cameras dont forget. the fact that there is evidence being withheld proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a cover up. a cover up involving more than one person is by definition a conspiracy. there IS a conspiracy here by very definition of the word. the question is 'how deep does the rabbit hole go?'. to deny the rabbit hole exists is simply that, denial.


[edit on 26-6-2007 by jprophet420]

As a response to a post further above, if you read the link in my post about 'hijacking the hijackers' then you'll get a great overview of the 'evidence' and some of the alleged disinformation about Flight 77 and the Pentagon. As mentioned above, the hijacker-pilot of Flight 77 was supposedly not a competent enough pilot to fly an airliner at that target. A theory has been put forward (not by me) that control was wrested from the hijackers at some point during the flight remotely (such technology exists) to ensure the planes (including the WTC flights) hit their targets.

I'm sure seasoned ATS posters (I'm not one) are familiar with www.oilempire.us... - but if you're not, have a read. It sticks to the best available historical evidence and tries to avoid being tied up in some of the more extreme 9/11 theories.

...there IS a conspiracy here by very definition of the word

- agreed, but it's practically indisputable a plane hit the Pentagon.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Skunky]

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Skunky]

Originally posted by Cosmocow
if you watch the original video putout by the gov't you can see the tail of some kind of plane, leave that up to everyone to debate, go over the pentagon after the initial impact. Now i am not a total believer of either side of the story. Some truth about 911 and some lies = us never "truly" knowing. But some kind of plane hit that pentagon!

if you watch the original video put out by the government you will notice it has the incorrect date and time on it. this is 100% iron clad proof that the video was edited in at least one fashion.

all i can agree with you about the video is that something hit the pentagon in the video. when i also consider the fact that the first release is known to be tampered with, it detracts a considerable amount of credibility from the video.

withdrawing this

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Skunky]

Originally posted by jprophet420
the first video is indeed real. there was a lawsuit in place to obtain its release. what do you think, they erased the plane from the video?

It is real. It was erased from video in real time by a half-a-mie of distance and a wide raised freeway. If the plane was not there cause it aint there in this vid, then the Pentagon also didn't exist, and what really happened is a truck drove by a certain spot on 395 and triggered a small explosion there. Watch it again and look at the map:

agreed that there are plenty of eyewitnesses that saw a plane hit. there are also plenty of eyewitnesses that say a plane did not hit.

Please name one witness who saw it not hit. There are those who didn't see it hit, at the wrong spot or turned away or whatever. Take the PentaCon witnesses - 3 of four said they saw it hit. The other was too far away to see whether it hit or didn't.

i would like to ask you what makes you so sure a plane hit the pentagon if you have never seen a video of it, and there are 85 known videos? blind faith? so far no one has presented any evidence that a plane hit other than eyewitness accounts.

?? Have you actually looked? 90-foot-wide hole, 310 foot-deep bldg damage, 50 support columns damaged, engine parts, fuel fires, fuselage debris, wheel, landing gear, passengers, assorted aluminum debris (prob mostly right wing and tailfin), light poles, generator, fence, vent, etc.
Here again:
Physical Evidence
Plus a missig plane, missing passengers, terminated radar track, AND the eyewitness accounts.

There is still room for doubt. Is it at least vaguely possible this massive fifty-prong engineered cover-up has one simple explanation? Nah, that's disproven now beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fetzer

since there are equal eyewitness accounts that something other than a plane hit i arrive at 2 conclusions:

there is not enough evidence to infer that a plane hit.
the official story is not valid.

Somehow I doubt you've looked closely at all sides or you wouldn't be phrasing it like that.

im not saying anything else about it until i have more evidence. it just amazes me that people can draw a conclusion based on inconclusive evidence.

Okay so you're not alone in your doubt, but this might be a wise and rare move. A period of silence for some real investigation. Keep looking man. Your goal should be to figure out what HAPPENED, a positive guess that accounts for all known evidence you can acquire and analyze/discard/absorb. Let's get away from all this anti-theorizing - the official story DIDN'T happen, that's all we know, people say. It was just a black hole there, we will never know, etc. Or something dumb like Global hawk that doesn't fit hardly any of the actual evidence.

Peace JP.


[edit on 26-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by PistolPete
[...]to the hardcore believers there's not enough evidence that a plane hit.

The rest of us haven't discredited every eyewitness. The rest of us don't think that the plane debris and the charred bodies of passengers were planted there. The rest of us can understand how such a "small hole" was initially created.

The most glaring thing is that the believers in the no plane camp can't all get on board a theory of what, other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Was it a globalhawk, a "missile", or a different jumbo jet?

Even the admittedly inconclusive videos conclusively show that something hit the Pentagon.

The "unofficial" story is more invalid than the official story, in this case. Even many 9-11 truthers think this is disinfo.

Thank you sir. You seem to have a good basic grasp of the evidence. This "I haven't seen" stuff doesn't cut it for me. Okay then, go see it and then tell me what - is it fake? Is it a clue? What does it mean? I am no fan of faith, and prefer doubt. And this is cultish behavior on a mass scale. Faith against all reason, willful ignorance wearing the mask of someone else's false certainty. So-and-so said the hole is only ten feet wide and I saw a photo somewhere can't find the link where there was ten foot hole somewhere or other... Low quality control. Poor architecture. Won't hold up if it takes a hit. Many hits coming I suspect.

I'm actually trying to help here.

of course i cant post a quote of someone seeing someting not happen, that would be absurd. people saying they saw something other than an an american airlines jet is what i was refering to. ive never seen any pictures of the initial impact being 75 feet wide, never seen any pictures of bodies, never seen any pictures of anything (as far as evidence of wreckage) but one small piece of aluminum on the lawn and some sort of rotor.

[edit on 26-6-2007 by jprophet420]