Simple explanation for suppression of Pentagon impact footage

reply to post by airspoon


I apologize for my ignorance but I can't seem to locate pictures of any tank where I can't tell the difference between normal armor and reactive armor. That's why I was curious about the pics for a building with reactive armor and since you said you had dealt with them, I thought maybe you just might have some.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your theory is incorrect. It's just that I don't know if it would be possible and that no one noticed before that the pentagon had reactive armor.

reply to post by The Baby Seal Club


The reason why you can't find any pics is because you can't tell the difference. You would not be able to tell the difference between a building with reactive armor and a building without reactive armor because this technology would not be placed outside of the building or could be made to mimic the building surface itself. Because of this, you would not be able to see anything different from any other building and therefore, you would not even know that it was there. However, by analyzing the impact of a projectile into the building, you could possibly see the reaction of the armor and then compensate your projectiles or explosives to work around this reaction, thus the need to suppress any footage of the impact.

Unless you could peel back the armor you will not be able to see how it looks or even tell if a tank or building has it there. Thats why they use it in the first place!

reply to post by mikelee


***Shameless Bump****

Yes, you wouldn't be able to tell that there is reactive armor and in fact, it would be foolish to think that there wouldn't be such a technology (or something similar), especially seeing how that side of the Pentagon was just redone.


--airspoon

I think it's simpler than reactive armor. I think it's possible they just didn't want to give potential enemies any more information than they had to. The US military is notoriously secretive. It stands to reason they wouldn't release anything they thought was the slightest bit sensitive.

reply to post by spicypickle


Well, I'm not necessarily suggesting reactive armor, only an advanced or unconventional technology such as reactive armor, a technology which would require the government to keep it's reactive properties secret by suppressing the Pentagon footage.

It's important to note that when the government, particularly the DOD, says they are "reinforcing" something, that generally doesn't mean that they are giving thick walls. Instead, it means that they are putting technology to withstand blasts, explosives or munitions.

If this is the case, then we could expect that they would want this technology to remain secret, lest our enemies learn how to defeat this technology. We already know that they keep these defenses classified, therefore it would be foolish to think that they wouldn't want to also keep this technology secret and the best way to avert that secrecy, is to release footage of it's reactive behaviors.

I just don't feel that we can include the lack of footage or the government's policy of hiding that footage, as evidence of a government conspiracy or even evidence contrary to the official conspiracy theory.



--airspoon

Good work on the out of the box thinking. But unfortunately I don't buy it, because if it were true, there wouldn't be a hole almost all of the way through to the inner wall and then have the entire section collapse. It defeats the whole purpose of, as the understanding, that it's meant to propel "the round" away, not penetrate the object/target it's fired at.

The whole fact that the government won't release the videos and the one that they did release clearly shows it's been doctored is proof enough at this stage no plane hit it that we can see visually. "Some people say" that plane parts were found but this doesn't actually prove a crash because we know for a fact that a drill of exactly this was planned by National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) for that very same day.

US spy agencies planning to have a mock plane crash into a govt building on -- of all days -- 9/11, their mock plane crash was to happen at 9:32am*, just 5min before the official time that the Pentagon would be hit (9:37am).
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If they don't want people believing in conspiracy theories and that these people are a threat as members of the white house has stated, just release the evidence showing the plane hitting. Pretty simple really.

So wait, are we actually to the point now where Grainy videos of the scene cant be released, yet high quality photos of the scenes can be seen which would show anything special? Also, there are 2 or 3 cameras which would of CLEARLY shown what happened, those cams have yet to be released and probly never will.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
So wait, are we actually to the point now where Grainy videos of the scene cant be released, yet high quality photos of the scenes can be seen which would show anything special? Also, there are 2 or 3 cameras which would of CLEARLY shown what happened, those cams have yet to be released and probly never will.

Maybe, maybe not.

Pentagon Security Camera Update

Originally posted by VonDoomen
So wait, are we actually to the point now where Grainy videos of the scene cant be released, yet high quality photos of the scenes can be seen which would show anything special? Also, there are 2 or 3 cameras which would of CLEARLY shown what happened, those cams have yet to be released and probly never will.

If it was a reactive technology, then photos (regardless of the quality) wouldn't matter nearly as much as video, which could actually expose the process. It would be the video or successive photos showing the "money-shot" that would need to be kept secret.

This thread is about why the government has a normal (thus viable) excuse for suppression of the video footage.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Guess you never read the reasons the government actually gives for not releasing the information.

They change over time with each FOIA request, and none of the reasons you give are the reasons they give.

If your theory is correct they are guilty as sin (of lying in order to suppress an FOIA request).

reply to post by jprophet420


If they are trying to keep it a secret, they aren't going to list it as a reason. Furthermore, I'm not necessarily suggesting that this is the reason, only that it could very well be the reason, thus the truth movement should move on and focus on the mountain of other evidence. The truth movement or those claiming to represent the truth movement, suffer from a fundamental flaw of supporting theories and evidence that aren't very definitive, ultimately allowing itself to be marginalized. If people could focus their attention on the evidence that is definitive and damning, then the movement could open more eyes and borrow more ears. Unfortunately, until then a large percentage of the people will continue to just ignore the message all together. If there could be an explanation for something, then we need to move on to the mountain of other evidence and facts that have no other explanation.

Look, I am absolutely convinced of the absurdity of the OS and I certainly believe that there is much more to the story than what we are being told, even that the government could be complicit in the attacks. However, this doesn't mean that I'm going to whole-heartedly believe in every or any theory that the so-called "truth movement" puts forward. Instead, I'm going to seek the truth, wherever that truth may be, even if it ultimately proves me wrong. For instance, if the government tomorrow, opens it's files and proves everything I have been saying for the past 10 years wrong, I would be more than happy to embrace a new theory and admit that I'm wrong. Why? Because I simply want the truth.

Lets look at the Pentagon attack for a minute...

If the government has some kind of active technology to mitigate a missile attack on government buildings such as embassies or important government buildings like the White House and Pentagon, then they surely wouldn't want to expose this technology and any flaws that it may or may not have. It would compromise the security of all other critical government sites that may or may not have the same technology.

We already know for a fact that the government takes extreme measures to secure their buildings and critical sites from attacks so it would be expected that they would have a technology that would protect their infrastructure from missile or explosive attacks, especially on the newly renovated side of the building that houses the heart of our defense capabilities..

Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that the Pentagon did have a new, secret reactive technology to withstand missile strikes. What could we expect to see if the building was struck by a missile, such as fast moving aircraft? Well, for starters, we could expect to see very localized damage and in fact, that is exactly what we saw. We could also expect obliteration of the projectile, which is also what we saw. Furthermore, we could expect that the government wouldn't admit to said technology and also make moves to suppress any video that could expose the processes of such a technology.

Why would they want to keep this a secret? Because the enemy could develop munitions to compensate for this technology, effectively making it useless or at the very least, less effective.

So, sure the government could be suppressing the video footage of the Pentagon attack for the reasons of it not being an aircraft that struck the building. However, it could also be for the reasons presented in this thread. The same goes for the damaged building, which would seem to not show typical characteristics of an aircraft impact site. This could either be because it wasn't an aircraft or because their was some kind of secret blast proofing to the building. However, because multiple witnesses saw an airplane and the multitude of other evidence to show that an aircraft was on course for an impact, such as radar data, it is very logical to suggest that the reasons for the footage suppression aren't because it wasn't an aircraft but instead the reasons listed in this thread.

Regardless, there is a logical explanation for the suppression of the footage and it doesn't really matter if the government uses this explanation to account for its actions. The explanation is still viable, thus the argument is not definitive.


--airspoon

Well I do know, since I recently watched a 9/11 film that there was a citgo gas station which had a camera trained on that side of the building. It's far enough away that you would probly get 2-3 seconds of plane footage before impact.

but due to it being of this quality, I highly doubt it would give away to much info in terms of reactive armor.

And as always Airspoon thanks for the thought provoking thread. I wasnt trying to be hostile to you by any means, as im sure youre aware!