Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

reply to post by mikelee


Mike,

Your first embedded vid with Rumsfeld holds a mystery that I've been trying to solve for years. The two people in the background react very strangely. The lady seems "jumpy" to me. When Rumsfeld made his faux-pas they both look immediately to the side waiting for instructions from their superior. At least that's what it looks like to me.

Who are they? They are not dressed like regular Secret Service. Who do they look at? I've been trying to find extended footage to no avail.

Do you know more about this? Sorry, not trying to hi-jack your thread. Keep up the good work!

reply to post by mikelee


Awwwww, shucks mikelee, i've just spent the better part of an hour looking over that site Planecrashinfo.com!

Although i did find a couple more..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/137908ffc9d2.jpg[/atsimg]

This one is a photo of the wreckage of a 767, carrying 223 people which plunged into the ground from 31,000 feet..much of the wreckage is present, and identifiable as what it was. All aboard perished.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/32fbeeb26b34.jpg[/atsimg]

Or this easily recognisable wreckage, from a 737 that also plunged into the ground from a great altitude, this time it was 35,000 feet. The pieces are easy to identify, and while obviously extremely damaged as you'd expect, it is *not* obliterated or shredded from what must of been a ferocious speed on impact, this plane load of unfortunate people, all 104 of them, are believed to be victims of a suicide by the captain of the aircraft..what a fantastic bloke he must have been eh! (sarcasm), but you get the idea..lot's of large, recognisable, non-disintegrated, aircraft parts.

There are lot's more examples, and i'm sure if we all got really motivated to look, we would find all manner of examples of large passenger aircraft, crashing into structures at high speed and being left in a destroyed but recognisably intact state..lot's.

But really, with all this 'can a plane survive intact enough to be in relatively large sections, large enough to be positively identified' debate, we're getting away from the original question from the OP...namely, *Where is the footage from the Pentagon's myriad cameras, and the many cameras dotted around the immediate area? I could understand frantically going to every building, car park, petrol station, shopping mall or street ccvt etc, at the start of the investigation..but why not release after all this time?

That's the real question that's being sidetracked here isn't it?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by mikelee
For those of you who believe in the OS or simply do not think anything other than an airliner hit the Pentagon, I respect your theory ...

It's not a theory. Eyewitness' all over the city saw the plane come in at a very rapid speed and at a very low altitude. That's not theory. That's fact. What is theory is that something else hit the pentagon when in fact all eyewitness' say otherwise.

Again .. go ask the cabbies .... or the tour guides in Arlington ... etc.

Whatever hit the pentagon, it definitely wasn't flight 77, or any 757 boeing.

If anything hit, there can be only 3 possibilities imo

1) a missile or drone/global hawk possibly in conjunction with pre-timed explosives and
wall breaching kit for the punch out/in hole in the C-Ring.

2) a fly-over aircraft launched a missile and/or the explosion was timed with the fly-over

3) two aircraft involved... the drone/missile remotely guided from another location and the fly-over diversion craft

another issue to factor in is whether any of the above aircraft were ever on the SoC flight path.

Based on the 13+ witnesses who imo are the most credible, The NoC path definitely contained an aircraft but does the damage come from the SoC trajectory, or the NoC path.... or does the damage even have a trajectory if there were only timed explosions?

Though it appears Roosevelt Roberts may be the closest possible witness to seeing what may have been the fly-over plane, its not been proven beyond a doubt yet which leaves us with what most likely didn't happen as my first sentence says which fits best with choice #1 at this juncture.

Damn what a mindf#ck ... I have to hand it to the Perps on the Plane Psyop

reply to post by lord9

I have to hand it to the Perps on the Plane Psyop ...

If, by "Perps", you are referring to the few who concocted the ridiculous, overcomplicated, unworkable, unsupported by ANY credible facts "scenarios" you listed, well......I can think of less than a handful that you can "hand it to"....HEAD of the list (not sure how clean his hands are, though) is that French hack "author"......Thierry Meyssan....the "investigative researcher" who apparently made all that crap up in his head ---- never bothering to do any research, just sticking with his "feelings". After all, the book was published in only about six months AFTER 9/11. (?? Is that how it works, when you wish to re-write history, less than a year after the events unfolded?).

SO...all of you who buy into that garbage, and don't open your eyes to the rest of the evidence that REFUTES every last bit of it, and shines a light so bright the cockroaches scurry for cover.....as you BUY INTO it, always keep foremost in your mind the originator of those "ideas". He is French. (Not that there's anything wrong with his nationality...it's just, do YOU, as an American, want HIM speaking for you?? ).

Let's see his stance pre-9/11:

In 1994, Meyssan became a staff member of the Parti Radical de Gauche, a center-left political organization....

OK...he's "center-left", and hates fascism (me too). Though, I know NOTHING about that particular group it may be a LOT more radical than indicated by that brief blurb.

In 1994, he founded Voltaire Network and also created Project Ornicar, associations promoting freedom of expression and thinking, of which he is currently president.

Again....well, "liberal" comes to mind... I'd rather see a more, ermmm -- better word, "Humanistic", slant than the sort of crap spewed by the likes of Bush and Co.

From 1996 to 1999, he worked as substitute coordinator of the National Committee of Surveillance against the extreme right, which held weekly meetings with the 45 major political parties, unions and associations belonging to the French left wing in order to draw up a common response to escalating intolerance.

It's funny, his affiliations are trending towards a reasonable, balanced attitude towards encroachment of extreme right-wing policies. (Did this bias make him insane by the time 2001 rolled around??).

Between 1999 and 2002, Meyssan replaced Emma Bonino in the leading post of the Anti-prohibitionist Radical Coordination, an international organization aiming to decriminalize drug use as a means to cut organized crime's main source of income.

Well.....again, the intent is laudable....organized crime (and Government's involved) in the illegal drugs trade is well known. The "fight" against them is seen as fruitless.....

Basically, the sort of person who is anathema to George W. Bush. Well, SO AM I!! Can't stand the dry-drunk former Pres....BUT, I also have the ability to NOT allow that particular bias send me down the road of insane, unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations, to include writing a friggin' BOOK about setting down all that nonsense, as this man did.

Like I said, is he just "over-the-top" radical, and spring-loaded to see EVERYTHING as some "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy", no matter how tenuous the "evidence"?? Is this a sign of intelligence??

(Also....I read that he's living either in the Lebanon, or Syria now (dependso n source). "self-exiled"? Paranoid" Muslim extremist sympathizer?? Ooops, did I suggest that? Can't say if, or if not, is the case. BUT, anyone who continues to spout the mantra that he espouses, plays WELL into the propaganda of those groups.......).......

Oh, and a review that I found enlightening, about his book:

Thierry Meyssan's diatribe, titled L'Effroyable Imposture (The Frightening Fraud) in the original French, purports to prove the frighteningly irrational theory that the damage to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, could not have been caused by a Boeing 757, but was in fact the result of a carefully planned truck bombing or missile strike which was then made to look like a plane crash. The utter lacking of basis in reality of this theory should be enough to turn any reasonable person off from Meyssan.

For evidence of his theory, Meyssan presents a supposedly careful analysis of images of the damage to the Pentagon, and cites discrepancies in eyewitness accounts. Left unanswered are such questions as, if Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, where is it? Where are the passengers? And, in fact the eyewitnesses basically agree on what they saw. (For a sampling of eyewitness accounts, see:www.criticalthrash.com...).
Meyssan's conspiracy theory is an insult to the families of the victims, and to all who actually witnessed the terrorist attack, including myself (I was not working at the Pentagon, but I live nearby).

Meyssan frames his denial theory in the context of a plot by right-wing elements in the United States against the world. Of course, he offers no names. One wonders, if Meyssan's theory were true, why is he still alive after supposedly revealing such a devious plot?

(snip)

Meyssan's ideas are so foolish that I was tempted to just ignore him and not write this review. If you believe Meyssan, I can cut you an unbeatable deal for the Brooklyn Bridge. But ideas have consequences.

THIS next few lines say it all, to me....and defines the inevitable HARM that this nonsense so-called "truth movement" is doing to the United States, to history, and to reason and sanity for decades/generations to come:

The history of the 20th century shows that absurd ideas can take destructive hold on societies, even to the point of sanctioning mass murder. Allowing the extremists who promote such ideas to go unchallenged only encourages them. Lenin, Hitler and Stalin were just like Meyssan early in their careers. If they had been challenged early on, perhaps they would have never gained power.

The BIg LIAR.

reply to post by spikey


Your examples are irrelevant, without specifics:

This one is a photo of the wreckage of a 767, carrying 223 people which plunged into the ground from 31,000 feet..much of the wreckage is present, and identifiable as what it was.

Speed upon impact??

Or this easily recognisable wreckage, from a 737 that also plunged into the ground from a great altitude, this time it was 35,000 feet.

Same question. Altitude at start of the accident sequence does NOT mean anything, it is final speed of impact that matters. You entire post was clearly devoid of the FACTS of those cases, and was that intentional? In order to skew the opinons of the readers, by inference??

And, BTW.....which of those two (or any others) hit a building of similar design and structure as the Pentagon, in the same manner, and same approximate airspeed as American 77??

reply to post by weedwhacker


And all this about this 'French' author has what relevance to:
the lack of debris at the crash site
the lack of a hole in the Pentagon
the lack of video being released
the lack of video that was released
the conflicting statements of 'witness's'
the entire base of this thread?

This man does NOT speak for me or anyone else here (most likely). I formed my own questions before I ever heard of him, or Jones, or Avery or you for that matter.
So please you and Dave dont derail this thread. If you wish to discuss this French Author whos ideals you disagree with, please start your own thread.
Thank you.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by OuttaTime
reply to post by rnaa

 

What strikes me as completely mundane is their huge impatience to remove/cover all the evidence ASAP (done at all 3 crash sites). If there was a direct correlation with 'terrorist groups' all debris would be scrutinized in order to form a solid case in court. Their methods however, do not mesh with correct forensic protocol. The flight 93 wreckage was no passenger plane either. I just find it hard to believe that these planes vaporized leaving only a box full of structural debris.

How do you know the flight 93 wreckage wasn't from a passenger plane. Were you there?

Because when I saw it live right after the impact, I immediately noticed there was no luggage, clothing, seats, bodies, wings, tail sections, etc. It was just a hole. I read an article (I forget what site as it was a few years ago), that the county coroner arrived and found no bodies to account for.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I've spent a few years around aircraft and yes I understand the physics of flight, kinetic energy, lift, drag, shear, pressure envelopes, and so on. What I was alluding to is if the plane created a hole a bit larger than the fuselage during the penetration into the cement, the wings would break off. Yes they would be mangled, but they would be physically visible.
Rather than getting into a longwinded debate, I will simply ask to see the footage confiscated by the surveillance cameras in the area. If a boeing 757 did in fact hit the pentagon, then releasing the tapes showing the object and the impact would be proof enough to satisfy us. I just find it hard to believe that one of the most anally minded security conglomerates in the world can only produce half a dozen frames from one camera. I've seen more incriminating evidence on convenience store robberies on the local news. Show me the plane 25' before impact and I'll be satisfied.

reply to post by mikelee


Oh, mikelee, you can't do better than that??

You give me four examples, but the assertions and comparisons regarding them that are slightly wrong.

THIS post, so we know what we're talking about.

Photo #1: The Air France A330, flight 447 from last year, correct? In the Atlantic Ocean. Enroute RIO-CDG.
The CAUSE IS UNKOWN, as well ANY DETAILS about the flight regimes at impact because......>drumroll

Without yet getting into my stance on the subject, allow me to point out an obvious contradiction within the OP.

First you state:

Originally posted by mikelee

...And many also have seen the photo below showing debris flying from the still footage. The outline clearly and preciously matches the superimposition of the Global hawk's sections.

Coincidence? What are the chances that a Global Hawk's sections would just magically match the parts/debris flying around in the government provided still frame? Pretty long odds if you ask me. But thats your call here...

Then a few lines later, you state:

...Now a steel girder building has much more free space ahead of the airliners to allow for escape than the Pentagon yet they still had tremendous blow back. Yet the Pentagon with it's several feet thick facade & columns allowed all of the debris forward of the initial explosion? Makes no sense whatsoever...

You're implying that all of the debris went "forward" into the hole, yet you're using a picture of debris flying through the air to help your case. Which one is it?


Cheers,
Strype

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by mikelee

 

Below is a 757's engine. See any size difference?

Yes. The piece from the crash sight is WAAAY too big to be from the Global Hawk. Notice that the crash site object doesn't have the fins anymore, they've been ripped off in the crash.

The entire fan assembly with the fins on the GH is about the size of the baseball strike zone, shoulder to knees, but the central core, without the fans, is only a bit bigger than the guys head.

The entire fan assembly with the fins on the 757 is about the size of a man, but the central core, without the fans, is just a bit smaller than the strike zone, maybe shoulder to crotch.

The central core pictured from the crash sight exactly matches the one with the guys sitting in the cowling.

So, remind me, what is your point again?

could you please provide a link to your source.

reply to post by Violater1


Rolls Royce RB 211



American Boeing 757 with Rolls Royce engines



Schematic of RB 211



Notice size of the engines

reply to post by thedman


Hmmm... I would have thought an engine the size of an commercial airline engine would have done more damage to the wall of the pentagon.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by mikelee

 

Iron Mountain is the name of the COMPANY, not the location of the storage facility.

...and the same of a very bad "novel" that expounded the end of civilisation if peace ever broke out.


Rosha

reply to post by Strype


in the second paragraph you quote from mikelee, he ends that statement with a question mark, making it a question; he then goes on to state that it just doesnt seem likely.

the only thing that is obvious is that you have a hard time understanding things you read.

Originally posted by mikelee
I have wondered since the morning of 911 why there were no immediate camera footage released to cite as evidence to back up the government's explanation that an airliner struck the Pentagon. Typically during an incident the government does provide some form of video or at least photographic proof of what it claims relating to that specific event/incident. In the case of the Pentagon, limited footage was released only after pressure placed on government and Pentagon officials by the press and the public. However what was released culminated in footage that shows nothing of an airliner as well as being proven to have been "frame spliced" or in layman terms, doctored. The question is not to argue as to why this is or was done, the question is why not release the entire collection of cameras to prove the governments position? Many speculate because there was no airliner at all and that another type of airborne device caused the explosion, death & destruction. One must assume reasonably that, the government does not wish for the public to know exactly what struck the building. Of course the public who believes every word the cowardly main stream media tells them and is led blindly into an unknown future will never know the reality of that incident on 911. In addition to being conditioned to not ask the tough questions that need asking and arguing the government's position on what caused the Pentagon destruction blindly and without an open mind.

source in photo

Above, what would prompt anyone (despite if they are FBI, NSA or whomever) to go around and pick up debris knowing full well that it is common knowledge that you do not pick up anything at a supposed crash site. Especially if you are law enforcement or any type if intelligence personnel, even the average citizen knows NOT to pick up such things. Amazingly but not surprisingly not one of the main stream media or pretty much anyone else has cited this. These two were never ID'd and why they are obviously picking up debris (or placing it) has never been looked into.

Donald Rumsfeld on September 10, 2001 at a press conference stated that the Pentagon could not account for 2 Trillion dollars, yes that is correct, 2 TRILLION dollars in transactions. earlier theorists noted this fact early in the months and following years after 911 but as usual the common skeptic lot denounced it. Now it is a verified and well known fact. And it plays to an interesting note that where the explosion at the Pentagon took place was the very locale of the accounting department that provided the records source to Rumsfeld regarding the lost funds. Coincidence? No one in his or her right mind would think so. Another little interesting note about this event of 911 is that Barbara Olsen's cell phone call to her husband Ted is now a confirmed fabrication and never happened at all. During the trail of Zacarias Moussaoui the FBI stated unequivocally that during their investigation into 911 and ZM being the 20th hijacker that they developed evidence that no phone call ever took place from Barbara Olsen to her husband. Bush's Solicitor General flat out lied to the FBI, the national press and the American people regarding his wife and that phone call. What shouldn't be forgotten is that the story of "hijackers with box cutters" as told to the media and the public was developed via this lie from Ted Olsen that Barbara told him thats what they were armed with. Now confirmed as a lie, it serves as circumstantial evidence that this lie was designed to establish the plot line for the 911 tale or at the very least the administration along with the 911 Report/Commission relied on nothing but lies and speculation to develop their story.

The Pentagon (and Flight 93) remain in my mind two of the puzzles that need to be solved in order to learn 911 truth and what really took place. Those two incidents occurred without the large witness and fore-thought given to the media outlets that had nearly instant ability to cover them right away. The cover of the Pennsylvania woods and countryside gave cover to what I firmly think was a hideous outcome unlike what we have been told happened. The Pentagon strike benefited from early morning commuters who were accustomed to seeing low flying aircraft very close to the Pentagon and would not necessarily give a second look to a speeding ?? painted up with similar company colors as depicted below.

Deepinfo

The size of the GH is seen below. Many think this is small drone but seeing this stock Air Force photo its true size can be determined. Could early morning commuters have been fooled by this? For many it is plausible.

wikimedia

And many also have seen the photo below showing debris flying from the still footage. The outline clearly and preciously matches the superimposition of the Global hawk's sections.

My own stock


Coincidence? What are the chances that a Global Hawk's sections would just magically match the parts/debris flying around in the government provided still frame? Pretty long odds if you ask me. But thats your call here.

Then we have the neat front lawn minutes after impact. Notice any "skid marks" like the OS states where the engines touched the ground? No we do not see that because it is now known that no such marks can or were ever found. Another lie like the Olsen phone calls.

AP

The photo above was taken before the collapse which was played to the hilt for maximum effect of the airliner tale. However as we all can see the impact hole is no bigger that a full sized pick up truck according to winesses. However none of them were called to testify. Wonder why? Also we do not see the engine skid marks as cited by government liars promoting the official fairy tale.

source noted in pic

Above is the confirmed entry point of ??? hit the Pentagon. No where big enough for an airliner but for a Global Hawk, it fits perfectly. This entry point was cited by the national media, FBI as where the airline entered the Pentagon. Unbelievable!

The WTC's as everyone can see in photos all over the internet had lots of blow back debris and fire yet the lawn in front of where the Pentagon was struck has hardly any. Now a steel girder building has much more free space ahead of the airliners to allow for escape than the Pentagon yet they still had tremendous blow back. Yet the Pentagon with it's several feet thick facade & columns allowed all of the debris forwardof the initial explosion? Makes no sense whatsoever. Plus it defies all known physic logic as well known forensic science where fast moving objects were impacted into buildings, ships, building during wartime. Same principle regardless if it's wartime or terrorism. Then we have the punch out hole where we have all been lied to by the government and their shills claiming the nose of the airliner did this. The nose section of airliners of the type purported to have hit the building is composed of light weight carbon and would survive this type of impact about the same as if the nose cone was made from a Coke can. Not to forget to mention that this was made after it slammed into the outer portion of the building then sliced & diced it's way thru the concrete & rebar support columns. Then it left an exit hole bigger than it was.

Say what you want or what makes you sleep best at night to the contrary but whatever did in fact hit the Pentagon was NOT an airliner and those who have said that it was, are liars. At least until proof is provided and even then it will be too little too late and must endure a harsh & very close scrutiny before we can definitively say that it either was indeed an airliner or, it was not. My money is not on the airliner story. Finally the words of Don Rumsfeld in a speech on 911.......

Rumsfeld: There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues. They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. 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. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.

Source: DoD Archives/Speeches

After he said that, he also admitted Flight 93 was shot down. As I have always said and thought it was...

But, thats another thread!

edit on 12/25/2010 by mikelee because: source pic, add text & video

We have some of the ATS 911 forum stalkers in here that shift the questions by reading into the original post what they wish then asking questions that have nothing to do with the thread topic at all. These few (and we know who they are) are present for one purpose. While forum rules prevent me from saying exactly why they are here by citing the term most appropriate to describe their activity in the forum, the best way to keep on topic of the thread is to either ignore them or remind them of the thread's topic when they post questions that are asked to side track the thread.

These few are present in many of the 911 threads and those of us who are talking about any particular topic that upsets them about the perceived lies of the events surrounding 911can combat this again, as stated by ignoring them regardless of their tone or remind them of the topic and move on. Lets not allow this conspiracy forum to be polluted by a select "chosen few" thugs.

The OP is a good point.

But it's the point I constantly make; if 9/11 happened AS WE WERE TOLD -- there would be no conspiracy theories because they would easily have proof.

>> what we got instead, was "we didn't do it on purpose because we are really fricken' incompetent" -- OR "we did it so we could go to war." Either way, the Bush Crime Family (which might just be really stupid and lucky) got all the power they wanted and all the profits for their friends.

Meanwhile -- we are guilty until proven innocent at airports, yet we've NEVER have established the innocence of the people with all the power. Bin Laden doesn't have the keys to my prison -- so it's reasonable I think, to require a BURDEN OF PROOF, before we give war profiteers something like the PATRIOT ACT, and the ability for foreign corporations to lobby our candidates.

I'll say it again since no one listened the first time.

White plume of smoke in all 4 or 5 frames...cruise missile people. 737's, 757's, nor Global Hawks emit white smoke plumes while flying. Jet fuel burns nice and cleanly along with oxygen. Solid fuel rockets DO emit white smoke...as do liquid fuel rockets. No one has ever 'debunked' this mystery. Also...what was the alleged speed of the Boeing as it hit?

I bet with a few short calculations we can find out how fast whatever it was in the 4 or 5 frames was moving and rule out the idea a Boeing was at THAT speed at THAT altitude...because of the drag coefficient.

reply to post by Violater1

could you please provide a link to your source.

See the mikelee post to which I replied. He is comparing the size of the complete engine mounted in the cowling and including the fan blades to a piece of debris from the Pentagon. My source is his photos and I am only analyzing his 'evidence' as he asked.

The piece of debris has (naturally enough) had the fan blades ripped off leaving only the fan blade mounting on the axle shaft. The size of that mounting is consistent with the size of the 'nose cone' of the fans on the pictured 757, and is clearly much larger than the corresponding part of the pictured Global Hawk engine.

reply to post by Xterrain


You very well could be correct. I'm not concreted in the notion that it was a Global Hawk however, based upon the photo I posted with the superimposed features depicting the outline of the parts of the GH I believe that is a strong case for such. My opinion. However I understand your point about the fumes and the missile. Agreed.

The speed of the "airliner" when it supposedly hit was according to most sources was 530mph. After of course it made the seemingly impossible maneuver to position itself for impact. It is worth noting again that no one to date has been able to duplicate that maneuver.