Hotel CCTV Video of 9/11 Pentagon Explosion... And NO Plane!

Originally posted by Merinda
So back to the video. Can the fin be seen sticking out or not?

Probably not. Nobody knows for sure and nobody has been bothered to go do the measurements to check. The fin can be seen above the entry gate on the released Pentagon video but it's quite subtle. I'll re-produce the video I did last time to show that it definitely does appear if you get the original MPEG.

The white tube is likely fuel or oil vapour caused by a damaged engine.

This is exactly what you see at 1:45 here:

Originally posted by Cade

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
It all started with 3.1 trillion dollars missing and unaccounted for the day before 9/11 in a press conference to the people from bush.

Oh dear, there was no claim of money missing, it was announced well before 9/11 and it was not by Bush - how about you show us this Bush press conference?

Once again a truther shows they are very confused.

edit on 29-11-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

Rumsfeld announced the missing trillions, the day before 911, and that also does not explain how the fuselage penetrated the outer ring while the engines could not penetrate the outer wall. Please Reboot.

the fuselage had more kinetic energy concentrated in basically a ring which would go through more like a core bit until the tail end hit. the engines probably already had some damage just a split second before from hitting lamp posts and generators. add to that their bulky shape and instead of a spear we're talking about a rock which spreads out its impact.

I'm not saying our government isn't made up of a buncha evil rotten bastards who have pulled off some incredible stunts in the past. And they most likely had a horse in this race in some compacity such as CIA training, but to say the buildings came down with cd and missiles is preposterous to me. Especially now with this hotel footage. It clearly shows a jet hitting the Pentagon.

reply to post by karen61560
No need to get snotty,what I said
is from his description one would think
there would be visible scarring.I was very
moved by what he told me,I spoke to him for about
15 min and gave him a hug.

I think back on the conversation I have my doubts now
to the "whole" story,especially with him under the airplane wing.I believe
the word I'm looking for is "embellished."
If he was where he said he was he should have been severly injured
or dead.
it's highly plausible and probable that the government put someone there to reinforce the official story.

reply to post by TWILITE22

it's highly plausible and probable that the government put someone there to reinforce the official story.

Or he want to play a bigger part in 911 than he actually did.

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


The problem is that there is a misunderstanding of the engine going on here. What you are looking at where they are standing is the fan section. A high bypass turbofan has a large fan section, and the engine itself is tiny.

This is the core of an RB211:



That's tiny compared to the fan section that you are looking at. The fan section is also very fragile. We lost numerous fan blades to rocks, and even a few engines to them.

This is the RB211 with the fan section attached:



The turbine in question that was found at the Pentagon was from an internal section of the core, probably the high pressure section of the engine. It had nothing to do with the fan section of the engine, except that the fan section pulls air into that section of engine.

I doubt that this will convince anyone, but I did the same thing that I did earlier, and I have emailed Rolls Royce, asking if that piece of turbine was ever positively identified, and if it came out of an RB211-535 engine (the type used on American 757s). Once I have a reply to either email, I will paste the entire email here (minus any personal details such as my name).

reply to post by Zaphod58

Thanks but providing facts have no meaning to the conspiracy believers.
It's like scratching the back of a house fly. They will just move to the side.
There's always another layer to their conspiracy.

That's the turbine section of an RB211-535 compared to what was found at the Pentagon. Looks pretty damn close to me. There are numerous RB211 types out there, as they were used on the L1011, are used on the 747, 757, and several other types.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by TWILITE22

 

it's highly plausible and probable that the government put someone there to reinforce the official story.

Or he want to play a bigger part in 911 than he actually did.

Yes I have the upmost respect for our vets,as half of my family
is active duty.I truly believed him at the time but now do believe he embellished
his story or was made up completely.Either way it doesn't diminish my respect for
him and the time he gave to all of us.
I'm sure he had his reasons....

reply to post by Zaphod58


im not the one on the engine discussion, i could care less where it ended up or how it split, or when.

i also understand that that is the inside of the turbine and not complete, it is still not anywhere near the insides of the pictures of people standing inside the "complete" turbine, matching that thing on the lawn with the giant things in the photos , not even close.

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


And how many of those "giant turbines" are from an RB211-535 that is used on the 757?

The RB211 is used on the 747, 757, 767, and the TU-204. That means you're going to have different sized turbines, because you have different engine sizes. It's pretty disingenuous to show a picture of a 747 turbine, or a 767 turbine, and say they don't match, which is what a lot of sites do.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I wouldn't doubt they do as with many products out there. But vive gone back and forth from site to site over the years from the company websites to random pictures comparing them. The thing barely up to the guys kneecap on the lawn doesn't fit the size of any of them. Inside or out.

But just even a couple glances at corporate jets with the twin engines does! At least to my eyes.

In any event I really don't care anymore it could be a giant blow up Mickey mouse doll, still wont change the fact our government screwed its own people and got away with it, and it wont be the last.

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


And we'll just have to wait and see what the people at Rolls Royce have to say about it. I'll post their response when I get it. But to me that matches perfectly with an RB211-535.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Cade

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by sealing
With a 44 foot tall Rudder that 757 had to be feet off the ground .
The Pentagon is 73 feet tall. So he was under 30 ft. And where's the plane if
his approach was anything but a ground hugging 500 mph straightline ?
I see nothing decending in the video.

edit on 29-11-2012 by sealing because: punctuation

Have a look at this analysis of the last few seconds of data from AA 77's fdr :-

www.journalof911studies.com...

The aircraft clipped the first light pole at a height of approximately 31 feet ( that is about 1000 feet from the Pentagon.) The final radio altitude reading was 4 feet. So in the final 1000 feet, which took a little over a second to cover, it descended some 27 feet.

You have proven that a light pole was clipped, but where is the evidence it was an airplane? The question is, if you can arrange a massive coverup on a global scale that fools MOST of the people [I said "most"] is it impossible to make a light pole fall? The light poles does not explain how the fuselage could penetrate the outer ring while the engines could not penetrate the outer wall. You are accepting two opposing realities, it's called cognitive dissonance. Wake up and cross the two wires in your head.

The point is not that a lightpole was clipped but that several were and their positions left and right required an aircraft with a wingspan like a Boeing 757 ( 124 feet 10 inches ) to accomplish that. The only alternative it seems to me is the silly idea that secret operatives felled them in broad daylight with cars backed up and thousands of people around and no-one saw a thing !

You keep banging on about the engines not penetrating the Pentagon even when you are linked to pictures like these clearly showing engine debris within ;

www.aerospaceweb.org...

So this proves 911 was done by alqueda?

How come there is not a single video of an airplane impacting the pentagon? And again how come the cctv footage from nearby shops was never returned to the rightful owners after the feds took the videos for national security reasons?

And how come people are claiming the planes hitting the twin towers had no windows and a blue logo?

Something has to give eventually. Unless it was in inside-outside job with astronomical odds against this!

And I still have a hard time believing ANY PLANE could penetrate steel-reinfoced concrete walls, regardless of speed of the airplane.

I also have a hard time believing cave dwelling muslim fanatics that only took a few courses in florida were somehow good enough to fly an approach crash course into the very short pentagon. They would have to fly an unbelievably shallow approach to fullfill the mission. I doubt even the best seasoned pilots could do it!

Nothing adds up. Sure the light poles were bent severly. Sure there was SOME WRECKAGE found at the pentagon but how about answering my other questions.

Also people said an aircraft of some size flew over the pentagon, at the same time something else hit the pentagon.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I also have a hard time believing cave dwelling muslim fanatics that only took a few courses in florida were somehow good enough to fly an approach crash course into the very short pentagon.

Only took a few courses? They were all licensed commercial pilots.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


How come you are still believing long ago debunked crap spewed by Dylan Avery, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin et al? Why is that?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

How come there is not a single video of an airplane impacting the pentagon? And again how come the cctv footage from nearby shops was never returned to the rightful owners after the feds took the videos for national security reasons?

And how come people are claiming the planes hitting the twin towers had no windows and a blue logo?

1. Because no one had video cameras pointing ath the pentagon. Do they now??
2. Because they were simple VHS tapes. Why bother.
3. Because many people see different things for the same event. His shirt was red! No his shirt was blue! You can't read too much into one persons 'what I saw'. Look at the wreckage.

reply to post by exponent


Even then the CGI plane doesn't match the object in the photographs. And this straight, low-level approach agrees with where the lights but not the FDR approach or even what the plane witnesses themselves say they saw.

reply to post by Morg234

Even then the CGI plane doesn't match the object in the photographs. And this straight, low-level approach agrees with where the lights but not the FDR approach or even what the plane witnesses themselves say they saw.

And these are things you work out in the planning phase.

Get pictures of the right plane.
Know which light poles to bend and knock down.
Have the FDR match the plan.
Have all the witnesses in the right places with the correct story to tell.

Even high school plays have things choreographed correctly.
How can the government plan out the attack and not get these simple things right?

Originally posted by Morg234
reply to post by exponent

 

Even then the CGI plane doesn't match the object in the photographs.

You mean in the gate camera video? Certainly looks pretty convincing to me, that tail isn't there in any other frames.

And this straight, low-level approach agrees with where the lights but not the FDR approach or even what the plane witnesses themselves say they saw.

Actually it corresponds with what the witnesses say, just not the FDR video that was released. The actual FDR data also corresponds with the impact.

You've been lied to by fraudsters, the truth is quite a lot more boring I'm afraid.