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

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Making any boeing into a drone cannot be that difficult. It is simply a matter of upscaling and modifying various accessories. You erroneously make it sound as though it is impossible eventhough the evidence contradicts you.

Sorry, are you an aircraft engineer or are we expected to take the opinions of a layperson on how hard retrofitting a commercial airliner for remote control would be?

It's a pretty huge assumption that it's just modifying. An F1 car is just a modified road car. Do you think you could build one?

Originally posted by exponent

How many eyewitnesses claimed 'no windows and a blue logo'? Why would a military cargo plane even be used? That means the whole crew who prepared such a flight and worked in the delivery and control of it would have to be in on the conspiracy.

As far as I know both cargo and military planes have no or few windows.

It was probably a militarised boeing and the people around WTC took it as "cargo plane".

You're just grasping at early and inaccurate reports in the heat of the moment in order to try and insert a conspiracy where there is absolutely no need for one. Even if we accepted your premise that they used cargo planes at the WTC, why wouldn't they use a cargo plane at The Pentagon?

Why would they have to use the same airplanes at the pentagon?

Since no one saw a passenger plane hit the pentagon, and no video footage of such exists to this day, it is more than reasonable to assume NO PASSENGER PLANE hit the pentagon. They planted some debri there, felled some light poles during the early morning hours...and then bang a missle from no where appeared.

This is my version of the truth. Can I prove it? No! But my intuition says false flag.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Making any boeing into a drone cannot be that difficult. It is simply a matter of upscaling and modifying various accessories. You erroneously make it sound as though it is impossible eventhough the evidence contradicts you.

Sorry, are you an aircraft engineer or are we expected to take the opinions of a layperson on how hard retrofitting a commercial airliner for remote control would be?

It's a pretty huge assumption that it's just modifying. An F1 car is just a modified road car. Do you think you could build one?

If nasa could land people on the moon back in the late 60s-early 70s, then sure as hell they could modify conventional airplanes into remote controlled variants. I don't have to be airplane engineer to have some basic common sense.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Since no one saw a passenger plane hit the pentagon

Apart from all the eyewitnesses....

They planted some debri there,

care to explain where they got the passengers on board flight 77 from, and how they were strapped into seats and the seats and bodies smuggled in? Care to explain how they carried in 757 engines and undercarriage?

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Since no one saw a passenger plane hit the pentagon

Apart from all the eyewitnesses....

They planted some debri there,

care to explain where they got the passengers on board flight 77 from, and how they were strapped into seats and the seats and bodies smuggled in? Care to explain how they carried in 757 engines and undercarriage?

edit on 14-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

No passengers were ever found at the pentagon. Only one engine was found and it was from a much smaller plane. And how difficult could it be to sprinkle some debri from another plane crash the ntsb had in their collection?

What eyewitnesses are you talking about? You mean the few scared shills speaking? Give them a ben franklin and tell them repeat "........................" ok we have enough now. Show over!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
As far as I know both cargo and military planes have no or few windows.

It was probably a militarised boeing and the people around WTC took it as "cargo plane".

Some do, some don't, again why would they use a cargo plane? It just adds to complexity, cost and the chance of being discovered. Isn't it more parsimonious to believe that a few eyewitnesses (who were in fact located quite a long distance away) made a mistake trying to identify a plane moving at 500mph+?

Why would they have to use the same airplanes at the pentagon?

Why wouldn't they? You don't plan 4 identical scenarios and then pick a bunch of different solutions, that once again increases complexity, which increases your exposure. Both terrorists and conspirators know that the simplest and most straightforward plan is usually the best.

Since no one saw a passenger plane hit the pentagon, and no video footage of such exists to this day, it is more than reasonable to assume NO PASSENGER PLANE hit the pentagon. They planted some debri there, felled some light poles during the early morning hours...and then bang a missle from no where appeared.

This is my version of the truth. Can I prove it? No! But my intuition says false flag.

Except there are witness accounts from literally in front of the plane milliseconds from impact. There are people who were working at the site who ran and dived out of the way.

Where have you got this bizarre idea that there are no witnesses? There are something like 25 that specifically mentioned a passenger / AA jet.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
No passengers were ever found at the pentagon.

Passengers were found still strapped into their seats. Even personal effects such as wedding rings were returned to family members.

Only one engine was found and it was from a much smaller plane. And how difficult could it be to sprinkle some debri from another plane crash the ntsb had in their collection?

Only engine parts were found. Are you now saying the NTSB was in on it? You realise that you're involving a bunch of civilians with no motivation to lie right?

It's telling that you immediately decide any actual witnesses are 'shills', despite the fact you are quite happy to quote witness accounts when they support your point. Tell me, what logic are you using to deduce that they are shilling other than the fact they disagree with you?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
If nasa could land people on the moon back in the late 60s-early 70s, then sure as hell they could modify conventional airplanes into remote controlled variants. I don't have to be airplane engineer to have some basic common sense.

Actually in order to claim that you can easily convert aircraft to remote control use you do have to be an aircraft engineer.

Boy I hope you don't apply for these jobs! You're going to be confused when you get the rejection letter!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

No passengers were ever found at the pentagon.

Very wrong, why ignore the fact about the flight 77 passengers being matched?
www.historycommons.org...

Only one engine was found and it was from a much smaller plane

Wrong again, it is from a Rb211... just have a look at it. As you know nothing about aircraft, I suggest you do some research on the different parts of a jet engine.

And how difficult could it be to sprinkle some debri from another plane crash the ntsb had in their collection?

Very difficult, as you also have the id numbers from some components from flight 77, also you have hundreds of kilo's of undercarriage etc.

What eyewitnesses are you talking about?

urbanlegends.about.com...

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


It's not impossible to do, but with a hydraulic/mechanical control system, which all Boeing planes up until the 787 use, it's much harder to do than simply "scaling up parts" and installing them. You have to have some system to physically move the control column and control cables. It can be done, but you're going to have that many more people added to an already bloated conspiracy that might talk.

It's pretty easy to work out that this CCTV footage has been tampered with.

I could list a few reasons, but one easy to spot for those not technically video minded, is the fact as soon as the missile nose comes into shot, it is then visible in the same position like the video is paused for a second, and then the next shot you just see the explosion and nothing hitting the building.

Now debunkers will roll out their fps argument, but if the video was running at a speed which omitted the last part of the video prior to impact, then the missile nose part of the video would not have been in view for the length of time it was. It always puzzled me why people did not notice this obvious editing mistake!

BTW, I am referring to the actual pentagon CCTV footage, just to clarify.

reply to post by SkuzzleButt


Your point??

Originally posted by stirling
If you still think 9/11 was a terrorist act.......

OF COURSE it was a "TERRORIST ACT"....the people of the USA were terrorized!
The only question is: Who was (is) the real Terrorist?