Newly released, never-before aired, Pentagon post-impact video shows NO plane

a reply to: gardener

Am I seeing things correctly? Right near the start of this video when the camera zooms in it appears that a fire truck is actually "backed" into the burning, smoking hole.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

They saw FBI badges being shoved in their faces.

originally posted by: UngaBungga
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

They saw FBI badges being shoved in their faces.

Does everybody go on the internet and create lies if told to by the FBI?

And are the FBInow in on it? I guess they need to be added to the list

The majority of the smoke and fire is not coming from the building but from the generator that was fenced in just feet from the wall. The generator was there to aid in the RE-ENFORCEMENT and BLAST PROOFING of that one wall that used in the 911 attacks.

Yes you heard it right, the wedge that was allegedly hit on 911 was under construction to make it bomb and explosion proof.

Not a coincidence.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Are you saying that they were upgrading the walls so the missile wouldn't damage it but then they launched 9/11 too early?

It's obvious a plane either remotely flown or under pilot control crashed into the Pentagon. All the evidence you really need to look at to verify this is the downed poles miles away that sync to the flight path.

What is not so obvious however is why proper video of the approach and impact was not released, to say that it doesn't exist is silly. It may not now but it did at one time. Why the plane hit the Pentagon in the least populated area due to construction that also happened to be the most beneficial for political and financial hijinx. Could it be coincidence? Yes, is that likely? Who knows.

I have also seen pretty good evidence that the the black box of that plane had been tampered with and it's flight data altered so there is that as well.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

Maybe they were planning on something hitting that portion of the building and trying to minimize damage. But we know your tactics, make anything outside of the narrative silly. But this is a conspiracy site and we've all read the official reports. You aren't any smarter because it's all you believe and recite. Most of us heard the story and question it. Most of us wonder why there's no puncture holes from the massive ENGINES outside of the 16 ft hole where a 757 allegedly buried itself. Most of us wonder why it took YEARS for photos to surface of engine parts and such. Not you though, you're here to try and make anyone look stupid for wondering about these anamolies. Why is that? Why does it concern you so much that people question this EVENT that it draws you every time to ridicule?

What is not so obvious however is why proper video of the approach and impact was not released, to say that it doesn't exist is silly.

Simple-Video surveillance cameras are not movie cameras. Both mine run at 4 fps and that is much better than the ones installed around the Pentagon-they were 2fps. All they do is frame and mark time just like in 10,000s of convenience stores in North America. The still frames caught very little and what they did catch is in the National Archives and has been studied by both the media and academia and they show what you would expect from 2fps cameras-blurry images.

Try Again.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco

originally posted by: UngaBungga
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

They saw FBI badges being shoved in their faces.

Does everybody go on the internet and create lies if told to by the FBI?

:

Yes...If you want to be a really good drone...you do!

Simple-Video surveillance cameras are not movie cameras. Both mine run at 4 fps and that is much better than the ones installed around the Pentagon-they were 2fps. All they do is frame and mark time just like in 10,000s of convenience stores in North America. The still frames caught very little and what they did catch is in the National Archives and has been studied by both the media and academia and they show what you would expect from 2fps cameras-blurry images.

Try Again.

What makes you truly believe that the Pentagon would actually protect a trillion dollar building with security camera's that couldn't film anything faster than 2fps? Because they said so or what exactly?

a reply to: spooky24

That is all fine and dandy if we are to believe that only TWO camera's caught the "plane" that hit the pentagon.
What about the tapes that were confiscated from all the businesses around the pentagon?
What about all the cameras with different view points from the roof of the pentagon?
You really believe that only two cameras caught the approach of the plane?

Of course the national archives has the pictures, I bet BIN has some pictures too.
Those two are about equal sources since neither can ever be linked on ATS
STOP BRING UP THE ARCHIVE IF YOU CAN'T SHOW ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS
Everything you say about the archive is hearsay until you can prove it is there and says that to the rest of us

So why don't you try again

a reply to: spooky24

Simple-Video surveillance cameras are not movie cameras. Both mine run at 4 fps and that is much better than the ones installed around the Pentagon-they were 2fps. All they do is frame and mark time just like in 10,000s of convenience stores in North America. The still frames caught very little and what they did catch is in the National Archives and has been studied by both the media and academia and they show what you would expect from 2fps cameras-blurry images.

Try Again.

You are implying that the Pentagon and surrounding area, one of the most heavily guarded areas of the United States did not, could not or would not have had a surveillance or security camera capable of capturing an object as large as a commercial airliner as it approached and subsequently hit the building?

Thats ludacris.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Just a side note here while we're talking about showing things...but can anyone show those businesses and other locations with film taken that day actually showed anything? Were they pointed in the right direction, at the right elevation to catch the split second blur of something crossing the frame at several hundred miles an hour?

I'm interested to see anything which may have been held back. I really am. Until then, there is an official record of photographs of the Pentagon crash site and it does show plane parts, body parts and all the rest of the gore and mess one expects to see as a mass murder scene.

Prosecution Exhibits
Defense Team Exhibits
First 100 Docket Entries to the case
Balance of Docket Entries
Home Link for United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui
Transcript Sections by Cryptome

The above is the only trial to date which ran the distance to verdict on the 9/11 attacks. Among both Prosecution and Defense are over 1200 photos, images, pieces of evidence and documents that relate directly to that morning and what led to it. Some may say it's not real, it's not valid or it's just more of the conspiracy.

The point I tend to note is that it was an open and actively fought trial with a defense who could and did bring up what was legally supported or supportable to bring up. It's also a record they put online for perpetuity, as a reference, for things much like this.

I dunno what happened that day in many details or specifics. No one does...and it makes very serious questions. We do know some of it though, and some is just sitting for anyone to look up and read. The links above contain a good portion of what exists from sworn testimony in a proper court.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

You do raise a good point that the surrounding businesses may not have had a good POV of what ever came in but we will never know since the they were all taken.
All it would take tho is one camera in the right direction with 1 frame of the jet in view and it would be put to rest.

Until then we are left with a handful of pictures of this massive commercial jet that just crashed into the side of the building.

a reply to: Sremmos80

They did seem to have some real bad luck...having picked the only side of 5 which had the initial reinforcement and rebuilding so it couldn't go down like the African Embassies. One of the other 4 sides? Well... For how bad things went that morning, there are a few ways they could have gone much much worse and didn't. There is that...

I'm one of those without any real fundamental issues about the planes into buildings and ground scenario, since evidence, in my view, supports it. Just about everything else is a big question mark though. Far too much before and after (The Patriot Act sure wasn't written on Sept 12... it'd been waiting for awhile) to ever think that goofy commission "answered" anything but the call to cover-up. I just can't quite be positive to my own thinking, what is being covered up and from how many directions. A few BIG rats could be in that pile by the end.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Well I don't think they just chose the wrong side, not sure how much of a coincidence it was that it was also the budget office that was hit. I think I have seen you in few of the missing, not stolen, 2.3 trillion threads but don't recall your stance on ita

Not sure if the renovations were a sort of foreshadowing, that they knew that section was about to be blown up at a designated time and wanted the damage to stay local?
How much could they have got done post 911 if the pentagon was fully out of commish, which seems like it could have been done rather easy if the plane had just stayed off the ground on the approach and went over into the other side where the big dogs hung out.

I agree that something with wings and an engine and wheels hit the pentagon, rather it was flight 77 is still up in the air to me, the evidence does not point to a boeing commercial jet 100% without a shadow of a doubt.
Sure it is consistent with a boeing, but not conclusive

a reply to: Sremmos80

Well I don't think they just chose the wrong side, not sure how much of a coincidence it was that it was also the budget office that was hit. I think I have seen you in few of the missing, not stolen, 2.3 trillion threads but don't recall your stance on ita

Well, I don't really know. Federal Spending doesn't support the idea of 2.3 trillion at one time, and in one budget year. However, if he was referring to money lost or ..misdirected.. over an extended period? The degree of smoke and mirrors we've seen since 2001 and particularly in the last several years leaves me wondering how much we've always been snowed on BIG things, while they've just gotten sloppy lately. Cheney and Rumsfeld both date to Nixon and/or beyond for power at the upper levels of Washington. Extended period for those guys can have relative meaning. Lets say I'd LOVE to see a real audit of the Pentagon. Just one would do. We'd never need another.

The thing is...the Pentagon was most likely an 'aww crap' fall back IMO, since that plane was running late through delays even they couldn't foresee and the Pentagon wasn't the best target by any stretch that morning. Especially, that morning. No mistake, whatever anyone wants to say, for timing.

Congress was in full session that morning. That put that whole BRANCH of the United States Government at risk. The first family (both daughters and Laura Bush as I recall) and Cheney were both at the White House. If a good deal of speculation I've seen in other areas is accurate, that would have been a body blow to the nation and Executive Branch. Bush would have survived, but we can all agree, he wasn't made of the stuff of great leaders or men. I don't think he'd have fared well from that loss. 2/3 branches gone or seriously degraded in less than a morning..and SOME weird fixation with the World Trade Center as some big nexus of financial activity. (never understood targeting that at all and I recall the one from 1993 too, but then, cultural differences are good and bad).

I'm just not sure if Bush was more like FDR or Forrest Gump with an evil #2.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Not sure what to think about having the pentagon as just a fall back plan... Unless they knew the defense of one of most important buildings was going to be absent and that was part of the fall back plan.
I guess they could have known about the war games and figured that would cause confusion, which it did.
I would say the pentagon was a primary target and part of the planning from jump street, as well as hitting the side that was hit.
I would say the extra loop around shows that was the main target as he used that loop to lower his elevation.

You do bring up a good point that if they went at congress then it would of been much worse, but I guess that would just make to much sense to hit that target, unless you think 77 was headed there and not the pentagon.

Oh and bush was Forrest Gump with an evil number 2 imo

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Nice post wrabbit.

How dare you bring actual logic into a "truther" thread? (Sarcasm)

You pretty much summed up pages of dribble with this one post of yours.

I wish I could star it a hundred times.

originally posted by: Bassago
reply to post by Mamatus

 

Planes are remarkably fragile........ Slam one into the ground and all you have left is a black scorched spot and some unidentifiable debris.

I'm not and have never bought the "plane" crash into the Pentagon budget office story. When a plane crashes you have debris, wheels, engines, something.

Surely not? You mean that it doesn't all get crushed into dust leaving nothing but a skid mark on the ground like the guy you quoted said? And what he said sounded so plausable too, the evidence he gave was so inconclusive, no, wait...