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

a reply to: cestrup

I can't get past this either. If I am to accept that they really did have cheap cameras placed every where, are we then to believe that none of them caught what ever hit the pentagon out side of the gate cams?
Spooky24, which we know what side that user is on, says there is a chart out that shows where they were looking, of course no link, so it couldn't be a case of national security if they have that chart out there for the public right?

originally posted by: spooky24

If you had studied the appendix of the 9/11 report you would know that the focus of the surveillance cameras was on the exits and entrances of the Pentagon all at a downward angle. There is a chart that shows every single camera and the angle of it's field of view. No body knew-except you of course-that an airplane was going to fly into the building and they needed to line up high quality cameras to record it. Almost 9 pages discuss the safety and security of the Pentagon, that, in a bumbling manner, was still based on an intercontinental ballistic missile attack from the former Soviet Union. There is a right way-there is the wrong way-then, of course, there is the Army's way.

If you don't want to study the reports-that is fine. Just don't contradict someone who has as far as it's findings are concerned.

Wow. You really are being a presumptuous tool. You conceitedly presume to tell me again what I have and haven't read? You also appear to be attacking me on a point that I never actually MADE, so I'm not quite sure what you are arrogantly assuming.

Firstly, as it happens, I do own a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report and have read it cover to cover; although the fact that I have done so doesn't actually impact on the thoughts that I expressed about the CCTV at all.

Secondly, I never once mentioned the positioning and angular view of the surveillance cameras; so I'm not sure what you are responding to. I made a point simply about the fact that better quality CCTV systems do exist and are used regularly.

Of course, if you had studied my post, you would know that.

originally posted by: cestrup
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?

Why is it ridiculous to ask a question about the basic premise of an assertion? Unless of course that assertion is inherently ridiculous.

To be clear, what the poster claimed was that it was not a coincidence that the plane struck the bit of the Pentagon that was being strengthened. I'm asking why conspirators would strengthen the bit of the building they were going to attack, but then attack it early.

Alternatively they may have purposely attacked the bit that was being strengthened by people not in on the conspiracy. But why would they do that? Why would it "not be a coincidence"?

Note that this isn't ridicule. It's the simple application of logic. If you are now in a place where even that is construed as an attempt to discredit you, then that suggests you are desperate to protect your 'story' at all costs.

a reply to: gardener

In plane crashes you see on the news, the plane is intact. This is because it came down on landing gear or it's belly, and at a relatively slower speed. When a plane hits a wall or building, or even the ground, in an uncontrolled manner or at cruising speed, there is nothing left. There are plenty of lies about the events of 911.

a reply to: weavty1

Still, not one piece of luggage, a seat , a human bone, very hard to digest

originally posted by: Helious

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.

Not one that has a US signature, flying at the height of a double decker bus. You do realise don't you that the US defense strategy at that time was to expect an attack from "offshore" which is why the military jets were nowhere to be seen.....well except offshore !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Al the conspiracists forget the prime reason why this occurred :

US arrogance

The illusion that being "over there" in the US well away from all the trouble "over here" Europe-Asia landmass makes you indefensible was a ludicrous illusion held by the authorities at the time which is why there has been one hell of an ass covering exercise ever since that plays right into the hands of the conspiracist.

originally posted by: Taajsgpm
a reply to: weavty1

Still, not one piece of luggage, a seat , a human bone, very hard to digest

Why make that silly claim? Do some research here, evidence for that has been posted here many many times before.

a reply to: gardener
Damn shame that the video is "no longer available" would have loved to see what you were referring to so that I could comment. I've tried to search on you tube myself however, no luck!