9/11 Pentagon tapes released
polycounter lvl 18
http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html
the full tapes have just been released and are available to watch on the "Judicial watch" website, after seeing the full tape i still see no airliner,if that speed is realtime then th speed it flew at the pentagon is too damn fast,i saw something move in that video and hit the pentagon but it seems really small.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html
the full tapes have just been released and are available to watch on the "Judicial watch" website, after seeing the full tape i still see no airliner,if that speed is realtime then th speed it flew at the pentagon is too damn fast,i saw something move in that video and hit the pentagon but it seems really small.
Replies
Hawken, if you look closely you can see that the object that hits is no where near the size of even a small fighter jet, let alone a commercial jet. That's all there is of significance in those videos. It proves there was a cover up of some sort.
And lets say, this does "prove there was a cover up," then why exactly were these videos released? That makes no sense.
Sure, they could have doctored the videos to clearly show an airplane, but I guess they did a shitty job on that since you guys still arent convinced...
but whatever. Nothing will convince any of you.
the other nearby locations where there were cameras (if they exist as suggested by the conspiracy theories).
[/ QUOTE ]
There was another camera nearby, mounted on an alien UFO hovering just above the Pentagon (if they exist as suggested by the conspiracy theories).
Nothing will convince any of you.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't believe that the Pentagon has only one shot of this event from a camera that is slow and dirty. And it just so happens, you only see the nose of the object before it's completely explodes in the next frame. This new video convinces me of nothing because it is nothing new. It's scary to believe this is the best video surveillance the Pentagon has. This camera is for recording vehicles that enter the area. I believe there are more cameras, and some off the property that aren't being shown. I really don't understand why they chose to release this new one.
It's not so much a conspiracy, as a feeling that something isn't quite right. I'll believe what I see, not what the government tells me. The government said the aftermath of Katrina was being handled properly, but we saw that it wasn't. The Bush Administration wants to keep the public quiet and out of it's business. If we find they're doing something illegal, it's OUR fault for paying attention.
So yeah, the truth would convince me. And if the truth is a 757, let's see it.
[ QUOTE ]
the other nearby locations where there were cameras (if they exist as suggested by the conspiracy theories).
[/ QUOTE ]
There was another camera nearby, mounted on an alien UFO hovering just above the Pentagon (if they exist as suggested by the conspiracy theories).
[/ QUOTE ]
Common... we all know that UFO's don't exist... they are just government time machines.
It's scary to believe this is the best video surveillance the Pentagon has.
[/ QUOTE ]
you'd be scared if you saw how shitty the FBI's and CIA's computers are! after seeing how far behind they are on technology, it doesn't seem too far fetched to me that they only had one piece of shit camera that saw the explosion.
they probably had a couple of close ones, but im sure they dont want to release a high definition video of something that's pretty damn touchy.
I think that makes it worth asking if this other stuff are also lies.
and WTC7? was built over a electrical transformer station and had been on fire for over 7hours before collasping. how come no one ever brings that up when saying it was 'demolished'? i learn more about what really happened with these things by watching an hour of the Discovery/History Channel than in 100+pages of these threads.
sometimes people just expect too much. not everything is going to go perfect to dispell every conspiracy. even in the longest and clearest footage of the JKF assassination JFK's head passes behind a sign for the half second when he gets shot.
if it was a missle, presumably from a shoulder mounted launcher, that hit the Pentagon, a reinforced military structure, how did such a missle leave such a large hole?
What they entirely failed to note, is that as metals heat up, they become more ductile - ie. more likely to bend and buckle, being weakened.
I can't remember whose argument it was, but it's so entirely bollocks I can't believe I didn't think of it at the time - since when does steel need to *melt entirely* before its integrity is lost? It's not like it stays absolutely rigid right up to 1500 degrees at which point it just bursts into liquid form!
Minor derailment, but I didn't want to resurrect an old thread
even in the longest and clearest footage of the JKF assassination JFK's head passes behind a sign for the half second when he gets shot.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1596619659201820052&q=jfk+secret+service
Asherr, no one ever claimed a hand held rocket. You need to read up on the more convincing conspiracies before attacking them.
and WTC7? was built over a electrical transformer station and had been on fire for over 7hours before collasping. how come no one ever brings that up when saying it was 'demolished'? i learn more about what really happened with these things by watching an hour of the Discovery/History Channel than in 100+pages of these threads.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I have read the FEMA report on it. Have you? You know what FEMA says, no plausable explanation for a collapse due to fire, more research required. Maybe if you read primary sources instead of watching the fucking TV you would know what you're talking about.
*edit
bah! i knew i should have just stayed out of this thread.
Bush is evil! the US government planned and orchestrated 9-11! there now no one will argue against me.
The owner of the building said on national TV that they demolished it. Then 2 years later he came back and said that "he meant firefighters", of which there were none of in the building according to the FEMA report, and finally, the US State Department uses the FEMA report's conclusion that the buildings burned down as a basis for "debunking" the demolishments, even though the FEMA report concludes no such thing.
The FEMA report does give an explanation for how the building may have collapsed due to fire. Here is the digest version.
If there was damage to an area that was seemingly unharmed, a pipe that was carrying oil from the generators may have broken, and if the oil tanks were both full, and fully preasurized, and if the rate of the leak was so that the oil wouldn't burn out too fast, then maybe oil could have pumped onto the floor and pooled around the support strut that was seen to fail, but only if the fire retardant on the strut was damaged (and fell off) or if the strut had some manufacturing defect.
I'm totally serious. This is what the State Department calls the "conclusion" of the FEMA report. The actual conclusion is what I said above.
I was interested, and so I researched it myself. I wouldn't call myself a conspiracy theorist, but I think the facts in this matter are open and shut and beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Sarcasm aside, I agree that we're not being told the whole story. Based on how well 9/11 has served our government's apparent "plans", I can't believe it was entirely coincidental. But who knows. I can only hope that at some point in my life time, I will know the "truth", whether or not I know it's the truth at the time.
The only story you are not being told is that our government reacted like a bunch of bumbling idiots durring and after the attack. Our governments plans were not to attack Iraq, that was totaly up to Bush and his angry childish cabinet. I've worked in the Pentagon for nearly 5 years now, and 90% of everyone I talk to disagrees with our actions. They just do thier jobs like everyone else, totaly disconnected from the ground war. They can't tell you what they don't know as well. They've doubled the death toll, oil prices are skyrocketing and America has no fatih in it's won government. They just put on plastic smiles till the next prez has to clean up his fucking mess.
Asherr is right, the building was already evactuated, and they let it burn. They had limited resources to douse a whole building and rescue people from the towers.
Frankly you give our government WAY to much credit with the whole conspiracy thing. It's just a bunch of angry old men, thats it. Nothing else.
I've also seen missile hit videos, and they hit too fast for a normal camera to capture. The plane had been falling out of the sky for miles picking up speed. Of course it's going to be a fast hit. I was in a building in Alexandria at the time. I felt the explosion and the windows shook from 3-4 miles away.
The pentagon runs on 3 year old desktop PC systems, what makes you think they have more footage than this. All the super tech crap came AFTER the hit. We had no reason to be pointing a high tech high speed camera at that specific spot at the time. Again, way too much fookin credit there.
Close the damned thread.
I AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT STRUCTURAL SPECIALISTS BECAUSE THEY SAY THAT COLLAPSE BY FIRE WAS HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
Asherr: Yeah, at the time the firefighters had better things to do. I read almost all the 9/11 interviews from firefighters (of which there are more than a hundred, I think) too. My point is that when Larry Silverstein says that he ordered the withdrawl of firefighters from WTC 7, he couldn't have because there never were any firefighters in WTC 7.
Our government has been caught lying to our faces to get what it wants (WMDs? hello?), and there's plenty of crazy corruption and double-dealing in the political game. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to question that same government's explanation of such a huge and controversial event. I'm not saying I think they're lying, but I do believe it's possible they haven't told us everything. It's possible. That's it.
Happy?
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
FEMA report on WTC 7 collapse:
"...due to lack of water, no manual firefighting were taken by FDNY" (pg. 5-24)
"Although the total diesel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothosis has only a low chance of occurance. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue." (pg. 5-31)
"The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest... Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any record of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings." (pg. 5-1)
Seems like your version differs considerably from the accepted government version of the story Downsizer. What are you, some kind of conspiracy nut?
Let's say that the impact into the Pentagon was not made by a 757. That's fine, but forget about the Pentagon for a moment. Instead, give me a plausible explanation for what happened to the *real* American Airlines flight 77 out of Dulles. It didn't land as intended at LAX, that much is obvious. It didn't crash elsewhere in the continental United States, that is also apparent. So, where has the government hidden the real plane? And what has the government done with the passengers, including Barbara Olson, wife of the U.S. Solicitor General? If the government staged the crash site, they would only have done so if the real passenger jet was safely and irretrievably out of sight, which means this had to have been planned from the start. Where oh where has Flight 77 gone?
So, where has the government hidden the real plane?
[/ QUOTE ]
You can't quite make it out but oh it's in there somewhere Tom.
Bad shop yes i know < .<
it was a plane dammit! i know that no conspiracy theory supporter will read it and take the overwhelming evidence into consideration, but at least they tried.
However even he admits the video cannot be taken as evidence either way.
EDIT: He also needs to fix his links to really start covincing hardcores.
"this is entirely subjective and the image quality from the released surveillance camera is not good enough to form a factual opinion."
get them to build a full scale replica of the Pentagon and fly a remote controlled plane into one section and a missle into another.