Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 8 votes

911 Pentagon Video Footage


  • Please log in to reply
3292 replies to this topic

#2296    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,601 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 01 October 2012 - 04:43 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 01 October 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

And a fourth.


now I KNOW I'm right........(even though I knew before)..but confirmation is nice...

cheers

:lol:

Posted Image


#2297    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,601 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:18 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 October 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

That one image taken from the footage depicts a B-757 in the background.


I'm sorry but people aren't stupid....(not about that so-called poor excuse of an image, anyway)



Quote

On another note, how many air disasters are supported by video evidence?

this wasn't an air disaster, as such...it would be described an act of war...at ground level, in a very public place, on the US mainland.


.

Quote

There was no way the U.S. government could have pulled off a 9/11-style operation and not get caught.

I agree....and I hope you realise that I don't support the Inside Job Theory.....but I do think things have been covered up

and even though it would be hard...I think that the US government should 'come clean'....many people are drawn to the

IJ conspiracy theory because they see decrepancies and those discrepancies haven't been answered.

One of those discrepancies is the lack of visual evidence of the impact at the Pentagon.....and the fobbing of with the

ridiculous CCTV from the traffic cam.....


.

Edited by bee, 01 October 2012 - 05:23 PM.

Posted Image


#2298    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:50 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 01 October 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

No explanation for explosions in the basement just seconds before the impact

BR, I hate to follow you regarding touching basis with me about my analysis of the ross and furlong paper.

Are you willing to get into that debate about my theory on why there is a 14 and 17 second time discrepancy or not?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#2299    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 8,254 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:06 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 01 October 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Rational argument gets lip service, but that's about it.

No explanation for explosions in the basement just seconds before the impact, no explanation for absence of necessary aircraft debris at the Pentagon, but LOTSA out of context photos, and complete reliance upon the testimony of entities with reputations as deceivers.  All this is presented as some sort of rational argument.

Showing Sisyphus what futile is really all about.
And hiding all the time is the truth? stand up


#2300    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:20 PM

View Postbee, on 01 October 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

I'm sorry but people aren't stupid....(not about that so-called poor excuse of an image, anyway)

The details are clearly evident to those of us who know what to look for in the video. Besides, the B-757 has been a favorite aircraft of mine for decades.

Quote

...this wasn't an air disaster, as such...it would be described an act of war...at ground level, in a very public place, on the US mainland.

It was an act of war, but still an airplane crash just the same. You have B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon, along with black box data and even radar data, not to mention eyewitness accounts from the C-130 and observers on the ground and of course, the image taken from the video camera along with the announcement by American Airlines on the loss of American 77.

A check of FAA records, along with those of the Boeing Aircraft company, Rolls Royce, and of American Airlines, will confirm that the airliner which crashed at the Pentagon was in fact, American 77. You can throw away the video and still there is more than enough evidence confirming the airliner was American 77, however, there are those who still claim that a cruise missile struck the Pentagon.

Quote

One of those discrepancies is the lack of visual evidence of the impact at the Pentagon.....and the fobbing of with the ridiculous CCTV from the traffic cam.....

Video cameras are not required to identify the airliner was American 77. There are video cameras of American 11 and United 175 striking the WTC buildings and yet  you can still hear 9/11 conspiracist saying that no aircraft struck those buildings  or that the aircraft were switched aircraft and flown under remote controlled into those buildings without accounting for the original aircraft and passengers. We have videos of American 11 and United 175 and still, there those who are just looking for an argument for the sake of having an argument despite the overwhelming evidence.


.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 October 2012 - 06:23 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2301    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,506 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 01 October 2012 - 08:44 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 01 October 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

BR, I hate to follow you regarding touching basis with me about my analysis of the ross and furlong paper.

Are you willing to get into that debate about my theory on why there is a 14 and 17 second time discrepancy or not?

My current understanding of your critique of Ross & Furlong is that they might be right, and they might be wrong.

If they are wrong, it is because the radar sweep time interval is not precise enough, and that potential inaccuracy allows for the 17 or 14 second discrepancy.

Is that accurate?


#2302    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 8,254 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 01 October 2012 - 08:47 PM

View PostThe New Richard Nixon, on 01 October 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

And hiding all the time is the truth? stand up
Come on


#2303    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 October 2012 - 08:49 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 01 October 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

My current understanding of your critique of Ross & Furlong is that they might be right, and they might be wrong.

If they are wrong, it is because the radar sweep time interval is not precise enough, and that potential inaccuracy allows for the 17 or 14 second discrepancy.

Is that accurate?

I have two computers in my house, a stove, a microwave, two cable boxes, a cell phone, a land line, a radio alarmclock, and a wall mounted clock.  With the exception of the two cable boxes every single clock shows a different time, as does the time in my car.

Could the apparent time discrepancy be as simple as something like that?


#2304    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,506 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 01 October 2012 - 08:54 PM

Absolutely Boo.  No doubt.  And as I understand it, Raptor has already acknowledged that his is a "maybe" type scenario.

But I have a hunch you and he are much more interested in impeaching the testimony of Rodriguez and others than in getting down to the real nitty gritty.


#2305    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 October 2012 - 08:57 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 01 October 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

But I have a hunch you and he are much more interested in impeaching the testimony of Rodriguez and others than in getting down to the real nitty gritty.

It has already been proven that Rodriguez was not telling the whole truth.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2306    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 8,254 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 01 October 2012 - 08:59 PM

If you want the truth why do you run and hide?


#2307    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,506 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:22 PM

Why do you always offer single sentence, void of substance cheerleading that are usually ad hominem?


#2308    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:26 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 01 October 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

Why do you always offer single sentence, void of substance cheerleading that are usually ad hominem?

Why do you continue in your attempts to deceive people?

You mention molten steel flowing from the corner of the WTC building and molten steel in the rubble and then you turn around and claim that temperatures were too low to weaken steel. :whistle:

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 October 2012 - 09:29 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2309    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 8,254 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:30 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 01 October 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

Why do you always offer single sentence, void of substance cheerleading that are usually ad hominem?
Answer the question


#2310    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 01 October 2012 - 09:42 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 01 October 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Absolutely Boo.  No doubt.  And as I understand it, Raptor has already acknowledged that his is a "maybe" type scenario.

But I have a hunch you and he are much more interested in impeaching the testimony of Rodriguez and others than in getting down to the real nitty gritty.

Of course, because the Ross and Furlong paper itself used Rodriguez's testimony in conjunction with their analysis of the seismic data to come to the conclusion that explosions indeed happened before the planes struck.

If one is wrong then the other cannot hold up to scruitiny.

IT IS THAT SIMPLE!

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users