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.


* * * - - 2 votes

Why won't govt explain this mystery?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
445 replies to this topic

#1    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,156 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 January 2012 - 01:14 PM

Besides London, England, I doubt there is anyplace else on earth with more surveillance cameras than the Pentagon.

For years now the debate has raged as to whether or not a 757 crashed there on 11 September.

It is within the power of the government to explain this mystery, to set the record straight, by releasing any and all surveillance video records showing the final seconds of Flight 77, yet it refuses to do so.  Just a few vague frames of a parking lot camera.

The reason that it will not release these records would seem to be that the intense and bright light of public scrutiny would reveal the fraud there that so many suspect.


#2    George Ford

George Ford

    Shadow Slayer

  • Member
  • 2,707 posts
  • Joined:02 May 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sunderland UK

  • "Quickly, I require your fingers."

Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:23 PM

If it was fake then why did they make such a mess of it all? Is it true there were hardly any parts of 575, when there should have been tons?

“Extraordinary claims require extraoardinary evidence”

~
Carl Sagan

#3    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 7,991 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 05 January 2012 - 04:58 PM

If a car travels at high speed and crashes, no much of car, same with anything really.


#4    SurgeTechnologies

SurgeTechnologies

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,238 posts
  • Joined:21 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Not disclosed

  • "Why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction"

Posted 05 January 2012 - 05:14 PM

Erix that is based purely on the speed of vehicle. Even at supersonic speeds no aircraft on this earth would vaporise ( i mean entirely with engines and all ), except if it burns when entering orbit ( we don't have such airplanes ), but that was not the case. I know offical lie is a airplane but i think it was more of bomb or a missile already planted there before event took place. I've seen videos of planes falling almost directly to ground, with big fireball and all, and even then there were lots of pieces big ones, small ones... None what so ever at pentagon. And yes Babe Ruth i agree with you, they know what those cameras filmed and they can't release any videos at all.. Freakin' mind games..

" Technology has exceeded our humanity. "

#5    grendals_bane

grendals_bane

    Master Procrastinator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,058 posts
  • Joined:03 Dec 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • I have a great mind to believe in Christianity for the mere pleasure of fancying I may be damned. - Byron

Posted 05 January 2012 - 06:08 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 January 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Besides London, England, I doubt there is anyplace else on earth with more surveillance cameras than the Pentagon.

For years now the debate has raged as to whether or not a 757 crashed there on 11 September.

It is within the power of the government to explain this mystery, to set the record straight, by releasing any and all surveillance video records showing the final seconds of Flight 77, yet it refuses to do so.  Just a few vague frames of a parking lot camera.

The reason that it will not release these records would seem to be that the intense and bright light of public scrutiny would reveal the fraud there that so many suspect.

Why would the Pentagon fake the plane crash for?

"There is no such thing as good and evil, just various shades of grey."

#6    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,156 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 January 2012 - 06:36 PM

We can only speculate why they would fake the plane crash, and there is plenty to speculate with.  Just one example is the missing $2.3 trillion from Pentagon coffers, which Congress was investigating, and about which Rumsfeld testified on 10 September.

It is interesting that the place in the Pentagon where the audit was being conducted is the place where the explosions took place.


#7    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,133 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 05 January 2012 - 06:48 PM

View PostNuke_em, on 05 January 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Erix that is based purely on the speed of vehicle. Even at supersonic speeds no aircraft on this earth would vaporise

Explain this:



Granted the circumstances are slightly different than 9/11, but in the end, we have an aircraft traveling around 500mph impacting into a reinforced concrete wall.

Quote

( i mean entirely with engines and all )
So the landing gear and the engine parts and the fuselage debris and the human remains were what, exactly...?

Quote

I know offical lie is a airplane but i think it was more of bomb or a missile already planted there before event took place. I've seen videos of planes falling almost directly to ground, with big fireball and all, and even then there were lots of pieces big ones, small ones...
There';s a difference between "falling from the sky" and "being flown into the ground / building as fast as possible", you DO know that, right?





Cz

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#8    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,133 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 05 January 2012 - 07:08 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 January 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

We can only speculate why they would fake the plane crash, and there is plenty to speculate with.  Just one example is the missing $2.3 trillion from Pentagon coffers, which Congress was investigating, and about which Rumsfeld testified on 10 September.

Why don't we look at what Rumsfeld ACTUALLY said, instead of relying on biased conspiracy believer interpretations:

Quote

We must develop and build weapons to deter those new threats. We must rebuild our infrastructure, which is in a very serious state of disrepair. And we must assure that the noble cause of military service remains the high calling that will attract the very best.

All this costs money. It costs more than we have. It demands agility -- more than today's bureaucracy allows. And that means we must recognize another transformation: the revolution in management, technology and business practices. Successful modern businesses are leaner and less hierarchical than ever before. They reward innovation and they share information. They have to be nimble in the face of rapid change or they die. Business enterprises die if they fail to adapt, and the fact that they can fail and die is what provides the incentive to survive. But governments can't die, so we need to find other incentives for bureaucracy to adapt and improve.

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us.
-Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 10, 2001 [SOURCE]

Please point out exactly where Rumsfeld said the money was "missing from the Pentagon coffers".

Oh, wait... You can't.

Why?

Because he DIDN'T SAY THAT.

He said that there were 2.3 trillion in transactions that can't be tracked in the old systems they were using, systems that in some cases were incompatible with each other.

I know from your stance on UA93 and AA77 that direct evidence means little to you, but here's more:

Quote

WASHINGTON, April 3, 2002 – When you hear the term "reforming the military financial management system," chances are you just turn off.

The clich is a bunch of policy weenies sitting around discussing esoteric points of spread sheets or flow charts.

The problem with the clich is it allows people to ignore a severe problem that has plagued the Defense Department for years, said Tina Jonas, deputy undersecretary of defense for financial management.

The department's financial management system is a mess and reforming it could channel billions of taxpayers' dollars to constructive pursuits, she said. To give an idea of the scope of the problem, Jonas noted DoD in fiscal 2001 paid $40 million in late fees alone.

"Why should we do that?" she asked. "It's dumb. Let's get our act together to pay on time and use that $40 million on something else."

In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.

Reform is more than just changing an audit system, but also the way the bureaucracy works. If the department were a business, Jonas said, it would dwarf the world's largest private firms. DoD employs more than 3 million people; it has more than 600 facilities around the world and an annual budget of $370 billion; and it maintains more than $1 trillion in assets, she remarked.
[SOURCE]

Again, I'm not expecting that Rumsfeld's actual words in the actual context in which they were actually said will change your mind, but hopefully someone else who reads this will at least stop to think before buying into the half-truths, deliberate misinterpretations and outright lies put out there by some of the "Believers".





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 05 January 2012 - 07:12 PM.

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#9    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,156 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 January 2012 - 07:12 PM

Cz

Do you know the purpose of the test with the Phantom into the wall?

For the sake of any readers who are not, the purpose was to test the wall, which was a section of the wall making up the Containment Building for a nuclear reactor.  Yes, the wall passed the test.

No, the wall at the Pentagon was not built to the standards of a containment building for a nuclear reactor.

I'm not sure how much you have studied the details of the strike at the Pentagon, and I'm not sure if you are familiar with the sizes of the landing gear assemblies and engines on a 757, but the pictures shown by the government of the debris inside the building show debris that IS NOT CONSISTENT with parts of a 757.

That is rather the point for me.

Yes, there is some turbine engine debris, and yes there is some landing gear debris, but neither and none are consistent with an airplane the size of a 757.  They are from a much smaller airplane, and there is only one of each, suggesting some sort of single engine airplane.


#10    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,290 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 05 January 2012 - 08:39 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 January 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

Cz

Do you know the purpose of the test with the Phantom into the wall?

For the sake of any readers who are not, the purpose was to test the wall, which was a section of the wall making up the Containment Building for a nuclear reactor.  Yes, the wall passed the test.

No, the wall at the Pentagon was not built to the standards of a containment building for a nuclear reactor.

I'm not sure how much you have studied the details of the strike at the Pentagon, and I'm not sure if you are familiar with the sizes of the landing gear assemblies and engines on a 757, but the pictures shown by the government of the debris inside the building show debris that IS NOT CONSISTENT with parts of a 757.

That is rather the point for me.

Yes, there is some turbine engine debris, and yes there is some landing gear debris, but neither and none are consistent with an airplane the size of a 757.  They are from a much smaller airplane, and there is only one of each, suggesting some sort of single engine airplane.

Babe, see this is the kind of stuff I was talking about in the other thread.  You guys were on me about not understanding aviation, not comprehending certain books, etc.

But here's the point, you have been fed a line of bull and are absolutely and completely WRONG about what you are saying about the wheels and engines.

Here's a link about the landing gear:  http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml  You'll note that the author not only shows that the wheels seen in the wreckage are identical to those on a 757, but also matches it to photos of wheels on a 757 with the exact same tail number as the one that crashed at the Pentagon (N64AA).

Here's the same author talking about the engine wreckage:  http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml  Clearly those who claim the turbine part isn't from a 757 are either 1) completely ignorant or 2)intentionally trying to mislead.

Regarding the Pentagon, while it may not be as substantial as a nuclear reactor containment wall, it was the largest concrete sturcture ever built and it was built like a bunker.  The walls were 2 feet of thick and composed of limestone, concrete, and brick - and that's just the exterior wall.  The interior walls were all poured concrete as well.  Subsequent renovations also reinforced the walls and windows and added a layer of ballistic kevlar to better withstand explosions.  An excerpt from a document I found stated:

The renovation team had help from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers' Blast Center in Omaha, Neb., to incorporate lessons learned from bomb blasts that destroyed U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. Six-inch steel beams were installed, vertically and horizontally, through all five floors. New blast-resistant windows, almost two inches thick, were mounted inside steel frames.

Between these one-ton window units, ballistic cloth had been stretched and bolted to the steel frames to reduce deadly shrapnel. This Kevlar cloth proved to be so strong that a crew removing debris after the attack found a single sheet of cloth holding up a 4,000-pound piece of limestone. "It absorbed fragmentation that might otherwise have come through these spaces between the windows and steel," Evey says. "Stuff just fell to the floor."



As I said, it was a bunker and a thin skinned aluminum aircraft hitting it at high speed performed exactly as expected.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#11    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,156 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 January 2012 - 08:55 PM

Rafterman

Just for the record sir, I believed the official story (though I did have questions and reservations) for 4 years.  I defended it, just as you do, despite my questions and reservations, and was never really comfortable (from the debating perspective) in doing so.

The pictures provided by the government of the debris inside the Pentagon have several major shortcomings, one of the biggest being that there is only one (1) engine section and wheel.  Again, neither is the right size in my book, but even more compelling is WHERE ARE THE OTHERS????

There should have been 2 engines plus an APU, and there should have been 3 very large assemblies, and a minimum of 10 wheels counting nose wheel and main landing gear.

Further, we have testimony from April Gallop, who walked through all the "wreckage", and she saw nothing at all resembling a passenger airliner.  No seats, no passengers in those seats, no baggage.  Either the wall stopped it, or it didn't.

If debris penetrated the wall, your claim about the integrity of the "bunker" wall is rendered mostly invalid, and there is an absence of all those other parts.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 05 January 2012 - 08:56 PM.


#12    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 05 January 2012 - 09:19 PM

View PostRafterman, on 05 January 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Regarding the Pentagon, while it may not be as substantial as a nuclear reactor containment wall, it was the largest concrete sturcture ever built and it was built like a bunker.  The walls were 2 feet of thick and composed of limestone, concrete, and brick - and that's just the exterior wall.  The interior walls were all poured concrete as well.  Subsequent renovations also reinforced the walls and windows and added a layer of ballistic kevlar to better withstand explosions.
Yes, the plane happened to impact the one segment out of five in which work had just been completed to reinforce against bomb blast, thus reducing potential damage to the structure and casualties.  That was some against the odds fortune… or planned.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#13    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 06 January 2012 - 04:30 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 January 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Besides London, England, I doubt there is anyplace else on earth with more surveillance cameras than the Pentagon.

For years now the debate has raged as to whether or not a 757 crashed there on 11 September.

It is within the power of the government to explain this mystery, to set the record straight, by releasing any and all surveillance video records showing the final seconds of Flight 77, yet it refuses to do so.  Just a few vague frames of a parking lot camera.

The reason that it will not release these records would seem to be that the intense and bright light of public scrutiny would reveal the fraud there that so many suspect.
What makes you think there is any other footage of the event available?  I've seen absolutely no reason to believe that there would be additional footage.  Q24 posted some intriguing information, but even that wasn't conclusive, and I take his research capabilities quite seriously.

There isn't any credible reason to think that a plane didn't impact the Pentagon.  And there isn't any credible reason to assume that this plane wasn't AAL77.

You may have convinced yourself that a paucity of unsubstantiated conjecture is some kind of conclusive evidence for something otherwise, but that doesn't mean it actually was.  You can rail against the US government and military for perceived historical transgressions, but even the ones you point out which are actually legitimate stand in stark contrast to your claims about 911; they are known, confirmed, and verifiable.  All of the 911 conspiracy theories are wild conjectures resting on tenuous foundations (at best).

I don't know why I'm bothering to even comment about this.  My statements are sure to have zero impact on you or anyone else that has convinced themselves that 911 wasn't the simple but nefarious act of 19 hijackers.  Despite that I must make the statement anyway, just for myself.  911 was a tragedy.  You aren't helping alleviate the impact of that tragedy with nonsensical accusations and unsubstantiated theories.


#14    tribalactivity

tribalactivity

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 248 posts
  • Joined:02 Jan 2006

Posted 06 January 2012 - 10:10 AM

maybe the plane that hit the pentagon was wooden lol thats why there was no debri


#15    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,677 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 06 January 2012 - 12:11 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 06 January 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

What makes you think there is any other footage of the event available?  I've seen absolutely no reason to believe that there would be additional footage.  Q24 posted some intriguing information, but even that wasn't conclusive, and I take his research capabilities quite seriously.

There isn't any credible reason to think that a plane didn't impact the Pentagon.  And there isn't any credible reason to assume that this plane wasn't AAL77.

You may have convinced yourself that a paucity of unsubstantiated conjecture is some kind of conclusive evidence for something otherwise, but that doesn't mean it actually was.  You can rail against the US government and military for perceived historical transgressions, but even the ones you point out which are actually legitimate stand in stark contrast to your claims about 911; they are known, confirmed, and verifiable.  All of the 911 conspiracy theories are wild conjectures resting on tenuous foundations (at best).

I don't know why I'm bothering to even comment about this.  My statements are sure to have zero impact on you or anyone else that has convinced themselves that 911 wasn't the simple but nefarious act of 19 hijackers.  Despite that I must make the statement anyway, just for myself.  911 was a tragedy.  You aren't helping alleviate the impact of that tragedy with nonsensical accusations and unsubstantiated theories.

Agreed, nor should they. Its a known fact that the FBI confiscated all video tapes from every business in the sourounding area. The Pentagon its self is the most highly survieled building in this country. There is tons on video coverage on what took place that morning. Releasing that 1 second clip that showed nothing is a slap to the face of the American people. Not only do people who seek the truth have to get frustrated over the governments total disregard for any real evidence that day, they then have to deal with people like you, saying things such as-
"You aren't helping alleviate the impact of that tragedy with nonsensical accusations and unsubstantiated theories."
When you clearly dont have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users