Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Babe Ruth

Why won't govt explain this mystery?

448 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

( 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...?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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:

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

So the landing gear and the engine parts and the fuselage debris and the human remains were what, exactly...?

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

Bravo CZ you just debunked what went down at pentagon.. It was no passenger aircraft, it was plain simple a small military craft or a missile flying at max speed straight into pentagon. That would explain why there isnt so much debris. Ow and please don't use those "real" photos from pentagon, red somewhere else that that was a hoax trying to prove offical story and every photo is diffrent in both quality and aspect. The point is CZero just showed what happens when a military plane hits wall of pentagon, on impact it vaporises.

Edited by Nuke_em

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Talk about brainwash! How many hours per day you watch TV? It is not doing you well! :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone answer the question in the thread title?

Put another way…

Even if footage reveals nothing – why haven’t the government released all tapes in their possession in response to FOIA requests?

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.

Thank you.

About the VDOT CCTV from which, “we could immediately see the smoke rising on one of our cameras… which could see the Pentagon from the right side”...

FBI FOIA response: -

“Further, information regarding the closed circuit television (cctv) obtained from the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station
and the Virginia Department of Transportation
is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure… ”

So there is footage not in the public domain.

Whatever is on the VDOT tape… why hasn’t it been released?

The reason provided is that release of the videotapes was exempt due to ongoing investigations – in particular, the Moussaoui trial at that time (how this would compromise investigations God only knows – what a poor excuse).

Speaking of the Moussaoui trial, it is known that the CIA twice falsely denied the existence of videotapes requested by the judge and defense lawyers before they were later destroyed. The CIA excuse – release of the tapes would have compromised identity of their agents… so they thought it best to lie. It would have been oh so difficult to explain to the judge or even blur out faces of the agents involved, you see. The conclusion of a U.S. Senator: “One must simply conclude that there is something on those videotapes that they did not want the world to see.”

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-12-08/news/0712070869_1_detainee-in-cia-custody-cia-director-michael-hayden-cia-videotapes

This is a clear example of authorities withholding video footage which they did not want to be seen. One would then require quite some faith to believe there is nothing untoward in obstruction of the Pentagon videotapes.

And there isn't any credible reason to assume that this plane wasn't AAL77.

Withholding of the video footage alone (at least in lieu of other evidence), is reason to reserve judgement that the plane was AA77. Of course it is always credible to demand conclusive evidence so that the case be proven. Without physical identification of the aircraft, to assume it was AA77 would be far more dangerous – it leaves the door open to a deception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about brainwash! How many hours per day you watch TV? It is not doing you well! :devil:

And you are apparently using too much time on conspiracy websites. :P

Given the information we can obtain, its really hard to believe any other conclusion than it was a terrorist attack.

It is possible that the government is withholding critical information but until it's public domain, a terrorist attack is the best available conclusion.

Available information vs speculations, which side wins?

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

How surreal all these 9/11 discussions are...

You get praise when you believe god knows what about it all...based, I think, on all powerful 'Zionists'

Yet I....who am broadly in support of the US regarding the fateful day...get hammered

Oh well...such is life...

please carry on, don't mind me... <_<

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Just so you know there's a rumor, there are 84 security videos from buildings around pentagon. Plus it is very logical that pentagon would record it's vicinity live at all times for security reasons before and after 9/11. It is heart of US warmachine... So first obvious lie is there was no 757 hitting the building. Crash site is not consistent with 757 crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Q.

That is really the only point I'm trying to make.

If the government could bolster or prove its case, it would. If there was footage showing a 757 striking the building, they would show it, and it's just that simple.

If they could prove UA93 crashed at Shanksville, it would release what debris there is from Iron Mountain, but it does not. So much of the physical evidence is hidden from public view, and the government refuses to release it, claiming Obama-style that the proper government answer is "there is no evidence."

That some folks refuse to understand this simple aspect of human behavior reveals cognitive dissonance widespread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you are apparently using too much time on conspiracy websites. :P

Given the information we can obtain, its really hard to believe any other conclusion than it was a terrorist attack.

It is possible that the government is withholding critical information but until it's public domain, a terrorist attack is the best available conclusion.

Available information vs speculations, which side wins?

:D

Only one conspiracy and it is very real and bigger than anything before and after. 9/11. And given information from your goverment and military is highly unbelievable. I wont write things all over again that's why me and boony aren't friends, but i can only say " due to missing evidence to support any parts of offical story is like believing in red riding hood ".

Plus this topic is bottomless pit, so noone is right in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How surreal all these 9/11 discussions are...

You get praise when you believe god knows what about it all...based, I think, on all powerful 'Zionists'

Yet I....who am broadly in support of the US regarding the fateful day...get hammered

Oh well...such is life...

please carry on, don't mind me... <_<

Aw bee :-). I believe there are many good people in the U.S., and that includes many people in the U.S. military. Take, for example, Barbara Honegger, who was and perhaps still is a senior military analyst. She wrote a paper called The Pentagon Attack; here she speaks of it to some extent:

Now it's true that she doesn't say that the government was involved in planting the bombs. As I have said before, I think it's more important to agree that the official story isn't true, which we do agree on, then who was ultimately responsible for the 9/11 attacks, so I think that this is a solid foundation we can build on.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the information we can obtain, its really hard to believe any other conclusion than it was a terrorist attack.

It is possible that the government is withholding critical information but until it's public domain, a terrorist attack is the best available conclusion.

Available information vs speculations, which side wins?

The 9/11 false flag terrorist attack is in accord with available evidence.

In fact, it accounts for more information than the official narrative cares to examine.

You get praise when you believe god knows what about it all...based, I think, on all powerful 'Zionists'

An unholy alliance of Neocon and Zionist interests actually ;)

Look here for the latter suspects: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=181818&view=findpost&p=3430033

The U.S. government was hijacked in 2001… this explains timing of the event, though I’m not saying all were involved in 9/11. The strong Zionist connection permeates into the lower realms of the operation too – from intelligence agents detained and investigated in direct relation to the attack, to the alliance which finalised transfer of the WTC six weeks before the attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.