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 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

What people? I have worked for the government for decades and would like to know who these people are, and what they are saying, but most of all, I want to see their evidence. I am trying to figure out why there are conspiracy folks who think that flying an airplane into the Pentagon will destroy a web of government records when such a web spans the country and extends around the globe.

Destroying your computer is not going to erase the email you sent to another computer.

It destroys your research, though. Why else would they send it into the pentagon?

I struggle to believe some poor Middle-Easterner's with box cutters had a 757. Probably because of it's unlikelyhood.

Bush on the other hand had access to many types of aircraft. Makes more sense for him to pull it off.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And such mistakes have caused millions of lives in the past.

Not from people who tell the truth, it doesn't. It's always deceitful Governments that cause these cluster****s.

Truthers are guilty for spreading misinformation and disinformation and even outright lies and I can point them out in detail with facts and evidence.

Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black, to me.

Corrupt on not, there is no evidence of a 911 government conspiracy. As you mentioned, making mistakes is human, so in that respect, do you seriously think the government could have pulled off the 911 attacks and not get caught? All it would take is one simple mistake on the part of a participant and the whole wall will collapse.

Society has been poisoned with aspartame, mercury and fluroide, dumped into the water supply by God knows who. But the Government are being awfully quiet about it.

Is this not what Hitler had in his death camps, to make his slaves less likely to rise up and rebel?

The Government have gotten away with it because the vast majority of American's have been poisoned and dumbed-down over the last couple of generations, therefore less likely to rise up and start a revolution against the corrupt US Government.

It has been over 11 years since the 911 attacks and yet, not one single piece of evidence has ever surfaced implicating the U.S. government in the 911 attacks. How long did it take for the Watergate scandal to unravel?

True followers of truth have no interest in scandals, for they live for the truth, justice, freedom and liberty. Any 'Truther' that has had a hand in any scandal is probably paid-off by your Government to make actual followers of the truth look bad.

Thats my stance on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It destroys your research, though. Why else would they send it into the pentagon?

Not to destroy evidence, that is for sure! Remember, bin Laden declared war the United States and it was no secret they planned to use aircraft as weapons.

I struggle to believe some poor Middle-Easterner's with box cutters had a 757. Probably because of it's unlikelyhood.

Not difficult at all. After all, the aisles of an airliner are not that wide and one would only have to look at the commotion as people try to place their baggage in the overhead compartments. How many people would challenge a group of armed hijackers if they do not fear imminent danger?

Bush on the other hand had access to many types of aircraft. Makes more sense for him to pull it off.

The government acquired many types of aircraft for many reasons however, those aircraft can be traced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not from people who tell the truth, it doesn't. It's always deceitful Governments that cause these cluster****s.

You only have to go back to World War II to understand where similar mistakes have caused millions of lives. Should I mention Great Britain and France? Hitler's own mistakes on ignoring intelligence cost him battles and even the war.

Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black, to me.

Not when facts and evidence are stacked against 911 Truthers and I can point out the details as well using undenial facts and evidence.

Society has been poisoned with aspartame, mercury and fluroide, dumped into the water supply by God knows who. But the Government are being awfully quiet about it.

And, who elected our government leaders to their positions?

Is this not what Hitler had in his death camps, to make his slaves less likely to rise up and rebel?

The Government have gotten away with it because the vast majority of American's have been poisoned and dumbed-down over the last couple of generations, therefore less likely to rise up and start a revolution against the corrupt US Government.

Who continues to elect those same government officials during the elections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnip

I dont have a time to debate you but be sure that if I would I would enjoy doing so.

@all

Mark 4:9

About what I said. Use your brain. Those people were not nobody.

This is for you with ears. Bob Marley. To show you how Im thankfull that you people took your time to spread the truth.

Don't let them fool ya,

Or even try to school ya! Oh, no!

We've got a mind of our own,

So go to hell if what you're thinking is not right!

Love would never leave us alone,

A-yin the darkness there must come out to light.

Don't let them change ya, oh! -

Or even rearrange ya! Oh, no!

We've got a life to live.

They say: only - only -

only the fittest of the fittest shall survive -

Stay alive! Eh!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-_NMAllsJc

Edited by the L
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to destroy evidence, that is for sure! Remember, bin Laden declared war the United States and it was no secret they planned to use aircraft as weapons.

Not difficult at all. After all, the aisles of an airliner are not that wide and one would only have to look at the commotion as people try to place their baggage in the overhead compartments. How many people would challenge a group of armed hijackers if they do not fear imminent danger?

The government acquired many types of aircraft for many reasons however, those aircraft can be traced.

Afraid you've put faith in lies of George Bush.

Do you seriously believe the stereotypical "hijackers, hijack plane" scenario? Has that ever happened, like, ever? Not in recent times.

What it boils down to is this:

The purpose of 9/11 was to get people like you to support a takeover of the Middle-East and scare you into giving up your civil rights. So far, it's worked because the American people are uneducated in the truth, naive, dumbed-down, and poisoned via chemicals in the water supplies.

Edited by Insaniac
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not when facts and evidence are stacked against 911 Truthers and I can point out the details as well using undenial facts and evidence.

Undeniable facts and evidence made up by those with a hand in covering-up the truth? Nothing is a "fact" that comes from wicked Government. It's truth mixed with lies.

And, who elected our government leaders to their positions? Who continues to elect those same government officials during the elections?

I've never voted for a president as I've always seen through their facade, however if I had to give an answer, I'd say you and other people just as blind. We all need Jesus Christ and until we recieve Him, we'll live blind until God opens our eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont have a time to debate you but be sure that if I would I would enjoy doing so.

@all

Mark 4:9

About what I said. Use your brain. Those people were not nobody.

This is for you with ears. Bob Marley. To show you how Im thankfull that you people took your time to spread the truth.

Don't let them fool ya,

Or even try to school ya! Oh, no!

We've got a mind of our own,

So go to hell if what you're thinking is not right!

Love would never leave us alone,

A-yin the darkness there must come out to light.

Don't let them change ya, oh! -

Or even rearrange ya! Oh, no!

We've got a life to live.

They say: only - only -

only the fittest of the fittest shall survive -

Stay alive! Eh!

To let you know, I have had my share of major disagreements with the government, but I also know the US government was NOT involved in the 911 attacks. After all, American Airlines and United Airlines reported the loss of their aircraft and I have posted fleet histories as well to make a point the aircraft involved in the 911 attacks were owned by those airlines and not by the US government. Do you really think the airlines would ground their aircraft for up to a year in order for the government to illegally modify their aircraft for the purpose of killing thousands of its citizens as an excuse to go to war? That is taking silliness to the extreme. In addition, demolition experts with no ties to the government have confirmed that no explosives were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Having worked in the field of aviation and the government for over 40 years, I've watched as conspiracist pulled things out of thin air that are on par with Hollywood fiction movies and nothing to do with facts nor anything to do with reality in the world of aviation, which is why I have said that 911 conspiracist have been watching too many Hollywood movies because what they say does not reflect reality in the real world of aviation.

I have read comments where the B-757 flew over the Pentagon and landed safely at the nearby airport. That is silly by the fact the air and ground controllers would have instantly taken notice, but it seems the 911 conspiracist didn't take that into an account because they are not tuned to the way things work in the world of air traffic control, and once again, because they have watched too many Hollywood action movies, many of which do not reflect reality by any means.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Undeniable facts and evidence made up by those with a hand in covering-up the truth? Nothing is a "fact" that comes from wicked Government. It's truth mixed with lies.

No matter how wicked the government is, you still have to provide evidence to back your claims.

I've never voted for a president as I've always seen through their facade, however if I had to give an answer, I'd say you and other people just as blind. We all need Jesus Christ and until we recieve Him, we'll live blind until God opens our eyes.

Facts and evidence on the 911 attacks speak for themselves. On one hand, 911 conspiracist have said this, but provided no evidence, and have said that, and provided no evidence, yet those who've backed the government's version of events have provided such evidence. Let's take some examples.

1. 911 conspiracist have claimed that United 175 carried a modified pod, but where is that pod they spoke of? Definitely not in the photos I have seen, but why would the government spend millions of dollars to acquire a B-767 and many months of engineering and technical planning, and labor in order to to attach a modified pod to carry a single ton of explosives beneath the aircraft when they could have loaded over 15 tons of explosives in the lower cargo holds without modifying anything? In other words, it doesn't make any sense what they have claimed. Photos revealed no such modification.

2. 911 conspiracist have claimed that aircraft were switched n flight, but how do you switch airliners and not account for passengers and crew on the other aircraft? But most of all, how can you switch flights and not draw attention from air traffic controllers and of the airlines? You can't switch them on the ground and not draw attention nor switch them in flight and not draw attention, so who was the person who fed such disinformation to the 911 conspiracist folks? Think about it!

Transcripts nor radar data depicted no such switch.

3. Some 811 conspiracist have claimed that American 77 flew over the Pentagon and landed at the nearby airport. What better way to draw unwanted attention from air traffic controllers than to have an airliner cut through air traffic and land without authorization. How would the aircraft identify itself to ground controllers and not reveal itself as American 77?

Landing an aircraft in the markings of American Airlines will draw attention from American Airlines as well because there will be a demand for landing, gate/parking fees, not to mention a review of its flight plan will be on the order of the day as well. What better way to draw attention of a conspiracy than to fly an airliner into an international airport without authorization. A check of flight plan arrivals for the affected airport will blow the conspiracy whistle loud and clear.

It seems that 911 conspiracist don't think of those little things before they speak out.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they've made mistakes. We all do from time to time. It's called being "Human." Do you remember that?

Atleast 'Truthers' aren't resorting to lies and deceit like Bush.

Why is it so important to you, that you defend your corrupt Government?

Sky is rather like a person with impaired color vision--he is unable to perceive the mountains of evidence contradicting the official story just as a color impaired person is literally unable to perceive a particular color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sky is rather like a person with impaired color vision--he is unable to perceive the mountains of evidence contradicting the official story just as a color impaired person is literally unable to perceive a particular color.

Gave me a light hearted chuckle, cheers.

Bush has even admitted 9/11 was an inside job. It's sheer insanity people would still say his coverup is the truth.

Bush admits to explosives in building, to "keep people from getting out." [media=]

[/media]

Edit: Felt I should give 'thanks' to Babe Ruth.

Edited by Insaniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky is rather like a person with impaired color vision--he is unable to perceive the mountains of evidence contradicting the official story just as a color impaired person is literally unable to perceive a particular color.

Speaking of impaired vision, you were the person who threw in nukes in the 911 attacks despite the fact no such evidence exist. You threw in a P700 anti-ship missile in the attack on the Pentagon, and then, turn around and in the same breath, claimed that American 77 passed north of the gas station, and that, after claiming that no Boeing was involved!! :whistle: Speaking of "impaired vision." I think it's time for you to see an optometrist. :yes:

We should also take a look where you mentioned that explosives knocked down the light poles despite the fact the light poles depicted impact damage and nothing to do with explosives. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gave me a light hearted chuckle.

Thing is, Bush has even admitted 9/11 was an inside job. It's sheer insanity people would still say his coverup is the truth.

Bush admits to explosives in building, to "keep people from getting out."

He didn't say a thing about the government placing explosives in the WTC buildings, he said, "OPERATIVES," referring to the terrorist. Review the video again and listen very closely to what he has said about "OPERATIVES."

What president is going to go on national camera and admit to placing explosives in the WTC buildings? That is another clear example of how 911 conspiracist have clouded up events surrounding the 911 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame THE US GOVERNMENT ON 7/7 bombings, the Spanish terrorist attack, The Indian terrorist attack, and many others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush has even admitted 9/11 was an inside job. It's sheer insanity people would still say his coverup is the truth.

Bush admits to explosives in building, to "keep people from getting out."

But you just said, "Nothing is a "fact" that comes from wicked Government. It's truth mixed with lies." So I guess this is evidence that it wasn't an inside job, Bush is a liar, right? Except when he says something that agrees with you, then of course he's truthful?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He didn't say a thing about the government placing explosives in the WTC buildings, he said, "OPERATIVES," referring to the terrorist. Review the video again and listen very closely to what he has said about "OPERATIVES."

How would Bush know, that the "terrorists" were operative inside of the WTC? And planting explosives at that? I thought they supposedly flew a 757 into the WTC, without the use of explosives.

You mentioned earlier the "explosions" people kept hearing were sounds from falling elevators, so why did Bush mention explosives were used? And to keep workers in the WTC from escaping?

What president is going to go on national camera and admit to placing explosives in the WTC buildings? That is another clear example of how 911 conspiracist have clouded up events surrounding the 911 attacks.

Bush, obviously.

And no, this is another clear example of you (the pot) calling truth-seekers (the kettle) black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back from a break, so I will be catching up.

Theres little to nothing theoretical about this case. The US Government attacked their Trade Center and Pentagon, and have since tried to cover it up and obviously failed to do so.

Yes, there was failure to cover up 9/11. Which is why the thousands that HAD to be involved in a cover up of this magnitude are currently in court for their evil deeds.

:w00t:

I think this has caused nothing but the unnecessary deaths of innocents and broadened their control in regards to 'Divide and Conquer.' Now they have... 'Deciever's' (can't really coin them anything else) arguing against 'Truther's.'

There is nothing deceptive about the official story. Is it 100% accurate? No. It is truthers that want to claim that the evil gubmint says the official story is 100% accurate which has never been the case. They are going by what the evidence shows, and the surmounting evidence is in favor of the official story.

People covering up the truth, and people trying to expose the truth. Those are the two sides.

There are no "people trying to cover up the truth" now you are using the "poisoning the well" illogical fallacy to seal your theory.

This is the only reason 'Truthers' exist, because some people actually want to enjoy justice, liberty, and freedom, rather than live in a "Demoncracy" ruled by terrorists.

Its fine for people to want to seek the truth. However, when they start combining illogical facts, confirmation bias, poisoning the well arguments, selective hearing, and all other sorts of mis-interpretations of facts, well....they are only searching for evidence to support their own conclusions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Yet theres still tons of people trying to reveal that it was an inside job, therefore it must be true.

There are also tons of people (common and field experts) that support the official story. So using YOUR own logic, the official story must also be true.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they've made mistakes. We all do from time to time. It's called being "Human." Do you remember that?

Yes, which is why the official story isn't 100% accurate. Go by the evidence collected and make your own determination on what happened.

Atleast 'Truthers' aren't resorting to lies and deceit like Bush.

If you don't believe the government, thats fine. What does the evidence say?

Why is it so important to you, that you defend your corrupt Government?

Again, resorting to "poisoning the well" arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It destroys your research, though. Why else would they send it into the pentagon?

Regardless, have you seen the flight path of flight 77? If the plan was to attack the Pentagon directly, why wasn't there a direct approach? Instead of the descending turn into the Pentagon (which by the way, shows human intervention at the controls) why not fly it right into the Pentagon to begin with. The flight path actually shows that the Pentagon was made a target and was not the primary target to begin with.

I struggle to believe some poor Middle-Easterner's with box cutters had a 757. Probably because of it's unlikelyhood.

Just because you do not believe it could happen doesn't mean it didn't happen. Again, just like a previous post that talked about the hypothetical of this same situation, do you know if the terrorists mentioned explosives as well to the passengers in order to get them compliant?

Bush on the other hand had access to many types of aircraft. Makes more sense for him to pull it off.

This statement is just stupid in of itself. Bush does not have access to many types of aircraft by himself. This statement just shows you have no idea how the military and government works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Afraid you've put faith in lies of George Bush.

I like to put my faith in science. When applied to the evidence of 9/11, goes in favor of the official story.

Do you seriously believe the stereotypical "hijackers, hijack plane" scenario? Has that ever happened, like, ever? Not in recent times.

Yes, airline hijackings have happened before. After 9/11 when air marshalls were activated and airport security has been heightened, it makes it a lot harder to hi-jack a plane.

What it boils down to is this:

The purpose of 9/11 was to get people like you to support a takeover of the Middle-East and scare you into giving up your civil rights. So far, it's worked because the American people are uneducated in the truth, naive, dumbed-down, and poisoned via chemicals in the water supplies.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. NO

Just because you cannot apply ANY sort of fundamental science to your arguments,. does not make you any more right than fear mongerers like Alex Jones.

At this point, responding to any of your posts would be considered meaningless fun.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/i][/u]

How would Bush know, that the "terrorists" were operative inside of the WTC?..And planting explosives at that? I thought they supposedly flew a 757 into the WTC, without the use of explosives.

First of all, there were no secondary explosions evident when the aircraft struck the WTC towers, which was a clear indication there were no planted explosives. Secondary explosions would have been detected on seismic monitors in the local area and evident on video and on audio, but as we all have seen, there were no explosions on video nor on audio and seismic monitors in the area did not detect bomb explosions. In addition, demolition experts combing the area did not find evidence of planted explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings, which brings up this question:

Why did 911 conspiracist claim that explosives were used when there is not a shred of evidence to support their claim?

You mentioned earlier the "explosions" people kept hearing were sounds from falling elevators, so why did Bush mention explosives were used?

Review what he has said very carefully because you have taken his comment completely out of context. Let's take a look at the person who supplied the United States with the information that Bush is speaking of.

290px-Sheikh_july2009.jpg

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden's terrorist group al-Qaeda organization, although he lived in Afghanistan, heading al-Qaeda's propaganda operations from sometime around 1999. The 9/11 Commission Report alleges that he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks." He is also alleged to have confessed to a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.

He was captured on March 1, 2003, in hiding in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, by the Inter-Services Intelligence agency of Pakistan, and transferred to U.S. custody. In March 2007, he confessed to masterminding the September 11 attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks. He was charged in February 2008 with war crimes and murder by a U.S. military commission and faces the death penalty if convicted.

Now, for the rest of the story concerning the remarks of President Bush in the video.

][/b]

"For an example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

He (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed)told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

President Bush is referring to what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was saying as far as plans were concerned, which is why I have said you took his remarks out of context.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you just said, "Nothing is a "fact" that comes from wicked Government. It's truth mixed with lies." So I guess this is evidence that it wasn't an inside job, Bush is a liar, right? Except when he says something that agrees with you, then of course he's truthful?

Good point LG.

Reading back on his earlier posts, he called Bush a deceitful liar. Then later stated that Bush himself admitted to explosives which HAD to be the truth.

Based on his admittance to Bush being a liar, I figured Bush was lying about the explosives too.

Now I am just as confused as to his position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, there were no secondary explosions evident when the aircraft struck the WTC towers, which was a clear indication there were no planted explosives.

Why did George Bush mention explosives? I mean, explosives were there, the president mentioned it himself.

Secondary explosions would have been detected on seismic monitors in the local area and evident on video and on audio, but as we all have seen, there were no explosions on video nor on audio and seismic monitors in the area did not detect bomb explosions.

Convenient for just such an inside job. Somebody had a hand in disabling, fooling or glitching the seismic monitors. Maybe the CIA could pull that off? I wouldn't put it past them.

In addition, demolition experts combing the area did not find evidence of planted explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings, which brings up this question.

Demolition Experts on both sides claiming opposites. Some explain how a plane couldn't have done the damage it did, but explosives instead were needed, alongside other 9/11 witnesses who claim they heard multiple explosions, whilst other demolition experts say they haven't heard such a thing. It's called turning a blind eye to the truth.

Why did 911 conspiracist claim that explosives were used when there is not a shred of evidence to support their claim?

Why did George Bush, himself, claim that explosives were used to bring down the upper floors of the WTC, "keeping people from getting out?"

Now you're just contradicting what your own ex-president believes. Does that mean you know something he doesn't?

Review what he has said very carefully because you have taken his comment completely out of context.

I don't put my faith in liar's like Bush, mate. Take your own advice. I'm not the one taking things out of context.

For anyone else: I debate one person a time. That way posts don't get muddled and the present discussion is easier to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky is rather like a person with impaired color vision--he is unable to perceive the mountains of evidence contradicting the official story just as a color impaired person is literally unable to perceive a particular color.

Care to show us the mountains of evidence that a anti-ship cruise missile hit the Pentagon? Or better yet, where flight 93 landed including evidence of the exsistence of the passengers after 9/11?

Oh wait....forgot who I was responding to....carry on BR, carry on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.