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

A false flag operation is basically a 'frame-up', except grander in scale.

The primary goal is to successfully frame others for their own crimes.

For 9/11, they 'find' passports, etc. So goofy a fable yet somehow many still buy it

I posted an image of an undamaged passport the other day that was taken from an Air India Express crash site where 158 people were killed.

AD201010705279821AR.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that the same guy with several hours of recorded phone conversations with the FBI where they cordinated the whole attack? At first it was suppose to be a set up to arrest this terrorist by giving him a fake bomb. Then at the last minute decided to give him a real bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no hallmark indications of a false flag operation. The govenment is not capable of pulling off such an operation and not get caught.

What "hallmark indications"?

If you mean Bush isn't capable of masterminding 9/11, then I totally agree with you. This is beyond such government puppets.

It's a covert military op, and is/was fully capable of pulling it off.

In regards to 9/11, it is very clear as to whom was responsible; after all, the Philippine government had warned the United States back during the 1990s that Muslim terrorist were planning to use aircraft was weapons to kill thousands of people and other countries had warned the United States that Muslim terrorist were in the planning and final stages of carrying out their attack on American, which commenced on 9/11/2001.

One terrorist; named by the Philippine government, was the same person who had set off huge bomb beneath WTC1 in 1993 and whose uncle was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and I might add that his uncle has admitted to his role in the 9/11 attacks.

A false flag operation is 'seeding disinformation', don't you mean?

They set-up who/what group to frame before the event takes place. If you don't know about this concept of false-flag then you really know diddly-squat about false-flag ops.

Nothing peculiar about finding passports in aircraft crashes. After all, I posted an image just the other day of an undamaged passport taken from the crash of an Air India Express airliner that killed 158 people.

What is your concept of a false-flag op? It baffles me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that the same guy with several hours of recorded phone conversations with the FBI where they cordinated the whole attack? At first it was suppose to be a set up to arrest this terrorist by giving him a fake bomb. Then at the last minute decided to give him a real bomb.

I have read where people have said he was, but those people didn't understand that he was an expert bomb maker who didn't need the support of anyone. After all, he was the person who set off a bomb on Philippine Airlines Flight 434 and set off another bomb in the Philippines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive heard the phone conversations. Just cause he knew how to make the bomb doesnt mean he had the ability to get the materials on his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What "hallmark indications"?

The flight profiles were not indicative of the way we do business in the real world and the 9/11 flight profiles were not indicative of profiles flown by professional nor by miltary pilots. Secondly, only a certain number of B-757-200 series and B-767-200 series aircraft were built and there was no way to acquire those aircraft for modification purposes and not leave a paper trail from Washington State to Washington D.C. As I have said before, it would have taken me less than 30 minutes to reveal a switched aircraft.

If you mean Bush isn't capable of masterminding 9/11, then I totally agree with you. This is beyond such government puppets.

It's a covert military op, and is/was fully capable of pulling it off.

Not even the military could have pulled it off and not get caught. I have worked for the Air Force and defense contractors as an airframe technician, supervisor and inspector, and flown as a C-5 DCC crewmember, and have over 43 years experience as a pilot to know what I am talking about.

A false flag operation is 'seeding disinformation', don't you mean? They set-up who/what group to frame before the event takes place.

How are you going to acquire four large airliners and not leave behind a paper trail all over the country? How are you going to modify such aircraft and not leave a long paper trail? You are going to create a record when you file a flight plan for such aircraft and that will blow the whistle during an investigation.

If you don't know about this concept of false-flag then you really know diddly-squat about false-flag ops.

I know a lot more about such operations than you think!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive heard the phone conversations. Just cause he knew how to make the bomb doesnt mean he had the ability to get the materials on his own.

Let's take a look.

Yousef was assisted by Iraqi bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin, who helped assemble the complex 1,310-pound (590 kg) bomb, which was made of a urea nitrate main charge with aluminum, magnesium and ferric oxide particles surrounding the explosive. The charge used nitroglycerine, ammonium nitrate dynamite, smokeless powder and fuse as booster explosives.

Three tanks of bottled hydrogen were also placed in a circular configuration around the main charge, to enhance the fireball and afterburn of the solid metal particles. The use of compressed gas cylinders in this type of attack closely resembles the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing 10 years earlier. Both of these attacks used compressed gas cylinders to create fuel-air and thermobaric bombs that release more energy than conventional high explosives. According to testimony in the bomb trial, only once before the 1993 attack had the FBI recorded a bomb that used urea nitrate.

The Ryder van used in the bombing had 295 cubic feet (8.4 m3) of space, which would hold up to 2,000 pounds (910 kg) of explosives. However, the van was not filled to capacity. Yousef used four 20 ft (6 m) long fuses, all covered in surgical tubing. Yasin calculated that the fuse would trigger the bomb in twelve minutes after he had used a cigarette lighter to light the fuse.

Yousef wanted the smoke to remain in the tower, therefore catching the public eye by smothering people inside, killing them slowly. He anticipated Tower One collapsing onto Tower Two after the blast.

, Timothy McVeigh set off a large bomb in Oklahoma without assistance from the FBI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not really back (see earlier post about the Waldos) but doing what I can to keep up. Christmas was good, though. I talked with my daughter for an hour on the phone which is always a good thing.

Well, actually Wally, in his role as the ME instead of coroner, and his band of merry assistants were inside the cordon gathering up bits and pieces of human remains - 4500 pieces weighing in at around 600 pounds if I remember right. Anyway, some hard pieces did land that far away and paper & other light stuff went further than that. This isn't surprising given the force of the impact. At the same time, some was excavated from the hole that way too many people saw including the operator of the backhoe who wasn't FBI but local. As to the site being exclusionary by the FBI, that's usual for a crime scene just like cops do for a local one - you know, robberies, murders, selling really bad donuts and the like.

In the case of a False Flag operation, though, you want as many witnesses as possible so they can support the whole "Now, look what dem dere bad boys done did!" requirement of such an operation. You want as many witnesses as possible to the wreckage as found, to the body bitzenpieces as found, and to everything and anything else as found. This is a situation where fabricated simply isn't good enough. It has to be absolutely real. Staging anything defeats the whole purpose of a False Flag operation. This would also be the case in a shoot down since it can be turned into whatever it has to be to support pretty much any agenda one can think up. In short, a False Flag has to follow the Official Version to the letter without exception and without getting creative in "making" evidence to suit. It also means doing the unthinkable and flying those four airliners as described in the Official Version. Flt 93's crashing early meant a quick rewrite of that part of the script but that would be very easily managed. Script writers do that all the time. It comes with the territory.

What it comes down to is that if there was no wreckage at Shanksville or anywhere else, then it could not have been a False Flag operation nor could Shanksville have been a shoot down.

What you don't know Kludge, is that Christopher Bollyn actually interviewed Wally Miller, in Miller's funeral home in Shanksville. In the presence of some of Wally's employees at the funeral home.

Yes, it's amazing what a beat cop or real investigative journalist can discover by interviewing people face to face.

I'm not going to bother to type what he discovered in that interview because you will call me or him a liar, and we're right back to square 1.

Suffice to say that it utterly contradicts your post above, which is nothing but a regurgitation of the official story.

For me, after all these years, I finally understand what happened there. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you don't know Kludge, is that Christopher Bollyn actually interviewed Wally Miller, in Miller's funeral home in Shanksville. In the presence of some of Wally's employees at the funeral home.

Yes, it's amazing what a beat cop or real investigative journalist can discover by interviewing people face to face.

I'm not going to bother to type what he discovered in that interview because you will call me or him a liar, and we're right back to square 1.

Suffice to say that it utterly contradicts your post above, which is nothing but a regurgitation of the official story.

For me, after all these years, I finally understand what happened there. :tu:

Actually, it doesn't really contradict the major portion. Let me quote myself ...

In the case of a False Flag operation, though, you want as many witnesses as possible so they can support the whole "Now, look what dem dere bad boys done did!" requirement of such an operation. You want as many witnesses as possible to the wreckage as found, to the body bitzenpieces as found, and to everything and anything else as found. This is a situation where fabricated simply isn't good enough. It has to be absolutely real. Staging anything defeats the whole purpose of a False Flag operation. This would also be the case in a shoot down since it can be turned into whatever it has to be to support pretty much any agenda one can think up. In short, a False Flag has to follow the Official Version to the letter without exception and without getting creative in "making" evidence to suit. It also means doing the unthinkable and flying those four airliners as described in the Official Version. Flt 93's crashing early meant a quick rewrite of that part of the script but that would be very easily managed. Script writers do that all the time. It comes with the territory.

What it comes down to is that if there was no wreckage at Shanksville or anywhere else, then it could not have been a False Flag operation nor could Shanksville have been a shoot down.

All I said here was that if there was no wreckage at Shanksville as you contend then it couldn't have been a False Flag or shoot down. Both would require incontrovertible evidence which, in turn, would require that Flt 93 was in fact there plus they'd want as many witnesses as possible to that fact. Assuming what you are saying is accurate about planted evidence then neither a shoot down nor False Flag would be possible. No real evidence would point to another scenario completely ... actually any of several of them.

I'd be interested in reading/hearing Bollyn's interview. Uncut if possible.

Edited by Kludge808

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply amazing!! He claims that no aircraft wreckage is visible at the Pentagon nor near Shanksville despite tons of evidence and yet he continues to push a false flag operation. I don't think he understands that in order to push a 9/11 false flag operation he has to present aircraft wreckage and then, account for passengers and crew of those flights.

Yeah, but that may be due to a faulty understanding of what a False Flag operation is and what all is required. Everything - absolutely everything - has to be in place and visible to anyone and everyone who happens to be on scene, civilian and government employee alike. Letting the media in to generate a media blitz and everything else possible is needed to spread the word. It has to follow the Official Version to the letter with no faked or planted evidence that could cause the whole thing to unravel. UAL093's early demise just would mean a quick alteration to the script unless it was part of the original script in the first place.

There's one other thing about a False Flag operation. There would also be no room for most - if not all - of the assorted CTs to form due to the utter perfection required, and any that did form would be quickly suppressed which obviously hasn't happened. Instead they flourish undiminished and, to the amusement of many, contradict each other on practically every possible point.

Y'know, if there was a single unified CT it may be worth investigating more closely but there isn't. Instead there is a plethora of them which, as previously mentioned, contradict each other all down the line. Much like Groom Lake and Roswell, giving credence to one automatically falsifies the remainder, a problem that 99% of the CTists can't quite grasp. They simply cannot present us with a single solid CT that everyone can agree on. Oh, and "De ebil gummint lies" is not a CT, it's a premise on which all are built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you don't know Kludge, is that Christopher Bollyn actually interviewed Wally Miller, in Miller's funeral home in Shanksville. In the presence of some of Wally's employees at the funeral home.

Yes, it's amazing what a beat cop or real investigative journalist can discover by interviewing people face to face.

I'm not going to bother to type what he discovered in that interview because you will call me or him a liar, and we're right back to square.

Problem for you is, his accounts have been verified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Kludge, the funny part of that interview was that somewhere in the amiable interview, some of the employees piped up "tell him what the FBI guys told you, Wally! And he did tell Bollyn what the feds said to him. They asked him to be a team player, good citizen, what have you. I think 'team player' was the actual term.

Because what happened was that the feds were late to the party, and by the time they got there, the locals had already spilled the beans. On TV. To the public, that there was nothing there that looked like a crashed Boeing. Because that's what everybody there actually said. And pictures taken by many different sources support that assessment, but some of those pictures have sorta disappeared from the internet....

So Wally spills the beans and the feds show up a bit late. Wally is an honest man, born in 1957, and he was just being honest with the TV reporters asking questions.

The feds show up and in a very private meeting, ask him to be a team player. Who is going to say no? Certainly not Wally. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Kludge, I got side tracked.

As to the rest of your previous post, it DOES contradict the official story sir. And apparently some people in Shanksville are aware of it too.

There WAS evidence planted, in the form of several 'eye witness' testimonies who "just knew" they saw United 93, flying upside down, or some such. Obviously paid or staged testimony.

They went to great lengths to have the deception succeed. Yes, you can fool some of the people most of the time. :yes:

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Kludge, the funny part of that interview was that somewhere in the amiable interview, some of the employees piped up "tell him what the FBI guys told you, Wally! And he did tell Bollyn what the feds said to him. They asked him to be a team player, good citizen, what have you. I think 'team player' was the actual term.

I scrubbed the rest for brevity, not because it wasn't relevant. I have to agree that there wasn't anything there that looked like a Boeing or much of anything else. There also wasn't anything there that looked anything like a cruise missile as several CTs say there were. There wasn't much left that looked like anything at all except bitzenpieces of things and stuff.

Telling Wally to be a "team player" is rather ambiguous and really could mean anything. Seizing on it as "proof" of a conspiracy is rather thin since it fits equally with the Official Version as well. As a result, it's rather a non-entity in itself.

But getting back to my original point, the lack of anything real vs the planted/faked "evidence" which you contend was there excludes the idea of a False Flag or shoot down. Both would require real evidence and lots 'n lots of public witnesses to it. This means in both cases UAL093 would have to be there and as many people as possible would witness it. You see the difference, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Kludge, I got side tracked.

Not a worry. I do it so often, I sometimes forget there is a main track. :blush:

As to the rest of your previous post, it DOES contradict the official story sir. And apparently some people in Shanksville are aware of it too.

There WAS evidence planted, in the form of several 'eye witness' testimonies who "just knew" they saw United 93, flying upside down, or some such. Obviously paid or staged testimony.

They went to great lengths to have the deception succeed. Yes, you can fool some of the people most of the time. :yes:

Okay, then it couldn't have been a False Flag or shoot down. If there had been real evidence (ie, UAL093 in the flesh, so to speak) then the Official Version stands even if it's as a False Flag, and if it was a shoot down they'd need the real airplane to show it was shot down. If there was only faked/planted evidence then UAL093 was never present which negates both of the other two premises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kludge, I'm old like you. You're not talking to a virgin. I served in the Army and have worked with the FAA in several different jobs.

Though I didn't work for the government long, I know how it works.

Actually, the feds did the right thing. They took advantage of his good nature, scratched his back and got scratched in return. He signed the death warrants and changed subsequent statements to the press. Team player. I know what it means. I'm not the best, but I can do it, have done it.

The feds controlled the media on their end, and denied access to 'the site' the feds created after they got Wally to play along.

11 years later, half the country still believes it. Deception on a sublime level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Babe Ruth we need to talk man , You must feel like the entire planet Is gunning for you ? Well sit on down and pull up a chair ! Were going to have a little Heart to Heart ! 911 & Pentagon C.T. people must have skin of poly-propalatics ! THere so Full of it Almost to a dangerous level .

Can we get to the Bottom of you Idea once and for all ?

Have you ever proven that anything but the Air Liners didnt Hit the Towers,and Pentagon ?

Well The stuff that you have provided is quite lame in the eyes of about 99% of the members in here. Im just wondering ? Can you Prove without a Shadow of a Doubt that all the things you have said are even worth reading again !

Opp`s there went that bag of worms again ! Happy New Year to All the U?M members !

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I didn't work for the government long, I know how it works.

But, many companies, which are not government agencies, have supported the official story based on facts and evidence, not fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kludge, I'm old like you. You're not talking to a virgin. I served in the Army and have worked with the FAA in several different jobs.

Though I didn't work for the government long, I know how it works.

Nope, I'm not expecting a virgin. I wouldn't know what to do with one anyway. ;-)

Like you, I did time in the service and worked with the FAA now and then when my rather limited expertise was handy. I did work with a government agency for a while, an experience I really do not want to discuss. (It's not that I can't - or I don't think there's any such restriction - but that I won't.) That's one of those things NO one will ever get me drunk enough to admit to.

I think we've all done the "team player" thing somewhere along the line. It's what happens when the person/people making the "suggestion" hold all the trump. (Sorry, not a poker player so can't go that route with terminology. But then, no one ever got shot playing bridge or 500. <G>) It may or may not be beneficial in the long run but that doesn't mean diddly squat during the immediate situation.

Presuming what you say is true, then Wally was in just such a position and didn't have much of a choice in the matter.

11 years later, half the country still believes it. Deception on a sublime level.

Probably more than half with a portion undecided even now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder just how Long BR did work for the Man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I'm not expecting a virgin. I wouldn't know what to do with one anyway. ;-)

Like you, I did time in the service and worked with the FAA now and then when my rather limited expertise was handy. I did work with a government agency for a while, an experience I really do not want to discuss. (It's not that I can't - or I don't think there's any such restriction - but that I won't.) That's one of those things NO one will ever get me drunk enough to admit to.

I think we've all done the "team player" thing somewhere along the line. It's what happens when the person/people making the "suggestion" hold all the trump. (Sorry, not a poker player so can't go that route with terminology. But then, no one ever got shot playing bridge or 500. <G>) It may or may not be beneficial in the long run but that doesn't mean diddly squat during the immediate situation.

Presuming what you say is true, then Wally was in just such a position and didn't have much of a choice in the matter.

Probably more than half with a portion undecided even now.

That's my only point Kludge--Wally had NO choice, really. Who is going to say no to the FBI on such a day? Certainly not a small town funeral director who happens to be the county coroner. He did what he did, and it's history.

The feds made the best of a bad situation. Because of Wally's honest remarks to the media, they had temporarily lost control of the situation. They went into damage control, and ended up with a tolerable situation, and of course NEVER lost control of the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my only point Kludge--Wally had NO choice, really. Who is going to say no to the FBI on such a day?

Let's remember, you were the person who brought in Wally Miller thinking that he supported your case, which he did not and as a result, he slammed the 9/11 conspiracist for distorting his remarks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's remember, you were the person who brought in Wally Miller thinking that he supported your case, which he did not and as a result, he slammed the 9/11 conspiracist for distorting his remarks.

Let's remember that you were the person who brought a faked video here to UM, and posted it to demonstrate some bizarre point you were trying to make.

Once bitten, twice shy. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's remember that you were the person who brought a faked video here to UM, and posted it to demonstrate some bizarre point you were trying to make.

Once bitten, twice shy. :yes:

How many times have you tried to bite us? We haven't forgotten that P700 anti-ship missile of yours and then, you tried to bite us again with a claim that no wreckage was found at the Pentagon nor near Shanksville? What's up with that?!

You can't be too shy considering the many occasions you were taken to the cleaners and bitten by those 9/11 CT websites as evident by the contents of your messages, which of course are false.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times have you tried to bite us? We haven't forgotten that P700 anti-ship missile of yours and then, you tried to bite us again with a claim that no wreckage was found at the Pentagon nor near Shanksville? What's up with that?!

You can't be too shy considering the many occasions you were taken to the cleaners and bitten by those 9/11 CT websites as evident by the contents of your messages, which of course are false.

nukes too.

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.