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

Posted (edited)

cut3.jpg

Pretty impressive that the Jet fuel could produce such a clean cut.

Perhaps, you missed these photos before. The cuts were made by clean up crews.

cut2.jpg

cut.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ah i get that then, so that was twisted then.

But Charlie Sheen? You don't seriously think that he went crazy because of influence from some government cabal do you? Aren't the drugs enough of a reason for his behavior?

I know drugs, i know them very well. I know drugs never cause that behaviour. Drugs do not cause any of the things the media blames them for. They only enhance things.

If you are happy and take them, then youa re in for a good time.

If you are paranoid and take them, welcome to hell.

If you are upset and take them, well call an ambulance.

If you are angry and take them, call soemone else and Ambulance.

Obviosuly it depends on certian drugs, but those are pretty much the common rules. Drugs are often blamed for creating the problem, when it is people who createthe problem, drugs just make them worse like alcohal.

In fact alcohal is worse than msot ilegal drugs. Yet we are allowed it.

but that's another subject, my point is the majority of people read these BS media stories related to drugs and don't know anything about them. (If you haven't done drugs or lived aorund them daily, then you can't know about them, scientists who show reports on them lie, as they are the same scientists working for companies who sell legal medical drugs)

I don't beleive Charlie Sheen went crazy becaus eof drugs, I beleive he went crazy and then tried to use drugs as an answer to it. Which leaves the question, why did he go crazy?

too many people dismiss Charlie Sheen quesitoning 9/11 because he went crazy on drugs. kinda convenient isn't it? But what about Martin Sheen... Why would someone as rich and famous as hm, wiho is always busy... Still question it? I find that strange.

Edited by Coffey
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was a missile or whatever is the preferred rational explanation*, why? Why should They fly a missile or a drone or whatever into the Pent, when they'd already,. unequivocally, flown two planes into the WTC. Why go to all th trouble of constructing another plot again running parallel to the one (or two, if UA93 was also part of it) they'd already carried out? And yet again, what happened to the flight that there was purprorted to be? I've heard tales that there were an unusual proportion of Government employees; so does that mean that they were all double agents who were in on the plot, or were they spirited away into new lives under this apparently inecredibly effective and efficient plan that the Government has?

*since, obviously, the Official explanation is so much more irrational .....

... Oughtn't this be in matephysics and Psychic Phenomena? I'm getting a distinct sense of deja vu here .... :unsure2:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol what they don't realise that there was children on those flights..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol what they don't realise that there was children on those flights..

There is also Children in Afghanistan, who die and suffer every day. Does that not trouble them?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cut3.jpg

Pretty impressive that the Jet fuel could produce such a clean cut.

Just stop it please ! And drink lots less Coffee Coffey ! What part of It was Jets that Hit the Towers Did you miss ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know drugs, i know them very well. I know drugs never cause that behaviour. Drugs do not cause any of the things the media blames them for. They only enhance things.

If you are happy and take them, then youa re in for a good time.

If you are paranoid and take them, welcome to hell.

If you are upset and take them, well call an ambulance.

If you are angry and take them, call soemone else and Ambulance.

Obviosuly it depends on certian drugs, but those are pretty much the common rules. Drugs are often blamed for creating the problem, when it is people who createthe problem, drugs just make them worse like alcohal.

In fact alcohal is worse than msot ilegal drugs. Yet we are allowed it.

but that's another subject, my point is the majority of people read these BS media stories related to drugs and don't know anything about them. (If you haven't done drugs or lived aorund them daily, then you can't know about them, scientists who show reports on them lie, as they are the same scientists working for companies who sell legal medical drugs)

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this. Take enough of the right kind of drugs, especially over a period spanning years (if not decades), and you're going to mess up your brain. Taken in moderation, some drugs are only moderately harmful, similar to alcohol.

I don't beleive Charlie Sheen went crazy becaus eof drugs, I beleive he went crazy and then tried to use drugs as an answer to it. Which leaves the question, why did he go crazy?

I still contend that his condition is self inflicted, from years and years of excessive substance abuse.

too many people dismiss Charlie Sheen quesitoning 9/11 because he went crazy on drugs. kinda convenient isn't it? But what about Martin Sheen... Why would someone as rich and famous as hm, wiho is always busy... Still question it? I find that strange.

Perhaps you should be asking yourself why Martin Sheen isn't batshit crazy?

I don't have a problem with people questioning 9/11, whether they are famous or otherwise. I expect and encourage people to question things if they aren't familiar with them or if they are under the impression that they've been given bunk answers. But when those questions are adequately addressed, the matter should be settled to some degree.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Whatever was captured by the camera, and it appears something was, it was NOT a 757 :no:

Well, of course!

What else would you say?? :whistle:

You are expert on 757 crash sites, and know they can't make craters in the ground unless they're supersonic. So, forget that the passengers and crew were identified, as was the airplane...this cannot be a 757 slamming into the Pentagon!

I know I have understood your "logic", and your theory very well.

I just wonder, as another Babe Ruthism invades yet another 9-11 thread, if this can possibly be fun for you?

:blush::no:

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, you missed these photos before. The cuts were made by clean up crews.

cut2.jpg

cut.jpg

I'm curious. How do we know that both of those pics are of the same coulmn? And why are they cutting it at a slant instead of strait across?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious. How do we know that both of those pics are of the same coulmn? And why are they cutting it at a slant instead of strait across?

They don't have to be the same column. Many of the columns were cut that way, and I believe that they were cut that way to control how they came down, much like notching a tree before felling it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have to be the same column. Many of the columns were cut that way, and I believe that they were cut that way to control how they came down, much like notching a tree before felling it.

Kinda what I thought.

All in all, I'm just curious. I've seen that photo posted as a rebuttal everytime the first photo gets posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda what I thought.

All in all, I'm just curious. I've seen that photo posted as a rebuttal everytime the first photo gets posted.

You might also want to watch this video of some of the workers who were there and directly involved with this part of the clean up.

You can see a whole row of similarly cut columns in the vid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call you reason...

If it was a "real" terrorist operation on the Pentagon, why they are hiding so many videos ?

To hide sensitive data about Pentagon's structure, protection, video-surveillance or something else ?

I don't think they don't have many videos just showing a plane crash.

If this event wasn't planned by government they would show videos proofs of the plane crashing into the Pentagon.

When you're telling the truth you hide proofs ? If they're hiding proofs on such a terrible event it's because they have an implication on it or they're very very stupid.

We have this poor gas station video but the others cameras (more than 80) show sensitive building informations ?

I think they lie.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call you reason...

If it was a "real" terrorist operation on the Pentagon, why they are hiding so many videos ?

To hide sensitive data about Pentagon's structure, protection, video-surveillance or something else ?

I don't think they don't have many videos just showing a plane crash.

If this event wasn't planned by government they would show videos proofs of the plane crashing into the Pentagon.

When you're telling the truth you hide proofs ? If they're hiding proofs on such a terrible event it's because they have an implication on it or they're very very stupid.

We have this poor gas station video but the others cameras (more than 80) show sensitive building informations ?

I think they lie.

Honestly, have you even bothered reviewing this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I correctly understood, they took long time to release videos not showing the impact. Why not to release them ASAP ?

Even if there are no proofs it would calm people saying that was planned.

And there are only 10+ videos showing something interesting but that's all ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

cut3.jpg

Pretty impressive that the Jet fuel could produce such a clean cut.

Who said jet fuel produced this severed beam?

here is that beam? When was theis photograph taken. Where?

Anyone take into consideration the tens of billions of pounds of force imparted on the structures by a 757/767 at cruise speed?

Have any idea what I'm talking about here?

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I correctly understood, they took long time to release videos not showing the impact. Why not to release them ASAP ?

Even if there are no proofs it would calm people saying that was planned.

And there are only 10+ videos showing something interesting but that's all ?

Unless I'm mistaken, the footage was being held as possible evidence in the Moussaoui trial. This type of action is common in legal matters.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pentagon is 77 feet tall

Therefore I estimate that you can see about 308 feet in front of the building

The length of a Boeing 757 is 155 feet

308 + 155 = 463 feet

If the plane flies at 500 mph

it flies 0.139 miles per second

that is 733 feet per second

a camera typically takes at least 24 frames per second

it flies 30.5 feet per frame

463 divided by 30.5 = 15.1

According to my calculation the plane should be visible at least partially in as many as 15 frames

However, except for the very tip, the flying object does not appear in any pictures at all.

Who can explain this?

[media=]

[/media]

The camera was operating at 1 frame per sec.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The camera was operating at 1 frame per sec.

Thanks Paul, I thought it was extremely low but I couldn't find a reference to the exact frame rate in the few minutes I spent. Do you happen to have a link which confirms this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The camera was operating at 1 frame per sec.

Try buying a camera that take 1 frame per sec. but that is exactly what it would require. Government parking lot. No concern for security. Right.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I can identify the vertical stabilizer of a B-757.

spplane.jpg

This is a link to the Star Tribune front page. Does that have anything to do with 9/11?

The picture appears to be altered because it does not have the bright light in front of the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is a link to the Star Tribune front page. Does that have anything to do with 9/11?

The picture appears to be altered because it does not have the bright light in front of the building.

It wasn't altered at all. It is part of the video.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't altered at all. It is part of the video.

[media=]

[/media]

DOES THE LINK YOU PROVIDED RELATE TO 911 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

DOES THE LINK YOU PROVIDED RELATE TO 911 ?

The video is called "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77", and the preview image is a frame from the video showing an airliner, presumably representative of a Boeing 757-200, flying across a lawn infront of what is presumably a representation of the western side of the Pentagon.

So you tell us... do you think that link is related to 911...?

:rolleyes:

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video is called "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77",

It links me to the Star Tribune

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.