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)

It links me to the Star Tribune

Sky's link in his post is clearly to a youtube video.

The post of his that you quoted in your post clearly shows a youtube video.

If you're getting a link to the Star Tribune, then there's a problem with your computer and you should probably get it fixed.

Here's the link to the video Sky posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few further questions for anyone who might wish to offer any answers. Is the reasoning that an attack on the Pentagon had to be staged in order to justify a Military response, and, since it was impossible to stage an actual hit on it with an aircraft, due to the difficulties with the height of the building and the angle of approach and so on, then either eplosives were planted, or perhaps a Missile was fired at it? And subsequent to that, the aeroplane debris was carefully planted, befopre the cameras were allowed in? So this debris, where was it obtained? Was it painted in American Airlines colours specially, since I don't know where they might have found some appropriate btis ready to hand? So how were these bits brought in and planted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A few further questions for anyone who might wish to offer any answers. Is the reasoning that an attack on the Pentagon had to be staged in order to justify a Military response, and, since it was impossible to stage an actual hit on it with an aircraft, due to the difficulties with the height of the building and the angle of approach and so on, then either eplosives were planted, or perhaps a Missile was fired at it? And subsequent to that, the aeroplane debris was carefully planted, befopre the cameras were allowed in? So this debris, where was it obtained? Was it painted in American Airlines colours specially, since I don't know where they might have found some appropriate btis ready to hand? So how were these bits brought in and planted?

I am not saying that a missle hit the Pentagon. I don't know what hit it. But certainly the US Government has the ability to arrange the things you listed. In particular, let me draw your attention to a memo entitled "President Bush on Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction", Release Date: May 8, 2001 (interestingly this is not a law that was passed by Congress):

"Therefore, I have asked Vice President Cheney to oversee ... all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies." This enabled Cheney to have complete command over anything that was done or not done at the scene in Washington (and New York).

The motivation is to increase control (power!), both to start a war and thereby control foreign nations, as well as to control the American people by instilling fear and claiming that your email being read - by nice CIA agents - is in the best interest of the American people.

Edited by lliqerty
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky's link in his post is clearly to a youtube video.

The post of his that you quoted in your post clearly shows a youtube video.

If you're getting a link to the Star Tribune, then there's a problem with your computer and you should probably get it fixed.

Here's the link to the video Sky posted:

Cz

Thanks for the link. All the other links to YouTubes work just fine.

Sky, I think this must be a joke. It shows a bunch of broken street lights - nobody was talking about street lights -

and then it stops at the point of penetration. Does not even show the hole it made in the building (BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING AWFULLY WRONG WITH THAT), and it does not show what happened to the subsequent parts of the building - where the wreckage came to a stop.

Why are there no aerial images looking down on the wreckage ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link. All the other links to YouTubes work just fine.

Sky, I think this must be a joke. It shows a bunch of broken street lights - nobody was talking about street lights -

and then it stops at the point of penetration. Does not even show the hole it made in the building (BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING AWFULLY WRONG WITH THAT), and it does not show what happened to the subsequent parts of the building - where the wreckage came to a stop.

Why are there no aerial images looking down on the wreckage ?

What? so you want everyone to think street lights somehow run and just fall over the place? In order to do that, the posts need to be cut.

For the aerial footage thats because all AIR TRAFFIC WAS GROUNDED!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? so you want everyone to think street lights somehow run and just fall over the place? In order to do that, the posts need to be cut.

For the aerial footage thats because all AIR TRAFFIC WAS GROUNDED!!

Did you read my post? In particular where it says:

nobody was talking about street lights -

and then it stops at the point of penetration. Does not even show the hole it made in the building (BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING AWFULLY WRONG WITH THAT), and it does not show what happened to the subsequent parts of the building - where the wreckage came to a stop.

Why are there no aerial images looking down on the wreckage ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read my post? In particular where it says:

nobody was talking about street lights -

and then it stops at the point of penetration. Does not even show the hole it made in the building (BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING AWFULLY WRONG WITH THAT), and it does not show what happened to the subsequent parts of the building - where the wreckage came to a stop.

Why are there no aerial images looking down on the wreckage ?

I know that but i want to talk about that so you think these street lights somehow moved not because of a plane but something else?

There are no aerial shots as ALL AIR TRAFFIC WAS GROUNDED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

010914-F-8006R-006.jpg

Not high enough?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few further questions for anyone who might wish to offer any answers. Is the reasoning that an attack on the Pentagon had to be staged in order to justify a Military response, and, since it was impossible to stage an actual hit on it with an aircraft, due to the difficulties with the height of the building and the angle of approach and so on, then either eplosives were planted, or perhaps a Missile was fired at it? And subsequent to that, the aeroplane debris was carefully planted, befopre the cameras were allowed in? So this debris, where was it obtained? Was it painted in American Airlines colours specially, since I don't know where they might have found some appropriate btis ready to hand? So how were these bits brought in and planted?

the debris could have come from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.....just over the river and not too far away,

that's my speculation anyway....perhaps that's why there were initial reports of a fire at the Washington Mall, so that

the whole area could be locked down and the debris wizzed over to the Pentagon...

As you might remember, I don't subscribe to the Inside Job Conspiracy...and I think that a suicide bomber (maybe in a truck)

managed to get an explosion detonated at the Pentagon (they would have known that there was no way to 'get' the Pentagon by

air because the US Defence Headquarters would be fully protected from the air, especially when America was under attack and on red alert)

And in the heat of the terrorist attack it was decided to explain away the disappearance of Flight 77 (which might have been shot down over

the Atlantic)...by doing a mock up of a 757 crash at the Pentagon.

It all gets a bit complicated, but not half as complicated as the IJ conspiracy... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that but i want to talk about that so you think these street lights somehow moved not because of a plane but something else?

There are no aerial shots as ALL AIR TRAFFIC WAS GROUNDED!

I did not see any pictures either but we were both wrong (see below). I have not paid much attention to the street lights. I take it you feel that they 'debunk' something? So tell me what your thoughts are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not high enough?

Thanks, Bud.

Several interesting things I see there. The demo showed it entering at an angle, but here it looks straight. Given the force of the impact you saw at the WTC, it surprises me it did not penetrate further. And what happened to the wings? It seems like they did not hit the building.

Edited by lliqerty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

the debris could have come from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.....just over the river and not too far away,

that's my speculation anyway....perhaps that's why there were initial reports of a fire at the Washington Mall, so that

the whole area could be locked down and the debris wizzed over to the Pentagon...

As you might remember, I don't subscribe to the Inside Job Conspiracy...and I think that a suicide bomber (maybe in a truck)

managed to get an explosion detonated at the Pentagon (they would have known that there was no way to 'get' the Pentagon by

air because the US Defence Headquarters would be fully protected from the air, especially when America was under attack and on red alert)

And in the heat of the terrorist attack it was decided to explain away the disappearance of Flight 77 (which might have been shot down over

the Atlantic)...by doing a mock up of a 757 crash at the Pentagon.

It all gets a bit complicated, but not half as complicated as the IJ conspiracy... :)

The fire at the Washington Mall, so that the whole area could be locked down and the debris wizzed over to the Pentagon. That is an interesting idea. Can you point me to some more about the fire please?

In my view, Dick Cheney had the whole operation under control. He was in charge of any and all responders working on the clean-up.

He was also in charge of the Defense and had air force stand down.

http://www.infowars...._stand_down.htm

Edited by lliqerty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

IMO...the Pentagon on 9/11 is the Achilles heel for both the Official Account AND the Inside Job Conspiracy...and that's why my Cover Up Theory (CUT...lol)

isn't very popular.

So what was covered up...I don't hear you ask.... ^_^

My speculation is...

That, in the heat of the attack, it was deemed necessary flights 77 and 93 had to be (sadly and tragically) shot down.

And that some kind of Directed Energy Weapon was used to bring down WTC 1,2 + 7...to protect the wider area when the

top of the South tower looked like it was going to topple over. (and then the other 2 buildings could have been severely weakened by

the field affects of the DEW and also had to be brought down as safely as possible)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The fire at the Washington Mall, so that the whole area could be locked down and the debris wizzed over to the Pentagon. That is an interesting idea. Can you point me to some more about the fire please?

It was on a live news report on the morning of 9/11......I'll go and have a look for it..

here it is.....the report of a fire at the Washington Mall starts at 2:53....

.

Edited by bee
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:

Why indeed? Especially when the Pentagon is also a tourist location. One person with a camera and the whole thing falls apart. Your plan calls for 4 planes to go missing, 4 planes do infact go missing but you use a missile here instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

security camera that can be adjusted how many frames per second, recording on video tape and lower frame rate to save money. 1 frame per second is plenty for the minimal security needed in a parking lot. People forget the Pentagon is primarily an office building. There are secure areas but they are deeper inside and the security for those areas involve armed guards, picture IDs, key cards and codes and cameras AT THOSE LOCATIONS. Cameras in the parking lot don't really help as much as you think they might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

IMO...the Pentagon on 9/11 is the Achilles heel for both the Official Account AND the Inside Job Conspiracy...and that's why my Cover Up Theory (CUT...lol)

isn't very popular.

So what was covered up...I don't hear you ask.... ^_^

My speculation is...

That, in the heat of the attack, it was deemed necessary flights 77 and 93 had to be (sadly and tragically) shot down.

And that some kind of Directed Energy Weapon was used to bring down WTC 1,2 + 7...to protect the wider area when the

top of the South tower looked like it was going to topple over. (and then the other 2 buildings could have been severely weakened by

the field affects of the DEW and also had to be brought down as safely as possible)

So, 77 was shot down and then they used a truck bomb to destroy the Pentagon. Why? Would they not be happy with the story that 77 passengers also defended us from a catastrophy? O r even if they admit they shot it down to protect so many people on the ground (when the passengers would die anyhow)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

security camera that can be adjusted how many frames per second, recording on video tape and lower frame rate to save money. 1 frame per second is plenty for the minimal security needed in a parking lot. People forget the Pentagon is primarily an office building. There are secure areas but they are deeper inside and the security for those areas involve armed guards, picture IDs, key cards and codes and cameras AT THOSE LOCATIONS. Cameras in the parking lot don't really help as much as you think they might.

Buddy, we are not in the age of VHS tapes. Even in 2001 they were recorded digitally and memory is erased and re-recorded (and even VHS can be re-recorded). No need to reduce recording speed. 1 FPS does not adequately show events or moving objects (the point is to capture faces and license plates). There is no point in having 1 FPS. And after 1995 Oklahoma, where a truck was parked in front of the "office building", nah, I don't go with your explanation.

Edited by lliqerty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, 77 was shot down and then they used a truck bomb to destroy the Pentagon.

My speculation is that terrorists managed to get an explosion detonated at the Pentagon...and they may have been fired upon by Ground Defence,

hence the deep holes in the Pentagon (it's possible there were 3 exit holes)

Why? Would they not be happy with the story that 77 passengers also defended us from a catastrophy? O r even if they admit they shot it down to protect so many people on the ground (when the passengers would die anyhow)?

I don't think they would have got away withy the same story for flights 93 AND 77........the reason I think it was covered up was for political reasons...

imagine how different the world headlines would have been if it was admitted that the US was forced to bring down 2 of it's own airliners...killing

it's own citizens. And they wouldn't want the DEW thing to get out into the public arena...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Buddy, we are not in the age of VHS tapes. Even in 2001 they were recorded digitally and memory is erased and re-recorded (and even VHS can be re-recorded). No need to reduce recording speed. 1 FPS does not adequately show events or moving objects (the point is to capture faces and license plates). There is no point in having 1 FPS. And after 1995 Oklahoma, where a truck was parked in front of the "office building", nah, I don't go with your explanation.

This wasn't focused on the building and I highly doubt the camera was even monitored so your last sentence is meaningless. They may have recorded digitally in 2001 but not for a traffic camera that really wasn't used for security. Even when it can be rerecorded then you can't keep it and 1 FPS DOES adequately show what it needed to show (I doubt they were even using it to record license plates as you can't really see them because of the angle, morelikely used for traffic analysis). Your whole argument is nothing more than "If I ran the zoo."

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

security camera that can be adjusted how many frames per second, recording on video tape and lower frame rate to save money. 1 frame per second is plenty for the minimal security needed in a parking lot. People forget the Pentagon is primarily an office building. There are secure areas but they are deeper inside and the security for those areas involve armed guards, picture IDs, key cards and codes and cameras AT THOSE LOCATIONS. Cameras in the parking lot don't really help as much as you think they might.

such innocence.....lol...... ;)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This is where the tables turn you see and I know the facts... Drugs don't destroy a person, mentla illness or guilt does. The drugs or alcohal just don't help in those cases. I know people who have been taking coke for 10+ years, probably longer than Charlie Sheen and you wouldn't even think it to look at them.

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.

Because Martin Sheen didn't make a public video asking the about it. Also Obama never replied to Charlie Sheen... So how was he given any answers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Love the fact this was ignored. Even US and UK military personel are sufferring from severe depression and in some cases there is suicede. It's really horrible what is happeneing to innocent people.

Just please remember this image and what it says before the inevitable war on iran happens.

416850_290471434354171_217514361649879_803039_217490730_n.jpg

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

What part of the Twin towers being able to withstand a plane hitting without falling did you miss?

Also I never mentioned there was no planes. I knew there was palnes. The question is who was flying them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

such innocence.....lol...... ;)

.

What in my post is not true?

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.