911 Pentagon Video Footage

[Coffey]

So now are we saying that the President isn't actually the one in control and it's the forces behind the scenes? (Which may very well be true). Well, if the president, whoever it may be at any given time, is just a figurehead and the decisions are made behind the Scenes, then wouldn't it be likely that it was these Forces that were responsible for this, and so they'd hardly be likely to let the President know the truth, would they? he might not know the real truth any more than, say, someone watching a Utube video does.

Yes you are completely correct, which is why thye don't allow him to answer the questions.

I don't even see the national bank etc being in control as a conspiracy theory. You just need to look at history and how they ahve a foothold on each side of every war to realise it. Why does 1 family have enough money to feed and hosue everyone in the world... lol Yet people starve in africa etc.

It's actually hilerious that people don't see this.

I mentioned it to my friends mum the other day and she never even heard the names Rothchild or Rockafella before. Once I told her who they where... Even she started to wonder about it.

But anyway this is going way of topic.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Coffey

[chezarelli]

The first equations are solid even less frames per sec would show more mass somewhere in the footage it would not be so hard to see a 757 it is a simple as that; it clearly is a smaller object and a command hub like the pentagon would have more footage from other cameras and i would think their surveillance of a national landmark and military command center could produce better quality and more defined evidence than a flash passed as a 150 f object that leaves no physical evidence no even a wing or titanium engine outside the entry point is amazing did it implode due to fire as well

[lliqerty]

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.

1983 Beirut, 1993 WTC bomb, 1995 Oklahoma

2001 The main military building in the US and the world) has parking lot cameras with ONE Frame Per Second?

[Czero 101]

*sigh*

Why is it people who are so convinced that no 757 hit the Pentagon typically say the same tired old stuff like:

it would not be so hard to see a 757 it is a simple as that;

Really...? Its that simple, is it?

It would have to be the greatest stroke of luck for that camera that takes pictures at a frame rate of 1 frame per second to have captured the "Perfect 757 Image" that would "satisfy" the CT's.

But I guarantee that if such a picture were produced, there would be cries of "Fake! How could a 1 FPS camera just happen to catch such a perfect picture.??? its too good to be true so it MUST be fake!!!11!!"

Please tell us just how far an object - an aircraft for example - traveling at 500mph will travel in 1 second...?

The math is actually pretty simple so it shouldn't be a problem.

it clearly is a smaller object

Perhaps you can show the math you did and the photo analysis you did to come to that conclusion...?

No...?

Yeah... I thought not.

and a command hub like the pentagon would have more footage from other cameras and i would think their surveillance of a national landmark and military command center could produce better quality and more defined evidence

Well, that's nice that you think that, unfortunately your thinking that doesn't make it so.

Chances are, those who designed the surveillance at the Pentagon had different things in mind than you do.

than a flash passed as a 150 f object that leaves no physical evidence no even a wing or titanium engine outside the entry point is amazing did it implode due to fire as well

So the evidence that you claim doesn't exist was faked...? You know... those pictures of the wreckage on the lawn and in the buildings (including engine parts) and the wreckage inside the building and the body parts and all that...?

What is it exactly that you think should happen when an aircraft weighing over 200,000 pounds traveling at over 500mph crashes into a reinforced concrete wall? That it will just bounce off...? That it will punch a cartoon-like, airplane-shaped hole into the wall...?

"Kinetic Energy"... look it up.

Cz

Edited July 10, 2012 by Czero 101

[lliqerty]

*sigh*

Why is it people who are so convinced that no 757 hit the Pentagon typically say the same tired old stuff like:

Really...? Its that simple, is it?

It would have to be the greatest stroke of luck for that camera that takes pictures at a frame rate of 1 frame per second to have captured the "Perfect 757 Image" that would "satisfy" the CT's.

But I guarantee that if such a picture were produced, there would be cries of "Fake! How could a 1 FPS camera just happen to catch such a perfect picture.??? its too good to be true so it MUST be fake!!!11!!"

Please tell us just how far an object - an aircraft for example - traveling at 500mph will travel in 1 second...?

The math is actually pretty simple so it shouldn't be a problem.

Perhaps you can show the math you did and the photo analysis you did to come to that conclusion...?

No...?

Yeah... I thought not.

Well, that's nice that you think that, unfortunately your thinking that doesn't make it so.

Chances are, those who designed the surveillance at the Pentagon had different things in mind than you do.

So the evidence that you claim doesn't exist was faked...? You know... those pictures of the wreckage on the lawn and in the buildings (including engine parts) and the wreckage inside the building and the body parts and all that...?

What is it exactly that you think should happen when an aircraft weighing over 200,000 pounds traveling at over 500mph crashes into a reinforced concrete wall? That it will just bounce off...? That it will punch a cartoon-like, airplane-shaped hole into the wall...?

Cz

YOUR thinking makes it so. Any evidence that it was recording at 1 FPS? Or just repeating what others are saying? People are convinced because of the evidence that the official story is physically impossible.

Other things in mind? Like what?

[lliqerty]

[bee]

Chances are, those who designed the surveillance at the Pentagon had different things in mind than you do.

Logic says that they would have more than a crappy traffic cctv camera for surveillance......so where are all the other films/photos?

IF a 757 had hit the Pentagon...they could and would be able to show it.

If only to put the supporters of the Official Account out of their misery and give them definitive evidence.

We can only presume that that definitive evidence does not exist.

.

.

[Czero 101]

YOUR thinking makes it so. Any evidence that it was recording at 1 FPS? Or just repeating what others are saying? People are convinced because of the evidence that the official story is physically impossible.

Yes... I've watched the video in question. It plays at 1 Frame per second.

Other things in mind? Like what?

Like perhaps securing the interior of the building - where all the important, secret, classified areas and offices are - is of higher importance than that of securing a random parking lot.

Cz

[chezarelli]

*sigh*

Why is it people who are so convinced that no 757 hit the Pentagon typically say the same tired old stuff like:

Really...? Its that simple, is it?

It would have to be the greatest stroke of luck for that camera that takes pictures at a frame rate of 1 frame per second to have captured the "Perfect 757 Image" that would "satisfy" the CT's.

But I guarantee that if such a picture were produced, there would be cries of "Fake! How could a 1 FPS camera just happen to catch such a perfect picture.??? its too good to be true so it MUST be fake!!!11!!"

Please tell us just how far an object - an aircraft for example - traveling at 500mph will travel in 1 second...?

The math is actually pretty simple so it shouldn't be a problem.

Perhaps you can show the math you did and the photo analysis you did to come to that conclusion...?

No...?

Yeah... I thought not.

Well, that's nice that you think that, unfortunately your thinking that doesn't make it so.

Chances are, those who designed the surveillance at the Pentagon had different things in mind than you do.

So the evidence that you claim doesn't exist was faked...? You know... those pictures of the wreckage on the lawn and in the buildings (including engine parts) and the wreckage inside the building and the body parts and all that...?

What is it exactly that you think should happen when an aircraft weighing over 200,000 pounds traveling at over 500mph crashes into a reinforced concrete wall? That it will just bounce off...? That it will punch a cartoon-like, airplane-shaped hole into the wall...?

"Kinetic Energy"... look it up.

Cz

err we have footage of a small object hitting a solid object and leaving no trace what maths do you need to show a 757 with its massive wing span LEAVING NO TRACE ANYWHERE are you nuts ?what happened to the wings they folded up and followed the rest of the fuselarge in the small hole ?757 have titanium engines as big as a family car where are they? the hole in the building shows no impact from wings or engines why not ? kinetic energy does not totally evaporate engines look at aviation disasters from around the world you will see large recognizable peaces of engines even when they hit water !!.the wreckage on the lawn was a joke considering the mass let me guess kinetic energy vaporized all of it .The pentagon not having adequate security footage due to other things on their mind is another joke ?forget the footage the aftermath is a complete contradiction a simple maths equation does not make it go away or make you look any smarter cheap shot .138 of a mile give or take that,'s even if that's what the object was doing any evidence of the exact speed ?

[Czero 101]

[media=]

[/media]

Keep in mind that Maj. Gen Stubblebine (Ret.) also believed he could walk through walls and make himself invisible, however he was never able to actually DO either, despite several attempts.

One of the great proponents of psychic warfare was Major General Albert Stubblebine III - and back in 1983, he was at the height of his powers.

He was one of America's most distinguished soldiers and chief of U.S. Army Intelligence, with 16,000 soldiers under his command. He was instrumental in the invasions of Panama and Grenada. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Albert Stubblebine III was at the heart of America's military machine.

He was also a man who tried to walk through walls.

Visitors to Stubblebine's offices at Arlington, Virginia, are told of him repeatedly walking at walls - only to bounce painfully off them.

But in his mind, there was never any doubt that the ability to pass through solid objects would one day be a common tool in the intelligence-gathering arsenal.

Nonetheless, he was continuously frustrated by his own, rather embarrassing, lack of success.

'I still think it's a great idea,' says General Stubblebine. 'I simply kept bumping my nose. It's a disappointment - just like levitation.'

[SOURCE]

Cz

[Czero 101]

err we have footage of a small object hitting a solid object and leaving no trace what maths do you need to show a 757 with its massive wing span LEAVING NO TRACE ANYWHERE are you nuts ?what happened to the wings they folded up and followed the rest of the fuselarge in the small hole ?757 have titanium engines as big as a family car where are they? the hole in the building shows no impact from wings or engines why not ? kinetic energy does not totally evaporate engines look at aviation disasters from around the world you will see large recognizable peaces of engines even when they hit water !!.the wreckage on the lawn was a joke considering the mass let me guess kinetic energy vaporized all of it .The pentagon not having adequate security footage due to other things on their mind is another joke ?forget the footage the aftermath is a complete contradiction a simple maths equation does not make it go away or make you look any smarter cheap shot .138 of a mile give or take that,'s even if that's what the object was doing any evidence of the exact speed ?

Tell ya what... put your copy of Loose Change or whatever other piece of trash conspiracy crap you're buying into away and look at the actual evidence, including the pictures of the engines at the crash site, then come back and debate the issue.

At the moment you're doing the forum equivalent of arriving at a gun fight unarmed.

Have a good day...

Cz

[TSS]

Keep in mind that Maj. Gen Stubblebine (Ret.) also believed he could walk through walls and make himself invisible, however he was never able to actually DO either, despite several attempts.

I'd love to have seen his attempt at walking through a wall...

[Czero 101]

I'd love to have seen his attempt at walking through a wall...

Watch "The Men Who Stare At Goats"... he's the inspiration for one of the characters, specifically the general who tries to walk - run, rather - through a wall and fails... a few times, if memory serves...

Cz

Edited July 10, 2012 by Czero 101

[TSS]

Watch "The Men Who Stare At Goats"... he's the inspiration for one of the characters, specifically the general who tries to walk - run, rather - through a wall and fails... a few times, if memory serves...

Cz

Cheers, i'll check that out!

[frenat]

1983 Beirut, 1993 WTC bomb, 1995 Oklahoma

2001 The main military building in the US and the world) has parking lot cameras with ONE Frame Per Second?

Apparently yes. The camera was likely not even monitored. It was adequate for its purpose.

You forgot,

2012 the majority of military installations have NO CAMERAS at their gates or parking lots.

Edited July 10, 2012 by frenat

[Space Commander Travis]

[media=]

[/media]

Oh, not the fanous General of All American Intelligence again. Have you seen The Men Who Stare At Goats? The film may be largely fictionalised, but Jon Ronson's book will tell you all you need to know about our ol' friend Gen. Stubblebine. It really is almost as bizarre as fiction.

[bee]

Oh, not the fanous General of All American Intelligence again. Have you seen The Men Who Stare At Goats? The film may be largely fictionalised, but Jon Ronson's book will tell you all you need to know about our ol' friend Gen. Stubblebine. It really is almost as bizarre as fiction.

like 9/11 then.......

oh...and I've noticed that refering to 'The Men Who Stare at Goats' has become the standard method of DEALING with Gen. Stubblebine.

It makes you wonder.....if he was such a nutter...as SOME PEOPLE try and make out...that he became a General and managed to do all

the things that he did.

.

[Babe Ruth]

Bravo for the General! I had not seen him before. Danke Schoen!

Yes, the story does not fit the facts. About as concise a statement as can be made.

[skyeagle409]

[media=]

[/media]

Haven't you bothered to check out the story before you posted that video?

Bravo for the General! I had not seen him before. Danke Schoen!

Yes, the story does not fit the facts. About as concise a statement as can be made.

Flight 77 Debris

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building.

I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Pentagon - Popular Mechanics

Now, what was that the general said about no evidence of wings at the Pentagon?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

Edited July 10, 2012 by skyeagle409

[MID]

Oh, not the fanous General of All American Intelligence again. Have you seen The Men Who Stare At Goats? The film may be largely fictionalised, but Jon Ronson's book will tell you all you need to know about our ol' friend Gen. Stubblebine. It really is almost as bizarre as fiction.

wOW...General Stubblebine!?

I hadn't noticed someone put that up.

I suppose I shouldn't be at all surprized..

[+Liquid Gardens]

It makes you wonder.....if he was such a nutter...as SOME PEOPLE try and make out...that he became a General and managed to do all

the things that he did.

I think the reason he comes off as a nutter, even ignoring the 'Staring at Goats' thing and just going from the interview up above, is the certainty he has about his own conclusions about what he insists did not happen without really providing any evidence that he is equipped skill-wise to do that type of analysis. He's a general and he's spent a lot of time analyzing pictures, that's about all we know and have to go on. Generals have different job descriptions than architects and structural engineers and accident investigators and thus a different set of skills. I would think that in his no doubt extensive experience analyzing intelligence photos he's analyzed troop movements and strengths and evidence of camouflaged weaponry and the like; that's a whole different set of skills than analyzing what happens when a plane hits a building and what the effect would be. Let's put it this way, I doubt that anyone would give much credence to the General's analysis of a photo of a bacterial cell or a chest xray just because he's looked at a lot of pictures in his life; same general principle is at work here.

And this isn't directed at you, bee, but it's amazing how often some 'proponents of alternative theories' (that's for you, lliqerty) just provide the thinnest gloss over some of the hugest evidentiary holes that require explanation if what they specifically dispute is true. The General above just waves his magic wand and utters the spell, 'the media will say whatever the government tells them to', and this objection is just poofed out of existence. Yea sure, the media will say whatever the govt tells them... well except in the Lewinsky case, Watergate, Iran-Contra, those pesky missing WMDs, etc. Let alone feasibly explaining the witnesses and in this case, where are the plane and it's passengers. But no, no, if someone doesn't see a picture clearly showing what they expect where the wing impacted the Pentagon then that throws all the much more significant evidence into question. Or something like that.

[lliqerty]

Apparently yes. The camera was likely not even monitored. It was adequate for its purpose.

You forgot,

2012 the majority of military installations have NO CAMERAS at their gates or parking lots.

Wow, what an excuse. That should make everybody feel save!

Invading our privacy online, strip searching passengers.

Your statement is perfect proof that the "war against terrorism" is nothing but a pretext.

Edited July 11, 2012 by lliqerty

[lliqerty]

Oh, not the fanous General of All American Intelligence again. Have you seen The Men Who Stare At Goats? The film may be largely fictionalised, but Jon Ronson's book will tell you all you need to know about our ol' friend Gen. Stubblebine. It really is almost as bizarre as fiction.

What is bizarre or "fictionalized"? Because you don't agree with it?

The Military selected a bad guy to be General?

He is a member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.

[skyeagle409]

The Military selected a bad guy to be General? He is a member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.

He was unaware that parts from the wings of American 77 were found and wing impact points noted on the wall of the Pentagon. For someone who is suppose to know something, why didn't he know that?

[lliqerty]

He was unaware that parts from the wings of American 77 were found and wing impact points noted on the wall of the Pentagon. For someone who is suppose to know something, why didn't he know that?

Maybe because ot is not a fact, only wishful thinking? Did you make it to General?