New 9/11 Pentagon video released, shows explosion and no plane
NEW 9/11 Pentagon Video released from hotel
Add to My Profile | More Videos
Saturday, December 2 - The CNN Wire
Hotel security video shows 9/11 Pentagon blast, but no plane
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A hotel security camera video released by the U.S. government showed the explosion that followed the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, but the low-quality recording did not capture an image of the 757 jetliner.
The video, recorded by a security camera at the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, was released to public interest group Judicial Watch and others who filed a lawsuit seeking the tape and other videos from that day.
CNN filed a Freedom of Information request for the video in February 2002, after the manager of the hotel disclosed its existence to CNN Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre and said it had been confiscated by the FBI. CNN's FOI request was denied because at the time the tape was considered evidence in the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, who has since been convicted.
There was speculation that this video might show the American Airlines 757 jetliner before it crashed, but a close examination by CNN only revealed the subsequent explosion and no image of the jet. The only known record of the plane is on images from the Pentagon security camera, first broadcast by CNN in March of 2002, and officially released in their entirety May of this year. (Posted 8:43 a.m.)
- Gideon524's blog
- Login to post comments
are there any details on
are there any details on this yet? its not even on CNN's page or news.google.com it seems..
what's the source? flight77.info says the hotel footage doesn't come out til the 22nd..
details!?
yeh i can really see how
yeh i can really see how releasing this in the days after 9/11 would have compramised national security (sarcasm).
...
Wow big suprise...no plane! I'm glad they put to rest all these "outrageous conspiracy theories" with this video.
Great job guys!
By now the government is
By now the government is acting guilty by not providing any of the hundreds of cameras' recording in and around the pentagon. This is ridiculious. There is no security risk of showing us all the available videos, not just one but all of them. This is simply another piece of evidence of their guilt that we can throw on top of the pile. It's sad that we live in a country which has been hijacked by pinstriped thugs.
The government does not have
The government does not have to act guilty. It is guilty! Not all of government is guilty but the rogue elements were complicit in carrying out 9/11's false flag operation in my opinion.
Of course it wasn't the
Of course it wasn't the entire government, it was most likely small factions of US and Foriegn Intelligence agencies coupled with rogue elements from the pentagon which carried out the treasonous and murderous acts.
If it wasn't the entire
If it wasn't the entire government but merely 'rogue elements', how come they haven't been rumbled yet? By covering up for them the government are showing their complicity in the 'attacks'.
That is my theory as well.
That is my theory as well.
Apparently there are those
Apparently there are those in the debunker camp who claim ALL the tapes EXCEPT for the DoubleTree tape have been released to the public. Any idea where this idea came from? When I ask for a link, they just rant about something else I said.
"It's sad that we live in a country which has been hijacked by pinstriped thugs."
Cynthia McKinney was quite frank--" we have a crimial syndicate in the White House."(paraphrase from Truth and Lies of 911)
"Bugger this; I want a better world."
I agree
Ya, holding them back is just another crime on top of all the other crimes. If there are some innocent people working for some of these agencies it would be in there own interest to see these videos released. Otherwise they are becoming accomplises after the fact.
National Security
That gave me a laugh. Just when I get stressed enough knowing criminals are at large for 9/11, a snippet like that humors me enough to bridge the gap between the real and the ideal.
thanks!
seriously
national security issue
Da Plane Da Plane- NOT
This is so typical though, the big release doesn't show WHAT hit the Pentagon, because they've artfully installed a passing truck or whathaveyou, BUT MY REAL point is that there are ROOF CAMS apparently that have to show the real weapon of mass deception
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/02/saturday/index.html
Come on, is there anyone here that actually believes the official 9/11 government fairy tale? Of course the fbi has been trying to cover up 9/11. That is what all evidence has suggested for many years. Can anyone honestly say the at the WTC collapses were not a demolitions? How many here noticed immediately on 9/11 that buildings were demolished? Probably everyone here.
The lamestream media and Faux News will bury this story. 9/11 was a false flag operation but the masses could seem to care less. How about the mass media steps up and turns the tide? There is plenty of money in holding those that really carried out 9/11 accountable in a court of law.
I commend the makers of loosechange for withstanding fbi harassment to get the truth out. You guys are real patriots.
On 9/11 I walked by a tv and
On 9/11 I walked by a tv and saw a crowd huddled around it. I walked in the tv room as the second tower was collapsing. I turned to a co-worker and asked why the company was giving time off for people to see the WTC towers being demolished. My co-worker stood in total silence. I then walked over to my cubicle thinking that the WTC had been scheduled for demolition. I had a ton of work to do and so did the department I was working in but everyone cleared out of the room as I went back to my desk. I went back to the TV and then heard newscasters say the buildings fell due to fire and being hit by planes. I still thought it was not real and some kind of really sick joke until I saw the VP watching tv with his jaw almost hitting the ground. I said right away that those buildings were demolished. My contract was never renewed after it was completed two months later.
All evidence including
All evidence including thermate residual and basic physics continue to point to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job and the buildings demolished. Go back and watch Faux News along with your other friends who have the maturity levels of first graders. It was obvious the WTC building were demolished. Nice try at using at least 2 of the The 25 Methods Of Truth Suppression. They don't work on me nor do they work on anyone in the Truth Movement so in essence you are posting to your stooge friends that infect the USA with your criminal behavior.
Boredom ?
Why do you waste your time on something you don't believe in? Find another bridge to crawl under.
gobbledygook
You ain't none too brite, is ya?
-----
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
still no plane..
still no plane...if they wanted to prove it, why not show the other 70+ stationary security cameras that caught the incident on tape. I'm sick of this bullshit. There was no plane!
Hmm...
These people seem to think there was a plane...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
Just sayin.
and in a tragically ironic twist of fate...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3533.htm
Burlingame becomes victim in a situation similar to the drill he was a part of.
But no one had any idea "they'd" do this type of thing.
/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
wayback results
http://web.archive.org/web/20020602203543/http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/C...
/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
Quote from USA Today's Mike Walter...
"IT WAS LIKE A CRUISE MISSILE WITH WINGS". Who would ever describe a commercial passenger jet as like a cruise missile with wings??
Someone who saw a commercial
Someone who saw a commercial jet flying low at hundreds of miles of hour crashing into something.
God, do you people ever ask WHY they would hit the Pentagon with a missile when they've got a perfectly good hijacked plane to work with? I'm tired of seeing well-meaning 9/11 researchers falling for this Pentagon no-plane booby trap.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
thoughts
You know how hard it would be to steer that plane into that very area of the Pentagon?
They would risk hitting the wrong side where actual military government people populate mostly instead of just the renovation workers and a few military personnel.
So then they Rumsfield can say: "why would I risk being killed to be in on this scheme and attack my own building?"
Just some random thoughts...
How we know Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
People who think no plane hit the Pentagon are as crazy as those that think no planes hit the WTC.
1. Nobody knows what a 757 hitting a reinforced masonry building at 500 mph looks like, nor what the resulting debris pattern would be. In the case of the Trade Center, a hypothetical lawn in front of the impacted building side would be equally devoid of debris. Both planes in New York were also largely reduced to completely unrecognizable small pieces.
2. It's true that the outer wing tips seem to have inflicted no damage to the building, but this was the case in the WTC as well: Both planes lost the outer chunk of their wings on impact; more so in Flight 175 because it struck thicker beams lower in the building. The solid stone walls of the Pentagon would have been even more resistant to the impact and thus the hole would be smaller than in either tower. What is clear is that the damage is not in any way consistent with a cruise missile strike.
3. Plane parts inside the building show a multi- ton landing gear assembly (clearly from a 757), a wheel rim of the specific model that the plane operating as Flight 77 had been outfitted with, and large engine pieces. The 'mystery part' in Loose Change has been conclusively identified as a 757 engine component, and it is far too big to be a fan rotor from a small jet like the A-3. I think the most compelling debris photos, however, are those that show aluminum parts plastered around support columns inside the Pentagon, clearly there as a result of a high- velocity impact. I can't think of a plausible way this could be faked, other than building a replica of the Pentagon interior somewhere else.
4. Grainy and low- frame rate security cameras would do a very poor job of recording the high speed impact, so the lack of a distinctive plane in any of the available footage is not surprising. If there are cameras that clearly recorded the plane, that I have no doubt they are simply withholding them as a future means to discredit the movement. It is unfortunate that no professional- grade news cameras filmed the impact, but this is not at all surprising at the same time. It should not be construed as evidence that there wasn't a plane.
5. Arguing that there was no plane at the Pentagon completely diffuses the evidence provided by Norman Minenta's testimony. Saying "Dick Cheney let Flight 77 hit the Pentagon" is a lot more convincing than "No plane hit the Pentagon" or any crazy shit about a missile. You can prove the former, the latter is just speculation, and it's really one or the other. Anyone with any sense can see which side has the stronger case here... (Hint: "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 40 miles out...")
6. The passenger list of Flight 77 was highly suspicious, with a huge number of present or former Navy employees. Any discussion of this is impossible when suggesting there was no plane in the first place.
7. OH yeah and there were dozens of witnesses, at least as many as the first NYC impact (no high buildings in the way, and a busy freeway right next to the crash site). All of them saw a plane. Most of them saw a commercial jet liner. Only a few of them worked for the Government.
8. Hani Hanjour clearly wasn't flying the plane. At least we can all agree on that...
As far as 'no planers' go, I think it's all or nothing: Either there were 3 plane crashes into buildings that day, or there were zero. The idea that they had large numbers of fake witnesses on- scene, a means to control bystanders that also witnessed the crash, teams of CGI artists to doctor the footage before releasing it, plus a huge operation to plant hundreds of pieces of debris immediately following each crash is pretty far fetched, and supported by very little evidence. It also increases the necessary number of conspirators substantially, something Truthers should avoid doing at all costs... But in any case, it would be as difficult for them to pull off at the Pentagon as it would have been in New York. More importantly, there reasons for faking a plane in either city are equally non- existent.
So, hands up - who here is really with Nico Haupt and the loony cartoon planers?
I don't know what hit the
I don't know what hit the Pentagon. I don't really care either, because the truth is nothing should have hit that building.
Still there is a big difference between not believing a plane hit the Pentagon and not believing a plane hit the second tower.
Pentagon should not have been hit
That's a very good point. It shouldn't be about what hit the pentagon, it should be about the fact that they knew something was coming for 40 minutes [Mineta testimony], and there was an air base less than 10 miles away, and nothing was done to prevent the attack. This is all documented.
Even if Mineta's testimony did not exist, the very fact that a plane had 40 minutes to approach the pentagon is damning evidence. The pentagon has better radar than the FAA. The pentagon has an airbase less than 10 miles away. Nothing was done to stop the plane. End of story.
We should focus on this evidence, it's much more conclusive than what did or didn't hit the pentagon.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
"As far as 'no planers' go,
"As far as 'no planers' go, I think it's all or nothing: Either there were 3 plane crashes into buildings that day, or there were zero."
I don't know how you figure this. You don't have to believe cartoon planes hit WTC 1& 2 to know, just from looking at the wreckage at the Pentagon, that SOMETHING is wrong this this picture.
I grew up in the 70's and before TERROR was what sold papers it was airplane crashes. (okay everyone, selective memory edit to directly reference topic. There was also something about that 'hussy' Cher and those women libers) It seems like there was a crash on the front page EVERY month; I know that's not true, it's just how it felt. That's the impression it made. And the pictures of these crashes have rubbish strew ALL OVER. Chared bodies, insulation, seats and cushions. And, most importantly, the hull of the plane, torn, broken or crumpled, but still obviously recognizable as peices of a jet liner. These things don't just disappear no matter what they hit.
So, no, I don't believe a JUMBO JET hit the Pentagon. From the lack of wake turbulence and temporary deafness--this is minutes to an hour, not moments-in the testimony I've read from people within dozen's of yards of the alledged jet's passage I believe a smaller jet craft was involved.
I DO NOT think witnesses are lying or are necessariliy plants. But perceptions can change by suggestion, especially if an event happened so quickly you're not sure how it happened:
You're sitting in traffic near the Pentagon and some loud aircraft screams over you--but doesn't knock your car off the road(this is the absence of a massive aircraft's wake turbulence ). Your ears ring for a moment, but you are not actually deafened. (unprotected exposure from jumbo jet noise can cause temporary to permanent hearing damage) You assume it was a plane of some sort; when someone asks if you saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon you say, "Oh, yeah--it flew right over me while I was in traffic!"
This person is not lying. But that does not mean the aircraft that flew over head is a jumbo jet passenger liner.
So lets have a little respect for the obvious inconsitancies and how we WILL, as individuals, come from different angles without being labeled as in cahoots with someone you don't like.
For the record, I know too little about the 'Nico Haupt" saga to have an opinion one way or the other. And I do believe WTC 1& 2 were hit by aircraft of some sort, so don't start, sunshine.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
I couldn't've put it better
I couldn't've put it better myself. There are too many anomalies for me, or anyone ideally, to conclude anything concrete about the Pentagon attack. It's an event that's interesting to talk about, but should, when discussing 9/11 truth with the sleeping, be relegated to the back-burner.
"True enlightenment is attained when one can, at will, see through the illusion of reality." - Me, intoxicated
757 or not
Obviously saying "no plane crash at all" is a lot more absurd that suggesting the plane that hit was a 757, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest a 757 is exactly what hit the building. You failed to address any of the clear points that were made in the original post.
I've seen plenty of pictures of the Pentagon crash and I don't see anything 'wrong' with them. Of course a high speed crash into a reinforced building isn't gonna leave any fuselage pieces, saying otherwise is absurd - like the WTC crashes, the plane was shredded into small pieces. Pieces which were widely photographed: www.pentagonresearch.com has extensive documentation of debris photos. Obviously the parts didn't 'disappear', but to say that they would remain recognizable after a 500 mph crash into solid stone, concrete, and steel is pretty silly. And there is no relevance between the 9/11 impacts and low- speed DC4 crashes in the '70s. Sorry 'sunshine'...
Inconsistencies in the FDR data, a lack of disturbed cars, and the path of lightpost damage should NOT be interpreted as evidence for no plane - only that the govt. account of what happened is false.
Is there anything else to suggest a plane didn't hit the building? No. Is there anything to suggest it wasn't a 757? Only unreliable witness reports. Is there anything to suggest that Flight 77, a 757, struck the building? Yes, most notably the expected pieces of the plane that resulted from the crash. There remains to be a single piece of credible evidence that Flight 77 didn't hit the building.
So I support the original claim: Faking one plane crash on 9/11 is pretty much as unreasonable as faking three. The ONLY evidence in support of no- planers or no- 757 people is that there isn't crash footage taken at the Pentagon to disprove their wild theory. And honestly, I think if they faked a crash at the Pentagon, they would have just provided phony footage of this non- existent crash - but clearly debunking the no planers is not in their best interest right now. You guys are just doing such a great job murking up the waters of legitimate 9/11 research!
The few mechanical parts of a plane found at the Pentagon
have been shown to be too small for a Boeing 757!
Check again
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/757debris.html
Constructed divides
One can ponder the hypothesis of missiles and no planes all day on your own...I just wish it was kept out of the "official" story of the 911 truth movement. It will only serve to make the entire movement look foolish. All the Pentagon has to do is release clear footage of the plane flying into the Pentagon--real or fabricated-- and everything good about 911 theories will also be dismissed as the embarrasing gaff is highlighted. Can't you see they want you to focus on this tinfoil stuff to create divisions, doubt and distractions from the real picture. It's PsyOps, baby!
For example, Atta's girlfriend claim that he loved to eat pork and visit strip joints was a big part of the 911 movement's story that he wasn't a devout muslim. No one here checked that story, but boy did it spread...Thanks, Tarpley. Now the same woman has come out to say she made it up and never knew him. Regardless of whether she was always a liar, or is now changing her story under pressure...the perception will be that she is an unreliable source that we trusted. So we can't use her account.
The missile theory is based on a LACK of evidence and totally unprovable in a court of law. (Sorry,the theory: the shape of the hole = a missile is also unprovable.) Let's stick with the good stuff.
AA-77 did NOT strike the Pentagon!
1. The “witnesses” who insisted they saw AA-77 hit the Pentagon were plants.
2. Hani Hajour did not box-cut the pilots to death & fly the Boeing 250 miles back to D.C.
3. Hanjour did not do amazing maneuvers with a large airliner.
4. Hanjour did not disappear a large airliner into a 16-foot hole in the renovated wedge of the Pentagon, several feet above the ground.
5. More than 80 videos of what happened at the Pentagon are being withheld to hide the truth. The only video released looks nothing like a Boeing-757.
6. There is no way in hell that 63 of 64 people who exploded & smashed through the Pentagon @ 530 mph were ID’ed in any way, shape, or form. The fictitious DNA results were fabricated to bolster the “official story.”
16 FOOT?
Mister Anon...did you know the hole was 16 feet until the hole collapsed?
It was 16 feet there is video of it, my friend. It burned for a while then fell apart to make the bigger hole.
Check the evidence
I'm not stupid - obviously the 96 foot measurement is taken from pre- collapse photos. Photos of the second floor have been misleadingly cropped to look as if it is the first floor due to foam being sprayed horizontally along the bottom of the second floor. There is no video whatsoever of your '16 foot hole', and the initial impact did in fact destroy almost 100 feet of the first floor. Please, no- planers, read these links:
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html or http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html for a list of all the common Pentagon- related errors.
Funny how all the posts suggesting there wasn't a plane get voted down... there was a day when the average 911 Blogger reader had more sense. I guess that's the price you pay for a wider audience...
?
First of all, I've seen pictures of the 16 foot hole before it collapsed. But what bout the penetrated walls of the inner rings of the Pentagon? You're telling me those are the size of an aircraft?
OK, so you say the landing gear flew out and punched those holes in. So the landing gear survives and punches thru holes in the wall but the rest of the plane is incinerated on impact?
So?
You are just admitting that you do not know much and have not bothered to educate yourself.
Re: ?
No, you haven't, because there never was a 16 foot hole. If you had bothered to click on either of the links I had provided, you would know that - but instead you gave the post a negative rating, typed up some silly little misinformed response, and went along your way...
The punch out holes are also addressed in the 911research piece. The landing gear actually survived intact inside the Pentagon, and was photographed (http://www.pentagonresearch.com/084.html). And the plane wasn't incinerated, it was smashed into small pieces that there are hundreds of photos of. Do some damn research before you make stupid, provably- false claims like 'there wasn't a plane at the Pentagon'.
Why the hell is he getting
Why the hell is he getting voted down? This is the most sensible remark on the Pentagon I've ever read!
I can see the plane in the video. Is CNN completely insane?
Of course CNN is insane. They are completely controlled and told what to say to the point of absurdity. First of all, they don't show us the damn video but instead just have it briefly seen in the background. Then they say: The video does not show the plane. Bullsh!t. I can see one the wings stickining up before it crashes. Watch it closely. You can see one of the wings tilting up into the air before the collision. I am not entirely convinced it wasn't a 767. However, I believe it was rigged with explosives so that when it hit the Pentagon it really did disintegrate and not cause tremendous damage which could have actually killed more people, even little Wolfiewitz. But I also believe there is a chance it wasn't a 767 in the first place-- I am just not convinced that it couldn't have been a 767. There is no way Hani Hanjor whatever his name was actually flying it though. One thing's clear: they don't want us to see what really happened because it is not what we were told. Its a strange feeling. Knowing that everyone will learn 9/11 was an inside job in the next few years. To tell you the truth, I will miss being one of the early "conspiracy theorists". It kind of makes me feel above most people.
And still we ask...
Where's the goddamned PLANE!?!?!
"The absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence."
-Donald Rumsfeld, August 5, 2003
U.S. Secretary of Defense
"Kiss my ass Rummy!!!"
-Chris Rose, December 2, 2006
9/11 Truth Activist
Many of us in the movement
Many of us in the movement do believe that AAL77 hit the Pentagon. Some of those who do not are genuine truth seekers who are just mistaken. The government is playing with us. Why should they help us find the truth? They are trying to string along the no-Boeing people to thus discredit the whole 9/11 truth effort.
Show us the goddamned videos!
Plane or no plane... RELEASE THE F'N TAPES!!!
If a tape was released which showed the plane..
..you'd just say it was faked.
Just like how airphone calls were faked, witnesses were planted etc.
So stop pretending that there is any evidence which would convince you.
yep
And if it didn't show the plane, you would just say the government has the info they just can't release it to us yet because of security issues.
It goes both ways, my friend. You'll believe whatever the government tells you and we'll be skeptical about everything.
just mistaken huh? so i
just mistaken huh? so i guess you have proof that 77 hit huh? with an absolutist statement like that i would sure hope so.
No, I don't have proof that
No, I don't have proof that AAL77 did hit the Pentagon. But neither do you have proof that it did not. Therefore we should proceed from the assumption that it did.
Can someone tell me what the conspirators would have gained by crashing something else into the Pentagon, and then doing god-knows-what with the real AAL77? What would be the point of such a complex bait-and-switch?
Does anyone here go to Jim Hoffman's site, 911research.wtc7.com? I think Hoffman is pretty well respected, and he also contends that AAL77 hit the Pentagon.
And finally, why the nasty vituperation against someone within this movement who disagrees with you? I have respect for no-Boeing people, as I indicated above. I even believe it is possible they are right. Don't imprison yourself within your own theory.
The wings carry the fuel
Since the wings carry the fuel, the explosion should have been on the outside of the pentagon. At least the explosion and the speed on a commercial airliner should have broken a few windows.
couple points are possible
a 757 would be difficult to hit its mark on such a low building, they couldn't risk survivors or a plane that didn't get completely destroyed.
Also the Pentagons automatic missle defense system should have easily taken out a 757 that they knew was coming at them for a freaking hour.
The real flt 77 could have easily been flown over the Atlantic and sent to the bottom.
NTSB simulation
Exactly, and don't forget the NTSB simulation that has the 757 fly high over, not hitting the lamppoles, left alone the Pentagon.
So either they're playing games with us with every single piece of evidence: the photographs, the first video, now this one, i.e. they have photoshopped/hidden the 757 out of the frames/the crash site to fuel no-plane theories and keep us busy with a dead end road, or they just have no plane to show, and a lot to hide.
As far as the witnesses are concerned: true, there's those that say they really saw the 757 hit, including the one that made the most incriminating no-plane photographs. And asked whether it flew inches above the lawn before, they say they saw that, too. This is like someone that says he saw the JFK 'magic bullet' - if a witness says he saw it, it must be true, but then again, it can't be true...
Right, especially survivors that would say Hani Hanjour was not
flying that plane.
"a 757 would be difficult to
"a 757 would be difficult to hit its mark on such a low building, they couldn't risk survivors or a plane that didn't get completely destroyed."
Executing the maneuver AAL77 allegedly did and then hitting such a small target would indeed be difficult for even an experienced pilot. My friend JDX at pilotsfortruth.com tells me that the plane was going over 100 knots faster than normal for an airplane on approach, making the maneuver that much more difficult-- although JDX also says the maneuver is still doable for a good pilot.
Looking at it from the perspective of the conspirators, think how difficult it would be to find qualified people to do a suicide terrorist mission. Then think how much MORE difficult it would be if you had to find four experienced, talented pilots who are also willing to do a suicide mission. Despite all the hype we hear about jihadists, al-Qaeda and militant Islam, I don't believe they could find four such individuals. I don't believe anyone could. A good pilot has a lot to live for. He is skilled, respected, and well paid-- whether he is a Saudi, an Israeli, or an American CIA agent.. This is not the profile of a suicidal fanatic.
I think we should therefore consider the possibility that this plane, as well as the three others, was being piloted by remote navigation, i.e. remote control, when it crashed. I think this is the question we should focus on when we examine the evidence, including the flight data recorder, of the Pentagon crash: was the plane being piloted by a human in the cockpit, or not? If we can nail down that it was remotely controlled, we can start to zero in on the real culprits, since the number of persons intimately familiar with such technology as Global Hawk is quite limited.
"Also the Pentagons automatic missle defense system should have easily taken out a 757 that they knew was coming at them for a freaking hour."
This is a good point. Many of the anomolies of the Pentagon crash might be explained by something causing the breakup of the plane seconds before impact with the building. The same phenomenon may have occurred with the FL93 crash. What would have caused the plane to break up? Two possibilities:
A. A defense missile fired from the Pentagon missile at the intruding plane, as suggested by Nunyabiz.
B. A bomb on board the plane packaged as luggage, a la Lockerbie, and many other mysterious crashes. Remember, airport security at IAD, BOS, and EWR was all handled by the same firm, ICTS-- an Israeli owned firm.
"The real flt 77 could have easily been flown over the Atlantic and sent to the bottom."
Yes it could have been. But its target would have been visible to air traffic controllers, and the truth of that would have leaked out by now. Three of the four flights turned off their transponders, but their "primary targets," which is just a dot that does not display altitude, were still viewed by controllers as the planes headed to their targets. Despite the gag order on controllers, this has become apparent. The fourth plane, UAL175, switched its transponder to an incorrect code, and was also watched by controllers as it headed for Manhattan.
The conspirators could control the transponders, but they knew they could not prevent ATC from watching the targets on radar. (They also knew, however, that there was no risk of a shootdown as long as their man Cheney was in the Commander-in-Chief's bunker.) I therefore doubt AAL77 ended up in the Atlantic. That would have been too risky from the perspective of the people who planned the attack.
Oh--My--GOD!
quote: "Therefore we should proceed from the assumption that it did."
You *seriously* need to go (back) to school and take some college-level logic and critical thinking classes and the like. Good luck with that.
And Hoffman is *quickly* loosing his so-called 'credibility'. If anyone is a disinfo agent, he is starting to look like one.
---
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
Consider all of the evidence
We should have every reason to doubt the official story. They lie about everything. Anyone who believes without question what this administration says is simply naive.
This being said, we have to look at all of the facts. I do not think Jim Hoffman is a disinfo agent. Quite frankly his website is one of the best I've seen on the internet in relation to 9/11 research. We should consider all of the evidence in reaching a conclusion.
Any attempt to explain what happened at the pentagon must explain the fact that there were hundreds of witnesses who claimed to see the plane.
Read them here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
Are they all being paid to say this?
Physical evidence:
Light poles. Something knocked them down. We can't just ignore this evidence. Something with the wingspan of a Boeing plane knocked these down. Wouldn't it be too dangerous to attempt to knock these down without a plane (i.e. possible eyewitnesses)?
I think we should be careful in assuming that a plane did not hit the pentagon. I am willing to accept any conclusion as long as all of the evidence supports it.
Alot of evidence is being hid from us, so we have to realize it is dangerous to reach predetermined conclusions.
Finally, the most important fact is that the pentagon should not have been hit by a plane. Discussions about what did or did not hit it are therefore basically irrelevant. They knew something was coming for 40 minutes.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
with all due respect andrew,
with all due respect andrew, and im sorry i came at you so hard, that was uncalled for, but this was your statement:Some of those who do not are genuine truth seekers who are just mistaken. The government is playing with us. Why should they help us find the truth? They are trying to string along the no-Boeing people to thus discredit the whole 9/11 truth effort.
we are mistaken and eventually going to discredit the movement if we think something other than 77 hit. i dont know if thats respect.
the point of the bait and switch would be out of necessity. i understand it raises questions about what happened to 77 that are hard to answer and i would leave that to others with more experience and insight. the Pentagon was hit well after it was clear that planes were being used as weapons and the military should have been on high alert. this, among other things leads me to believe it had to be a "friendly" aircraft that hit the Pentagon. the whole 9/11 operation was complex, hence it being an inside job and not 19 patsies and a caveman CIA asset.
Dude...
Three (3) years ago I so would have taken you on... but now you (and your ilk) seem just pathetic. You sir are no Patriot! Be gone! You have no power here!
I am a patriot. It is
I am a patriot. It is hateful rhetoric like this that ought to be banished from this forum. Stop acting like a teenager. Make an argument backed up by facts. And try respecting those who disagree.
Chill out
I don't think his comments were directed at you Andrew. Chill out.
Not you...
Andrew, I was replying to the anonymous poster of the comment "You Still Need A Video of the Plane".
Not you.
Evidence?
what evidence?
Show us
Gosh!
You know everyone in the world? How'd ya do that?
It looks like SOMETHING hit
It looks like SOMETHING hit it... wasn't a plane, moving too slow. Looks like a truck bomb or something? A big lump moved towards the building and explodes. Definately not an object moving at 500 mph
You are looking at the cars
You are looking at the cars and trucks moving on the highway in front of the pentagon. The pentagon is in the foreground a couple of hundred yards further back.
Aerial perspective
Does anyone know which side of the Pentagon was hit?
Here's an aerial vew of the Doubletree in relation to the Pentagon from Google Maps.
The West wing
That's where it hit.
Should the hotel camera have recorded the approach of the plane?
Pathetic
Actually, I did see something white that I don't believe was a car. But it did not look bigger than a car. It looked about half the size of the truck that was cruising by at the same time.
Here we are in the tech world and the most highly paid department, the most defended building in the world, has to rely upon a shitty hotel camera to prove their defence??? Go to any downtown ghetto, they've got the place covered in cameras. Are you telling me the pentagon didn't have the some sort of video coverage?????? LMf'nAO! If they could prove an airplane hit the building they would. Even a dumbass could figure out that they've got high quality cameras pointed at the building and IF a plane did hit, then the pentagon would surely play the video over and over again on tv.
If you doubt the intelligence of trillion-dollar intelligence agency's , read James Clavell's novel Noble House, written in the 80's about the 60's, and you will get at least a clue into how these agencies work.
The government's case is so weak it would never standup in a court of law.
"The government's case is so weak it would never standup"
Ya, that's why it will never be taken to a court of law.
"Let's kill a million human beings in a far away country, but let us NEVER try to find out WHY. "
I do very much LOVE my country, but I KNOW my government DOESN'T represent the people of my country.
Nothing???
Does this seem strange to anyone else?
There is nothing on your
There is nothing on your link
Exactly!
Zero (0) hits for "9/11 Pentagon Plane" as opposed to 8,410 "google news" hits for "Britney Spears"
That doesn't seem strange to you? I'm just saying!
Putting your choice of
Putting your choice of search words inside of quotation marks forces a search for those words appearing in that rather un-conversational order. A search for your 3 chosen words sans the quotation marks yields mucho hits,
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=9%2F11+Pentagon+Plane
scroogle
Incidentally, since Google shows evidence of being coopted by the dark side, I've been using SCROOGLE AKA Google Scraper. It explains the merits of their service at their homepage above-- same google search results, without the google data-gathering about your IP's search habits. I even made it the default search engine in my Firefox browser.
Firefox, Scroogle
Firefox users can install the Scroogle search engine to your browser here,
http://mycroft.mozdev.org/download.html?name=scroogle&submitform=Search
Other browser users can bookmark the Scroogle search page here,
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
911 pentagon
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org....
Mucho hits...
None of which have anything to do with this video. I'm just saying...
Mucho hits...
None of which have anything to do with this video. I'm just saying...
Wholly smokes CNN took it
Wholly smokes CNN took it off already. Here is what was on for about 3 minutes:
Hotel security video shows 9/11 Pentagon blast, but no plane
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A hotel security camera video released by the U.S. government showed the explosion that followed the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, but the low-quality recording did not capture an image of the 757 jetliner.
The video, recorded by a security camera at the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, was released to public interest group Judicial Watch and others who filed a lawsuit seeking the tape and other videos from that day.
CNN filed a Freedom of Information request for the video in February 2002, after the manager of the hotel disclosed its existence to CNN Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre and said it had been confiscated by the FBI. CNN's FOI request was denied because at the time the tape was considered evidence in the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, who has since been convicted.
There was speculation that this video might show the American Airlines 757 jetliner before it crashed, but a close examination by CNN only revealed the subsequent explosion and no image of the jet. The only known record of the plane is on images from the Pentagon security camera, first broadcast by CNN in March of 2002, and officially released in their entirety May of this year. (Posted 8:43 a.m.)
If you scroll down aways on
If you scroll down aways on the link a few posts ago the blurb is still there.
Check out how the MSM lies to you...
"The only known record of the plane is on images from the Pentagon security camera, first broadcast by CNN in March of 2002, and officially released in their entirety May of this year. ."
-CNN
Let's dissect this... shall we?
1) Is this truly the only "known" record of the plane? "known" by whom?
2) I've seen the Pentagon security camera video... but I did'nt see a plane?
3) "Released in their entirety" - Well I guess we've got to take their word on this.
The point is... their job is to reinforce the official story. Despite the tons of evidence that contradicts it. Where is the objectivity? Where is the "journalism"?
Story still posted at CNN
The blurb is still here.
I just did a Google News search at 6:30 a.m. (12 hours later)
than Chris Rose for Pentagon Video and Pentagon Plane (no quotation marks) and got zero hits for both regarding the latest news! There is something VERY strange about that!
News Blackout!!!
This is a total news blackout. Think about it. Do you think there would be this kind of a blackout of the story if the video had included a plane? Think about it.
It is no stranger than . . .
It is no stranger than the FBI's Most Wanted Poster of Osama Bin Laden, which makes no mention of the 9/11 attacks.
Sometimes the truth is so obvious it's hiding under our nose.
AAUGH!
Not again...
5 years wait for this???
There is NO logical reason to wait so long to release this video the shows no plane...and no Pentagon unless this video was tampered with.
It begs the question...
Why was the Pentagon security video released (which purportedly shows a plane), yet the doubletree video was not?
Answer: We only want you to see that which may help support the official lie!
The pentagons footage showed
The pentagons footage showed a missile hitting the building. Then the lamestream media insisted the pentagon footage is of a plane. Yeah right. The official 9/11 government fairy tale is for dorks. Basic common sense and rudimentary visual skills xasays 9/11 was an inside job.
Agreed.
Agreed.
All the evidence that proves
All the evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job is so obvious that people think it can't be so obvious. Yes, the initial pentagon footage looks like a missile hit the building instead of plane. Loosechange goes on to point the inconsistence with the pentagon hit by a plane fairy tale the government put out.. Yes, the first view of the twin towers looks like the towers were demolished. Building 7 was an obvious demolition. Of course the FBI wanted to hide the Doubletree footage as it obviously shows no plane hitting the pentagon. Why would the FBI hide the footage? The word at the FBI was that anyone who did not help cover-up 9/11 would be fired. That means agents would lose all their benefits and $70,000 a year plus jobs. That is a lot of money over a lifetime. The FBI needs to be disbanded and re-formed after a thorough 9/11 investigation conducted by retired military personal and academic 9/11 scholars takes place.
One debunker said to me "It
One debunker said to me "It doesn't take five years to doctor video footage- you could just photo shop it."
Which, while true--the not taking five years to doctor-- withholding the footage still argues for complicity. Like you say, why would you do it? Especially if you HAD to sell a war RIGHT NOW?
Obviously because it doesn't support the story. But less obviously it's not as easy to doctor tapes as people think.(Aren't these still analog systems, using actual video tape?) Then getting the people who could do the best job(Industrial Light and Magic?) who are also your political allies(nuts, Lucasfilm probably WON"T help--now who do we get?) could be problematic.
This part of the op wasn't planned as well as it could be--much like the dust at ground zero that made Condi clumsily edit the EPA report and outright lie. If it wasn't accounted for in the plan, it might have taken them this long to line up the talented assets who could do the job.
Just a thought.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
I have a subscription to CNN
I have a subscription to CNN Pipeline, and the video is not available on it. I did see it on CNN earlier today, and the reporter said that you can't see the plane, because it's on the other side of the building. And, it does look like the impact is on the other side, because that's the side the interstate is on. However, it doesn't jive with the map of the double tree's location.
Regardless, why the fuck are we still talking about this. We all know what happened. Do you want to wait another five years to see another video that shows the same stuff we've been saying all along?
Notice CNN was first to break this news.
They were the same ones that broke the 1st Pentagon security video.
Remember this about CNN:
March 3, 2000 - CNN has employed active duty Army 'psyops' personnel.
Theyve been shaping the red herrings since 9/11
I think it was brilliant to play head games with the Pentagon security footage and for Rumsfeld to intentionally "slip up" when he said amissile hit Flight 93 and the Pentagon. I believe these arent "Fruedian slips" or "misspoken" moments, but were designed to shape where the theorists would go. It wasnt Thierry Meissan, it was Rumsfeld who first started the false Pentagon theories.
Isn't it obvious? If ya can lead people astray with all kinds of wild theories that ya leak and create yourself, people will be too distracted to see the real evidence trail...mix in some genuinely unexpected happenings/coincidences that muddy the waters, and guilty parties don't have to do much work to string people along.
Elements in the government WANT YOU to think a missile/fake plane hit the Pentagon, and that flight 93 was "shot down".
Obviously, they don't want anyone near Pakistani ISI, corrupt Saudi officials, insider trading, etc.
Flight 93 was not shot down.
Flight 93 was not shot down. I do believe a missile hit the pentagon though. Is it your theory that no missile hit the pentagon? Was it a bomb planted inside? If so there would have been no need for the helicopter to be around at the same time the explosion took place. The missile was fired by the military helicopter seen right before the pentagon explosion in my opinion.
you have video of this missile?
No?
Well when there's no video of a 757 that means there was no 757.
But no video of a missile means.....what? It's being covered up? Naturally...
I hope freudian slips do
I hope freudian slips do occur for them sometimes. Remember the one where Bush said he and, was it Cheney?, "had been having some sex" he then corrected it to "some set of talks"
Is bush Junior stupid or is it an act or is he brain damaged from alcoholism?
check this video out of Bush: It's edited, but you wouldn't really notice:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5752494390378871865&q=bush&hl=en
Please stop giving the ISI
Please stop giving the ISI connection a bad name. There's nothing in the Pakistan connection that can't co-exist with a non commercial aircraft hitting the Pentagon.
You only drive people away from the ISI connection when you frame it as an either/ or game.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
thank you Jenny.
thank you Jenny.
Rumsfeld wasn't the only one, Tim Roemer said it too
If you watched the CNN coverage on this years 9/11 aniversary in the morning they interviewed some politican that also made a slip up and said that a missle hit the pentagon. I've got the video of that I just need to post it to google or youtube when I get off work. I could also email it if someone wants its.
Edit.
uploaded a 30 second clip to Youtube of the interview with Tim Roemer. Youtube would not let me upload it when I had pentagon in the tag info. A little censoring eh Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA5AmFpQlJA
is this really from the
is this really from the doubletree hotel? I matched the vantage point up with Google maps and well I have too HUGE problems with the video.
#1 the big ass tree in the video is Fake...
Look at google maps and there is no tree on the camera side, its along the on ramp... This leads to problem:
#2: The camera is skewed on one side of the FOV verse the other... The left side is curved as if there was a fisheye lens while the right side the effect is diminished. This is appearent if you look at the sign posts on either side of the BigAss tree. The post on the left is curving away to the left, but the sign post on the far right is going straight up... That is not correct.
I suspect they inserted the tree and stretched the right side of the video to obscure something that should be visible in the sky past the pentagon...
Focus your attention on that tree, it should not be there (and even if it was removed since 2001, which must be shown that second post should not be normal to the ground)
I think I know why they
I think I know why they faked the video (obscuring tree), or at least I understand one aspect of it. There is something in the video that appears to be striking the pentagon.
If we assume the object is just a mundane car, traveling along the same road as the truck things fall into place. The tree is there to give you the impression the object was destroyed at the moment the explosion occurred. If there was no fake tree, the view of the car would not be obstructed.
So all we see is an explosion.
This is so sad of a fake job too, I wonder if the person tasked to create this left in obvious mistakes to draw attention to it. Its so bad.
Why don't they release the others
A. It shows something other than a passenger jet hitting/attacking the pentagon
B.They want to hype the conspiracy theory about the pentagon to debunk the 9/11 truth movement if it turns out that a plane hit the pentagon
Hmmm
OMG,All this talk of our Government,Doing this to implement Laws ,is starting to make sense,Im a 94 year old grandma,and my kids always said that it was an in side job.And i disagreed,saying noway,but to see that ,God Help Us all,And as for those buildings ,Ive never seen fire drop a building made from steal.So as for you all workin for Mr.Bush,shame on you,dont let these young men and women who died fighting for freedom die in Vein.God bless you and have a good day.
Thank you...
...and welcome to this site. Your obvious sincerity and desire for justice are both qualities which I share and applaud.
No timestamp on this video???
Why?
They don't do time stamps
They don't do time stamps too well, if you recall. Maybe they're respecting their limits...
Where's the big ass tree??
Video fakery?
Killtown you have a wicked
Killtown you have a wicked sense of humor.
You might well think I would regret and rue the day that I got the low-down on what's on in 911blogger. Too bad. I'm still here.
And why is the spot I'm
And why is the spot I'm supposed to be looking at a darkened rectangle? What, I'm not going to know where I'm supposed to look? The plane won't be clue enough?
Oh, no plane in the video--that must be where I need to imagine it: I see the plane--I see five fingers... Bush is the messiah...we will bring democracy to Iraq..I'm seeing it all now...
I'M CURED! I'm not a truther anymore!!! Anonymous was right! I DO SEE THE LIGHT! Thank you, Grover, *sniff*
Now I need to leave you tossers and register Republican.
Fascism. Globalism. Free trade.
lighting, depth of field, etc.
Pardon me for asking this . . . can someone slow down the traffic and look at the second car moving right to left? When this car begins to go behind the tree something seems to be really wrong with the light angle on the right side of the tree branches /// Also, there's an 800# call the hotel maybe? Where's the tree - does it live? Can hardly believe that it's so difficult to avoid this subterfuge (deceptive stratagem or manoeuvre ), seems really un-constitutional to use the term "servant government".
Remember the old TV show "Truth or Consequences" ?
Perhaps the title of a chapter in future history books?
PS> Just a quick note that if you're using IE7 the CSS code on this page is causing the text box to jump the table.
So, you have to file a
So, you have to file a lawsuit to make the goverment do it's job? And half arsedly at that? And no where on the tape is there an image of an aircraft of any sort?
This shows how much contempt they do hold people in:
if you still need to believe the OT, you can say "see this proves it!"
If you scream at the top of your lungs, "LIKE HELL, IT PROVES NOTHING-LET"S SEE THE WHOLE SODDING TAPE!" they'll say, "Make us, you insignificant little wage slave."
Truth betold, this is no surprise.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Gee, I wonder why they released this?
They obviously released one of the tapes that shows nothing.
---
Ad hominem per factum, beyotch!
You are undeservedly egotistical.... often laughably so.
Pseudo-intellectuality does not behoove you.
http://infowars.net/articles/
http://infowars.net/articles/november2006/031106Doubletree.htm
Blah.... forget the Doubletree. Nice "ground level" coverage for a medium building". Shows what I expected.....nice grey box for the area of interest too.
Missing tree....good catch. Someone should probably check with the property for:
> who does their landscaping and when that was "removed"?
> does the city do that? Accounting departments love to keep those files.
> Anyone with photos from around that area prior to 9-11 ?
Would be interesting to see if there was ever a tree there. Doubt it's CGI added though. But would send yet another message that we're checking every angle from the pathetic angles they choose to release (under order).
I think it would be really nice to see footage from a day or week earlier from the doubletree tapes.
(if they hold onto such things...and they didnt confiscate those).
.....It would be interesting to know if Doubletree had "higher" cameras than the one they just released (oh...you meant the one from the ROOF? THAT ONE??? oooooOOOoooh).
I want to see the SHERATON footage more than anything else. Traffic camera 740, Citgo, and the other 80 tapes would be nice. How about the ones on top of the pentagon too? Pretty sure they would keep 360 degree coverage both towards and away from it.
One more camera..... I'd
One more camera.....
I'd like to see the camera footage from the plane. Yes, the plane (757 or otherwise).
The kind like what they use on Mavericks and such to guide into targets we've all seen from war footage.
Now that would be really cool footage. Cross-hairs and all.
traffic cam
I guess they will release it one day, we just have to be patient, say, until 2015. It will however be a blurred image not recognizable as a 757, and theories of manipulation will be brushed of by the Democratic president as outrageous conspiracy theories.
Has it occured to anyone
Has it occured to anyone that this video isn't a very good "security" camera? If this was supposed to be covering the car park to catch people on tape that might be trying to steal cars... then why the hell is it so blurry? Even my oldest VHS tape isn't that bad!!! If security cameras are as blurry as this then I guess no one ever finds people's faces on them, just a blurry mess to convict car jackers.
Wouldn't it be worth asking the hotel to see their current camera footage and how clear it is? Or would they have been told to not say anything about their OWN security camera? Matching the perpective from now... to the version we have now would be a simple overlay job, then we will see what video is truely lying!!
Surely the staff at that hotel can tell someone something??
like the Citgo-tape
The same was true for the Citgo gas station tape: They obviously just release a blurry ultra low-quality digitized AVI video, rather than an actual "tape". An on this video, you couldn't even have told which car brand it was, with no chance to identify pump-and-run thieves, for example.
Mineta testimony
Perhaps the goal really is to keep truthers talking about whether a plane or not, or what kind of a plane, hit the Pentagon.
Every video not showing a plane fuels this debate, allowing the media to concentrate on it as one of the central aspects of the 9/11 truth movement. And it is a good aspect to concentrate for those who do not want this issue to go anywhere.
I agree with people who say that the Mineta testimony should be emphasized. Even a Washington Post journalist wrote to me that the media should have looked into things like that a long time ago. (This was several months ago; apparently, they are yet to look into it.)
Is it impossible to interview Mineta about this? And is Mineta in danger because of his testimony?
truth seekers vs. justice seekers
There's a difference between those that want to see the Bush administration and their accomplices brought to justice and those that just want to know what happened. In much likelyhood they will always deny it, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, but at least we might be able to find out HOW they did 9/11 and WHAT exactly happened. And an important part of this is what really happened at the Pentagon.
People like Mineta or Silverstein can evade critical interviews as long as the MSM is asleep. If the MSM ever (hopefully) begins to investigate, Mineta NOT giving a response will be just as big news as him having provided new info about 9/11.
Keep looking...
It appears that whatever was flying towards the pentagon continued flying over the top of it after the big explosion. You can catch a small glimmer of it as it moves in the background behind the tree. It couldn't be a car or truck...if you watch the traffic pattern in front of the pentagon there is no vehicle moving in sync with the aircraft that would have reached that point behind the tree at the same time.
As a someone posted above, why is there nearly a total
media blackout on this huge story???
Because the video is
Because the video is HORRIBLY faked... Not one paper/site/etc. has anything besides the CNN Wire blurb (no video) and Gideon's blog...
It seems since no one can find alternate sources for this video everyone is reserving judgement (at least here on 911blogger it seems).
I have looked all over the net for a sat photo of the Crystal City Doubletree showing a tree in the lanscaped area between the parkinglot and the sidewalk... Nada...
Someone screwed up and everyone is pretending like it never happened.
I ask again? Where the hell did that tree (that is blocking the view of the overpass) come from?
I think you may be on to something imgstacke
It's just like them to stick something as innocuous as a tree in to obscure SOMETHING? The thing is, once the video becomes part of the public domain, you can't snatch it back.
They think they are SOOOOOO slick! Nice catch. Let's keep pressing this button. Perhaps their was a tree... but I'm starting to suspect (as you have pointed out) that there really is no place for a tree (at least form what I see).
I am glad you took the time
I am glad you took the time to look at it yourself with a critical eye.
I am just a bit miffed this isn't being trumpted by other sites... Releasing that clip once on a saturday morning (what the slowest news day possible, and the subsequent blackout) is a clear indication to me that someone messed up.
That lanscaping around the parking lot is uniform, and a tree that size would tear up the sidewalk and parking lot with its roots over time... I see no way that thing could have been there...
Its hiding the car, speeding past the truck, which causes my mind to struggle to make sense of the motion...
Object streaks forward, explosion, no more streaking object. Well that would make it seem like the streaking object IS the plane... But if you could see the car clearly moving along the overpass, your brain would not make the connection of those two events. They hid the car to imply that the blurry streaking object is the plane...
But someone forgot to check google maps.... OOOPS!
Implausible
I can't believe that they would just have inserted a tree without thinking if there might have been a tree or not in front of the camera.
Well, they also imploded WTC7 for all the world to see
without anything resembling an alibi. And still...
Or maybe they DIDN'T blow up WTC7?
Oh wait...Silverstein "pulled" it. And "pull" somehow means "blow up" in twoofer land.
Remember - WTC7's "demolition" points part of the blame on the FDNY.
And I'm not sure if you wanna go there.
re: "pull" somehow means "blow up" in twoofer land.
"Pull it" IS a controlled demolition term. Popular Mechanics and Demo Expert's have confirmed this...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4524
In the demolition industry...
pull it refers to literally pulling a structure down with cables.
For example - the ruins of WTC6.
Did you click the link I posted??
"This is work of man. This is a hired job. (Larry Silverstein) said it himself. You hear him saying 'Pull it'"
-Danny Jowenko, Demolition Expert
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM
Danny Jowenko's Controlled Demolition Firm:
http://www.jowenko.nl/
"Pull" is used to mean that you actually demolish a building.
-Benjamin Chertoff, Researcher for Popular Mechanics
Audio: http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/debunking_popular_mechanics.mp3
Show me a paper
Danny Jowenko says the whole time that he's just guessing.
Show me a paper he's written - not him offering guess work on googlevideo.
CHF wrote: "Danny Jowenko says the whole
CHF wrote:
"Danny Jowenko says the whole time that he's just guessing."
He's giving his professional opinion that Building 7 was destroyed via controlled demolition on that video. He's been in the business for nearly 20 years and is qualified to give his professional opinion about conventional controlled demolition. What part of that don't you understand?
CHF wrote:
"Show me a paper he's written - not him offering guess work on googlevideo."
Does this sound like a guess:
"This is professional work, without any doubt." -Danny Jowenko
The man owns his own demolition firm. He's also credited as being one of Implosion World's licensed blasters and associates:
http://www.implosionworld.com/history4.htm
He's convinced that Building 7 was a conventional controlled demolition. Again, what part of that don't you understand?
He has also confirmed that "pull it" is a controlled demolition term that means to destroy a building with explosives, which you've failed miserably to acknowledge. Why are you trying to deceive the readers of this blog by saying it's not?
CHF wrote: "Jowenko has also stated that
CHF wrote:
"Jowenko has also stated that the WTC towers were NOT demolished. So are you twoofer willing to accept his word on that or just WTC7?"
Building 7 was a conventional controlled demolition (bottom up with columns blown out), which he is qualified to give a professional opinion on since he's performed them himself. The twin Towers were not conventional controlled demolitions (Top down),
CHF wrote:
"I've heard that since the interview in your link, he has also dismissed the idea of a WTC7 CD.
So you're back to zero, sucka."
Absolutely not true. I have corroboration that he still believes Building 7 was a conventional controlled demolition and does not believe in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. What do you have? Where's your proof that he has changed his mind?
coincidence theorists
"You can call me a Conspiracy Theorist if you call everyone else a Coincidence Theorist" J. Judge
If WTC7 was destroyed in a controlled demolition it proves there was foreknowledge. It is a preplanned event.
Knowing a murder will take place without doing anything to stop it is as disgusting as committing the murder yourself.
If you can't even admit that then you have no logical credibility at all.
“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."
Belief in what someone
Belief in what someone would/wouldn't do is what got all of us in this mess in the first place.
I am not asking you to believe, I am asking where did that tree in the video come from?
Liars say there WAS a 757,
Liars say there WAS a 757, even though no video has shown one.
So where's the plane?
Where's the plane?
Where's a plane?
it slammed into a concrete wall at 500 mph
What exactly do you expect to show up on a shitty security video?
Why do dozens of witnesses report a plane and NONE report seeing a missile?
http://www.911blogger.com/nod
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4783#comment-94359
"What exactly do you expect
"What exactly do you expect to show up on a shitty security video?"
Um, maybe a massive fusilage of a jumbo jet hitting the building?
I could go on but the video at the link below covers most of what I'd say:
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
I have doubts that that
I have doubts that that video has ever been near a security camera. The image is so low-grade that even at the smallest size it is grainy and out of focus.
Someone is having a joke at our expense. No wonder the media aren't interested . It's a non-event.
Rummy slipped/said on at least one occasion that it was a
missile!
Twoofers...
As I understand it...your theories basically state that Flight 77 was landed somewhere and disposed of...and then the bad guys replaced it with a missile, an A3, or drone and then planted some wreckage and told everyone that it was Flight 77.
Simple question: WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT????
WHY NOT JUST CRASH THE DAMN PLANE?
Seriously people - step back for a second and ask yourselves: "does my theory even make sense?"
Real Truth Seekers just want
Real Truth Seekers just want a new independent investigation into the events of 9/11/2001. We want the evidence released so WE can come to our own conclusions.
As the dribbling out (and subsequent blackout) of this video shows that the US Government has falsified evidence of that day. Look it up your self...
Where does that tree come from that conveniently obscures the view of the car traveling mundanely across the overpass. With out that visual clue of something appearing to strike the pentagon, all you see is an explosion. People will mistakenly think that car is some blurry remnant of Flight 77.
This is slight of hand if I ever saw it...
Where did that fucking tree come from?
who cares if the information
who cares if the information that is being kept from us is released for EVERYONE to see. It matters not who investigates as transparency in research is self-correcting.
Release ALL of the information and we will have a many independent investigations. You entire point assumes that a viel of secrecy is needed to insure integrity, thats ass-backwards and you know it.
like JFK
Similarly you could also ask, why did they not just shoot JFK with a normal sniper shot, but it had to be a magic bullet that zig-zagged and bounced off bones, exited and hit the other passengers etc.
The probable answer is, that something went wrong with their plan, so that they had to invent an alternative cover-story. They surely also didn't plan for WTC7 to collapse out of the blue, but had a plane crash planned there, too.
Maybe Flight77 was supposed to hit the Pentagon, but then didn't, and landed at some airport (as some news reports indicated), but they couln't cancel the show and invoked "plan B", a military A3 taking the 757's role.
Huh?
"Maybe Flight77 was supposed to hit the Pentagon, but then didn't, and landed at some airport"
If they took control of if to hit the Pentagon then why would it land at an airport???
The conspirators COULD get planes to hit the WTC. So why would that change for the Pentagon?
they made mistakes
the 9/11 operation was not completely successful. Just like every fraudster, they made mistakes that allow us now to expose the official story as a big lie. Their only really complete success is the bulldozing and crushing of any alternative theories in the years thereafter. No one has ever challenged Bush on the whole thing in the White House Press room, despite 30% of the population being truthers - this is their success, to protect the perps from the questions they WILL NOT answer.
ask them
Don't ask me why they thought to get away with such a big lie. It's just a fact, they said it was fires that collapsed the WTC, but it wasn't, they said it was a 757 at the Pentagon, but it (probably) wasnt, they said the Shanksville crater was from a hughe passenger plane, but it wasn't. It's just the facts.
If you wonder how they could even THINK to get away with such BIG LIES, consider what one of the most notorious dictators in recent history wrote in a famous book from him:
"...In the Big Lie there's always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation...more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie...it would never come into their minds to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would never believe that others could..."
doesn't have to make sense
Option 1: because they think we're stupid. Because they think they can get away with just about everything. History has proven them right so far.
Option 2: we don't know what was going on behind the scenes, but only have some traces that they left behind.
We also don't know why Bush told on two occasions of how he saw the first plane hit on his way to Brooker School, when the only broadcast footage is the Naudets'. Someone claimed the perps had simulations and drills of the planes hitting, and Bush confused the simulation with reality. If that's true, it makes perfect sense again.
yadda-yadda-yadda... Where
yadda-yadda-yadda...
Where did that fucking tree come from?
If you can't answer a simple
If you can't answer a simple question, that is On Topic, then you are useless...
hush...
Still no answer huh?
Still no answer huh? What's the matter, didn't get your daily briefing papers? I hope you guys will be up to date by monday morning when the offices open...
The Tree is clear evidence of falsification of evidence... Plain and simple...
The absolute blackout of the news item is an indication that this is NOT to get any attention.
I'm not SAYING anything, but
I'm not SAYING anything, but I am ASKING - Where did that tree come from?
still no answer huh?
who cares?
I don't know where your silly little tree came from and I don't care.
I'm more interested in witnesses, wreckage and crash investigators.
So no, I can't explain, nor do I care for, your stupid tree.
Can YOU explain the witnesses, wreckage and missing 757?
I'd be more worried if I were you.
Ha... Can't fix this screw
Ha...
Can't fix this screw up eh?
Proof the US Government is
Proof the US Government is falsifying evidence surround the most horrible event in US History? Hell ya...
Remember Nixon? Your on the wrong team...
The best way to show people that they are under control is to expose the methods of control. We learned that from deprogramming our POWs from the Korean War.
witnesses
if you're so interested in witnesses then I have 140 different quotes of witnesses, reporters and firefighters from the towers who said there were bombs there.
Do you disregard their statements?
sure card51short
people were IN the towers, demolition charges went off and they got out to tell the story.
Run that scenario by a demolition expert.
re: Run that scenario by a demolition expert
"From day one on Sept. 11th, after seeing the footage of the airliner striking the WTC on CNN and seeing explosions happening on lower floors of both towers, I knew right then and there that the towers were purposely being imploded"
-Mark Johnson, Former Army Sgt. & Military Demolitions Expert
Please show me a report
written by a demolition expert that explains the "bombing" and how it was pulled off.
You're in denial
Just because an expert on demolition hasn't written a government funded paper such as the NIST report, doesn't mean that their professional opinion isn't valid.
He brings up Rodriguez...
and the "basement bombs."
One problem - blowing out the base supports would result in a bottom-up collapse, NOT the top-down collapse witnessed on 9/11.
liars?
So William Rodriguez is lying or wrong is what you're saying?
Well then why couldn't your Pentagon witnesses be lying or wrong?
Simple Logic
CHF, in the photo stills of the facade of the pentagon (pre-collapse), one would expect to see either:
1) Large, gaping holes where the 5-ton engines entered,
2) Large engines on the exterior of the building, or
3) Large engines lodged in the facade itself
I've seen none of those things, so, needless to say...I'm skeptical.
You may want to try this line of reasoning.
All anyone would like to see, or rather have seen, is video of an f'n 757 crashing into the pentagon. You believe the government and everything your daddy ever told you...whereas some people open their eyes, and minds, and come to the only conclusions that their rational minds will take them.
I caught something else...
Notice to the left of the video. A pedestrian appears casually walking into the parking lot from the sidewalk. His back is to the Pentagon. He stops and turns around only after the explosion.
Would not the sound of a huge 757 flying in from behind, so close to the ground, so near the Pentagon's closed airspace, be something that would cause a pedestrian to at least stop and take notice? The explosion caught his attention, but apparently nothing prior to the explosion caught his attention. Hmmmm....
Surely this guy had to know what was going on in NY by then. Yes?
Hey!
He's right!!! Surely that guy would have heard something!?!?!
there is an airport
there is an airport nearby... it may not have souned too unusual, especially given the fact that many people dont pay too much attention to their surroundings. And that video is so bad it's hard to read his actual reaction time.
Anomolies
What's going in in the left lower corner of the "pentagon box". Just as the dark car comes into
view from the left, a white object fades in just above it and stays. The object also looks like
it pops down from onething in the distance (bill board?). This all takes place just as
the explosion occurs.
Also, has anyone looked at the shadow of the person walking to determine if this
shadow is correct for Sept 11, 2001 at 9:36AM?
haha... desperation...
haha... desperation...
Strong words...
"This pathetic collection of paranoid losers and teenage stoners will never amount to anything because you have no narrative or story that you can agree on."
Yeah I suppose our time would be better spent going back and forth with disinfo flamers. Nice try... but we won't bite.
This site is here to discuss theories... no matter how "pathetically weak" they may seem to you. Although how one can cause any theory "pathetically weak" in comparison to the official version of what transpired on 9/11 is simply beyond me.
Most here are sincere in their search for truth. Funny thing about the truth... it withstands inquiry. You would have us simply stop inquiring and accept (without question) that which we are spoon-fed from our corrupt government.
whether you are disinfo or
whether you are disinfo or not, ultimately is irrelevant.
Ironic is'nt it...
Hey CHF,
Under the Patriot Act, you could be detained, questioned and tortured for the "confession" you just made.
Watch your back CHF. You're on "the list" now buddy.
Ah yes, the Patriot Act
That's what got Alex Jones, James Fetzer and Judy Wood arrested, jailed, turtured and killed, right?
Oh wait - no one is stopping them from discovering da twoof. No arrest, no beatings, no assassinations in all of 911 lala land.
Go figure.
torture
Notice he said COULD. Not you ARE or you WOULD.
And I bet you would be for torturing them, wouldn't you?
Patriot Act...See how well it works for you, CHF
If you get arrested without no charges, detained for a lengthy period of time, not given a phone call,charging your lawyer for complicity in the case, because He was trying to hard to win the case...after some time you are released....Now see if you can sue the government for violation of your civil rights.. the rights that you believe were violated, and see if the government will ignore you by saying the Patriot Act is their justification to do what they do now and there is nothing you can do about it.
Your haughty indignation is
Your haughty indignation is pathetic... I almost feel sorry for you grunts that have to play damage control for group of people who YOU KNOW to be corrupt.
Pawn...
Did we strike a nerve?
Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
It's legitimate considering the available evidence clearly shows that it would be stupid for a tree of that size to be placed between a parking bumper and a sidewalk.
Sometimes its the simple things that cause the whole house of cards to come tumbling down. If by chance we can verify that a tree was never there (say from prior video shot from the same hotel) then it becomes more verified evidence of a coverup.
Is it Zapruder film evidence? No, but every little bit helps. So what's your problem?
chain of custody goes from
chain of custody goes from Doubletree to the FBI...
Caught Red-Handed!!!!
let's check it
Can somebody out of D.C. just walk in at the Doubletree hotel and ask the staff? They should know.
If it's true that there never was any, we have 2 possibilities:
1. the MSM will ignore all the outcry of us truthers completely, just like they did with the Flight 93 photo issues.
2. this time it might be our lucky day...:)
I don't believe in
I don't believe in luck...
MSM has already given its vote (news blackout).
We use this to pry the eyelids open of whomever we can to show them, clearly that their government is bold face lying to them, manipulating them into believing something that is not true.
It is ammunition, we need all we can get.
MSM is NOT going to save us, the democrats are NOT going to save us.
"Get some friggin sense and
"Get some friggin sense and realize how loony you're making us all sound..."
"Us all", eh? So you're a truther, are you? So share with us what YOU think is the best way to expose this administration complicity in the murder of 3,000 people.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
you're disgusted by us yet
you're disgusted by us yet you still dwell on the boards posting all day?
Damn, you must have some real mental issues. If we're such lunies and nutcases and we will never have an investigation...then what's the problem? How are we a threat? Just ignore us, we are nothing, we have no evidence so go away! Your little world is safe.
Why so much anger? You think you getting mad and calling us names is going to change anyone's mind? If you really wanted thought we were wrong and wanted to prove us right and cared enough to be on the board every day with people that "disgust" you in your own free time, then why not try to calmly point out your facts?
Why scream and get red in the face and get so upset over us "nutcases"?
Folks, it only shows that they are in the violently oppose stage.
Look how upset this guy gets...I swear he's crying at his keyboard he's so mad.
Then why are you here yelling at people? We're of no threat, go back to American Idol!
"yet you still dwell on the
"yet you still dwell on the boards posting all day?"
I've wondered about this myself.
When I visit a site I'm interested in I can spend anywhere from an hour to three reading, posting, responding--this is actually a goodly amount of time out of your 24 to just be on line. And on a day off, esspecially if the comments have gotten near 100, you can spend five hours or more--and feel guilty you didn't get the yard work done, but that's another story. Now if you're leaving even a handful of responses on each news blog for the day, it takes time to compose, edit, preview and wait for your browser, which is never as fast as you want no matter how good your service is. And you would spend ALL this time and effort at sites you hate?
Does this make sense? Think of a site with people you dispise. As an example I'll use peodophiles. Can't stand the bastards, especially the ones who try to rationalize it as a "love of children". But, as long as they are not raping children, I WILL NOT spend my valuable internet time trolling their sites and insulting them for no good reason. And if I suspect an immediate threat, I'll do something more effective than trolling: email the admin's, call the coppers, that sort of thing.
So, yes, it defies ALL logic in the real world. My message to all trolls who only come here to cause trouble:
LEAVE AND DON"T COME BACK. Your health will thank you and so will your doctor.
"Bugger this; I want a better world."
trolls
Jenny,
It just proves that they are here to disrupt us.
I propose (I know it will never happen but we really should do this) NO more anonymous posters (since it's been the same guy for the last 2 weeks at least, with no intelligent comments, just name calling and anger) AND if someone comes on here disagreeing with us but does so in a juvenile manner (95% of the time) then we all simply ignore the post except to give it a negative score.
Don't even reply. They won't get the rise out of us anymore because they obviously aren't here to discuss anything.
So from now on, my pledge is to not even post to the trolls.
Now, if someone comes in and is intelligently seeking a discussion and disagrees with us, then, by all means, we can try to bring them over to the truth.
Lets just ignore them! They win when we get upset and post back. They want us angry!
Step 1:"NO more anonymous
Step 1:"NO more anonymous posters"
Step 2:"if someone comes on here disagreeing with us but does so in a juvenile manner (95% of the time) then we all simply ignore the post except to give it a negative score."
I am SOO down with this plan; Jon suggested it recently and I seconded it. Don't give up on the moderators--I think they're sick enough of this shite to start considering banning annonymous posts. It worked at Michael Ruppert's blog.
I understand and respect the ignore tactic, but there are cases where that's not enough. Comment compression by rating down is working, but we need some bigger guns.
However I do agree confronting should be CALM --remember YOU control the interaction, not the troll. Don't show any anger. They see that as a sign of weakness and therefore a victory. If you can't just let it roll off your back and respond with devil-may-care zing, then yeah, you should ignore them.
Well, that's me.
I only reply to laugh in
I only reply to laugh in their face... :D
After reviewing this thread, I'd like to remind everyone
that, by their very nature, there's absolutely no point in arguing with the shills. Just vote them down and move on, please.
Perhaps some sort of truck-fired missile? Anyone?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Patriot_missile_launc...
All types of them. Truck shoots 'em & all the evidence keeps
on rolling down the highway. Scroll down the page on this link: http://www.guntruck.com/Lacrosse.html
Aerial photo of Pentagon taken day after attack
There's been speculation that the tree in the Doubletree video has been edited in the video:
Here's a closeup of the Doubletree taken the day after the attacks:
http://www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/nyc-images/Pentagon_after.jpg
Looks like the shadow is blocking the view unfortunately.
Well there is some visible
Well there is some visible difference between the two... The trees (foliage) is much larger in the current images that google earth (keyhole) is serving today. There soes seem to be foliage in the parking lot farthest from the expressway...
I would assume from this image alone the trees would be somewhat symmetrical and be present on both sides.
The shadow obscures a clear shot of the area in question but I think we have found where the tree came from... and now it has been removed.
I don't mind being wrong, but I am not going to take anything at face value from the US Government.
I do appreciate digging up that photo - I have been looking all day for something that would clear this up. But as I now see trees in the parking lot region on one side of the hotel, I understand what the shapes on either side of the parking spaces are (not the region in question) they are where the large trees were. But that still leaves a bit of a problem, the space between the sidewalk and the parking spaces (the region in question) doesn't seem to have any left over signs that large trees did exist there...
Some phone calls are in order...
That tree is completely out
That tree is completely out of place..... I have been doing landscaping for quite some time and that is not the place to put a tree that size..... and if they did manage to put that tree in that narrow planting bed.... then they would have made the mistake multiple times...there would be more than one large tree planted in this area.. and they didn't do that
I'm with the altered video camp on this one....
no landscaper who works in the commercial industry would place a tree of that size in a planting bed which appears to be less than 4 feet wide.... set between a parking lot and a public sidewalk....being that close to both.... obscuring the view of their number one attraction the Pentagon!
also...if that tree were there .... without a doubt... you would not be able to see the base of the tree because the cars would be parked way too close.... especially with a van parked there
craigslist.com staff posts links to operation northwoods
go to www.craigslist.com which is the 30th most visited site on the web. click on the political discussion board for any city or state. look on the right hand side, where craiglist itself post a "topic of the week" of sorts for everyone to research. the topic is operation northwoods. they have a link to operation northwoods on wikipedia, as well as several quotes about the military industrial complex.
It's really outrageous how after 5+ years, this is the junk they
release on the Pentagon attack!
Now they'll tell the msm & general public, "We released two videos showing that AA77 slammed into the Pentagon."
Do something wrong in a McDonald's parking lot, and they'll
have clear video of you from 5 different angles, yet we don't have a decent video of an airliner striking the Pentagon???
can someone that lives near
can someone that lives near the Doubletree (ironic huh ;) Hotel go down and take pictures of where the camera is that took these pictures, also pictures of the surrounding area it looks at. Also could someone speak to a member of the security team on the premises and get a still of the view from that camera? Or at least look at the security video to check it's quality and somehow gets some evidence of it. Is it black ad white or colour? Ask if the FBI has told them not to say anything about the view from their OWN security camera?
Would be interesting to see the quality of the current footage and what it looks like back then.
Might be worth finding all these other camera locations (apparenty 80) and researching what their images look like. Then when more videos come out, anomalies can be found and released videos can be shown to be faked right away.
I would do this, but I live several thousand miles away :(
Let's not just sit and talk let's be as proactive as we can!! :)
yes
This needs to be done. This site is really all just fluff if there isnt anyone here who can do it. It's not really that much to ask.
Also, the fate of that tree needs to be determined. Obviously someone "pulled it" at some point in time, (perhaps his name is Larry?) and so there must be some record of it.
Someone who has worked there for 5 years must know something about that tree.
This film is the debunker What
Okay I have seen it all before. I have seen better film on teeth. It like the five frams they shown us about flight 77. That hit the pentagon and this should debunk the 9/11 truth movement . Nope not good enough for me. VP Dick Vader made the order. Just ask the young man that ask Dick Vader dose the order still stand. Hmm I doubt that this film will shut me up. If the FBI wants to shut up any one and prove their case then i want to see the film from the camera's that were in the front of the pentagon. Not a film from a half of mile away.
Click
Here.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Tim Roemer pulled a Rumsfeld
Rumsfeld is not the only government stooge that has slipped up and said a missile hit the Pentagon Tim Roemer from the 9/11 commission also slipped up this on this years anniversary on CNN. Heres the link for the clip I posted on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA5AmFpQlJA
Wow, Roemer was a 9/11 commission & he says "missile" &
he also says, "thinking about the number of people that PROBABLY died on on the plane & the ground"
He's not even sure of the "official" number of "people" on the plane himself, or that would certainly had died if that plane did, in fact, have people on it.
iiiiiiiinteresting.
iiiiiiiinteresting.
Games Games
"showed the explosion that followed the crash of American Airlines Flight 77"
showed - here they are again telling us what it "shows"
the explosion that followed - Followed? they say. I just read Jim Marrs book "the Terrror Conspiracy" and the article by Barbara Hoenegger in the back of the book, and they document that there was an explosion (at which time all the Pentagon clocks stopped) before the subsequent "crash" scenario. There was a first violent event at the Pentagon and it happened at 9:31:40. The offcial story of when "Flight 77" impacted (the "second event") was changed several times from 9:43, but finally landed at 9:37. for the Kean-Hamilton-Zelikow ficitional report.
crash of American Airlines Flight 77 - we know it was the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 because "they" tell us so.
Our government and our media is indeed manipulating us. As I have said before "the holders of 99 percent of the evidence regarding 9-11 are the chief suspects." The media is the main gaming tool of the government.
Whatever "evidence" the government decides to release is "evidence" that we have no way of knowing is untampered with evidence. Of course, the timing of the real or faked evidence is a wonderful political and gaming tool. We do not even know what evidence there was that ever existed, so we have no idea exactly how much is being withheld. The list of evidence requested by the Scholars for 9-11 Truth petition is about the best we have to go on as to what we don't have.
9-11 was an inside job. The Pentagon and Shanksville sites provide us the least available relevant evidence of all.
We know the official story is false. We will never know what really did happen because the holders of 99 percent of the evidence are the chief suspects.
Let's find a way NOW to get the rule of law and justice to start in on our rogue government mass murderers.
Blessings from Dachsie in Austin.
Hey, is it just me?? I cannot see anything.
I can hear the voice but I cannot see any image!
Same with this video on Alex Jones infowar site.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/pentagon_new_video_shows_explosi...
Did someone ruin it?????
Quelle fucking surpise? No
Quelle fucking surpise? No fucking airplane. And still, WE are crackheads and loons. Who are the fucking loons now I ask?
Bob Mars and Barbara Honegger - the Pentagon Attack papers
hello all.
According to Barbara Honegger the pentagon had bombs go off at 9:32 on 911.
Just like WIlliam Rodriguez experienced bombs going off beforehand, she said there are eyewitnesses who will testify to this.
Then she says a MILITARY plane might have hit after that.
For sure Flight 77 did not.
So, it would have to be an inside job, because only insiders could plant bombs in the pentagon.
Further, proof that 911 was an INSIDE JOB..
This is the same modus operandi as the WTC towers.
First a bomb then a plane.
So, its further proof WTC 1, 2 and 7 were demolished with bombs.
And if the Pentagon was an inside job so were WTC 1, 2 and 7.
Some of the people killed were the ones that would be looking into the 2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld said was "missing".
This was on Kevin Barretts' RBN show on Saturday where he is interviewing Barbara.
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Barrett/0701/20070113_Sat_Barrett1.mp3
Here is the Pentagon Attack papers:
http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_seven_hours_in_sept.pdf
bye