Still Think There should be Pentagon Video ?

"When was the last time you saw the footage of a place crash at an airport ?"

Quite frequently actually, pretty much every airshow accident takes place at an airport.

Hi everyone,

I have noticed over the years that everytime something "new" comes out about something still so much in the mind of people, this is to divert from something else happening. What other news has come out which was not so much under the spotlight?

a reply to: VimanaExplorer

We did not keep armed planes on alert during that time, it went away with the end of the cold war to save money.

originally posted by: WilliamWAS everytime something "new" comes out about something

there's nothing new here. it's just more offical story DRS ( delusional rationalization syndrome )

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: VimanaExplorer

We did not keep armed planes on alert during that time, it went away with the end of the cold war to save money.

What? Are you serious?

911research.wtc7.net...

www.historycommons.org...

This whole attempt at trying to prop up the official story is a conspiracy in and of itself.

All I can say is that it should be taken that, NOW the Pentagon has enough first class video to choke a brigade of horses, and that we can tune in daily from anywhere in the world. No? oops, sorry.
As for the video they did, 'accidently' release of the Pentagon attack, it's definitely a Boeing, De Havilland, De Lorean 888- with Dash missing.

a reply to: olaru12

Wait so you are saying that NORAD had a purpose after the cold war?

originally posted by: olaru12

This whole attempt at trying to prop up the official story is a conspiracy in and of itself.

You do get that feeling somehow. I'm wondering why at this juncture. Is there something blowing in the wind?

a reply to: olaru12

Not sure what you were going for in your reply, I am on a phone with limited Internet at this time. So can't pursue the links fully.

My statement was based on what I was told while active duty in acft maintenance starting in 1997.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Then some one lied to you.
What do you think NORAD is for?

a reply to: Sremmos80


Norad has always been about early warning/ command and control.

It costs a lot to keep planes sitting on alert, in my 18 years active and reserve time I've personally seen it a handful of times. Usually in the days preceeding an order to go blow stuff up.

If it's prevalent you can find the paperwork, every time weapons leave the wsa there is a ton of paperwork.

I lived through the Clinton draw downs, and now the Obama draw down. I think most of you miss that cuts hit the line people not the generals or dod contract holders.

I say that because we liked sitting alert, basically no work same pay.

a reply to: Irishhaf

If you had of bothered to read the links I provided, you would have seen that there were plenty of armed and ready planes active on that day. Sorry you now have no credibility left unless you can provide some links to prove your assertions.

a reply to: olaru12

As I stated already I don't have the ability to puruse random links at this time...

I told you exactly what I was told. You don't have to believe it, that's the great thing about being American... It doesn't bother me if you think different.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: VimanaExplorer

We did not keep armed planes on alert during that time, it went away with the end of the cold war to save money.

Remember, just two years before 9/11 , in 1999, famous golfer Payne Stewart's crashed in middle of nowhere in South Dakota, and within minutes , there were 3 interceptions t (and visual inspection by first intercept, escort by 3rd intercept). It happened in South Dakota, so we have to assume we don't have capability to intercept one near our Capital City and NYC .

Wiki - 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash

Edit : Changed it to South Dakota

a reply to: VimanaExplorer

Were they armed?

Odds are they were normal flights that got diverted.

There is a difference between a training flight and an alert response.

Cant cut and paste on the phone but remember the pilots eroute to flight 93 talked about ramming it because they were not armed.

Edit: it's possible a few planes were sitting actual alert, but it was nothing like the cold war where every fighter wing had alert jets.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: VimanaExplorer

Were they armed?

.

There intercept were using F16s, 5 of them. And this was not training flight, it lost contact, within minutes alerted and intercepted, its a standard procedure.

There are no logical explanations to official story on 9/11. Thats my take on it.

a reply to: VimanaExplorer

And all of them were unarmed. Several of them were diverted from training flights and were airborne at the time. It wasn't five at once for the entire flight. It was a relay, where one flight ran low on fuel so another came and took over.

Payne Stewart's aircraft never turned off the transponder and was tracked from takeoff to impact.

a reply to: Sremmos80

The videos from the surrounding businesses were released long ago. There were nowhere near as many videos as most people think.

a reply to: IndependentAgent The CIA did no such thing. The FBI at one point had 85 videos, but the majority of them were from New York and NOT the Pentagon.

a reply to: ~Lucidity There were THREE cameras for the entire side. Not as many as you think.