The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: Informer1958

Except...there were not 85 cameras around the Pentagon that had their videos confiscated by the FBI. The "85" comes from the number of items that the FBI gathered from New York City, Pennsylvania, DC, and even the Kinko's in south Florida that the hijackers used. A summary from the FOIA documentation:


"She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel."

web.archive.org...://www.flight77.info/85videos.html

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

All I can say is, how Convenient for the OS of the Pentagon to have not a single video with all those cameras recording and not a single video, yeah how convenient for them.

Still no video, no evidence, = no plane.

So pics of parts and first responder reports dont count to you yet if some idiot posts steel was tested to 2400 f you believe it no bias then eh

Full credit to David Chandler for this work
The 2 security cameras at the entrance gate near the helipad were about 140mS out of sync and the plane appears in 1 frame from each camera. The frames have been adjusted for wide angle distortion and aligned to fix the background scenery overlap so the only thing moving in the 2 frames is the aircraft which can be seen with smoke billowing from an engine suggesting it ingested part of one of the light poles the plane struck coming in. Doesn't look like a cruise missile to me.

a reply to: Informer1958

I understand that reality is not convenient for you. You continue to show an unwillingness to accept it. No matter how many times it is pointed out that the cameras at the businesses in the area, were actually pointed at the businesses and not the office building (which is what the Pentagon is) across the highway, you still think that every security camera in the area was pointed at the Pentagon. You also refuse to accept the reality that the cameras at the Pentagon were not state of the art video cameras, but frame cameras.

You also refuse to accept the accounts of the people who were in/around the Pentagon and watched Flight 77 slam into the building. You refuse to accept the accounts of firefighters who witnessed the aftermath and saw what was left of passengers, still strapped to what was left of their seats. You refuse to accept ATC accounts, including those of the individuals in the Reagan National Tower who saw Flight 77. You refuse to accept the photos of wreckage clearly marking with AA markings/colors. So, yes, I understand how reality is not convenient for you.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I understand that reality is not convenient for you. You continue to show an unwillingness to accept it.

So you are now a Psychiatrists and you are given out false diagnoses against ATS members who do not support the OS fairytailes. How does that make you look credible?

Like I said, no video, no photo = no plane

The don't blink excuse may fool some, as you just demonstrated, but it doesnt fool me. Perhaps some people like their eyes to lie to them, perhaps they might feel safer.

a reply to: Informer1958

Really do not need a degree to diagnose in your case. Especially when you claim that if there is no video/picture, it did not happen.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Please, who saw AA77 slam into the building? He might have seen something slam into the building, but it wasn't AA77.

One military guy finally told the story long after it happened. Why believe known liars?

Nobody else saw AA77 slam
into the building, though a fair number of people saw an airliner in the vicinity, but not slamming into the building.

I suspect something slammed into the building, but it wasn't AA77

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Informer1958

Really do not need a degree to diagnose in your case. Especially when you claim that if there is no video/picture, it did not happen.

Ouch. I'm sure that hurt, but is true.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Please, who saw AA77 slam into the building? He might have seen something slam into the building, but it wasn't AA77.

One military guy finally told the story long after it happened. Why believe known liars?

Nobody else saw AA77 slam
into the building, though a fair number of people saw an airliner in the vicinity, but not slamming into the building.

I suspect something slammed into the building, but it wasn't AA77

I have to say that it was reported during the events that an airplane hit.

The question is the validity of the report. Although the evidence doesn't show "without a doubt" an airplane hit, such as a video, there seems to be more evidence for an airplane than for something other than an airplane.

It gets stranger. The day Bin Laden attacked.

9/11

Revelations 9/11

Their king is the angel from the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is [Abaddon,] and in Greek, [Apollyon]--the Destroyer.

On another forum I had King Neptune as my avatar and called myself King Neptune.

The week I changed my forum handle to Abaddon, the US military launched Operation Neptune's Spear and killed Bin Laden.

a reply to: Salander

www.iangoddard.com...

Oh...just one or two.....

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Please, who saw AA77 slam into the building? He might have seen something slam into the building, but it wasn't AA77.

One military guy finally told the story long after it happened. Why believe known liars?

Nobody else saw AA77 slam
into the building, though a fair number of people saw an airliner in the vicinity, but not slamming into the building.

I suspect something slammed into the building, but it wasn't AA77

I have to say that it was reported during the events that an airplane hit.

The question is the validity of the report. Although the evidence doesn't show "without a doubt" an airplane hit, such as a video, there seems to be more evidence for an airplane than for something other than an airplane.

I must disagree because I use the word airliner rather than airplane. And there is no evidence suggesting an airliner crashed there. No bodies scattered around, no baggage, no engines, no landing gear.

At either the pentagon or Shanksville.

When the first reporter arrived at the pentagon that day, the front wall had not yet collapsed, and as he noted, nothing looked like an airliner had crashed there.

Ditto Shanksville. Everybody who was actually there noted how no crash debris from an airliner was anywhere to be seen.

I'm a pilot, so I'm looking right away for a really tall vertical stabilizer


Not sure at all, man....the smoke should also blend more and not seem so cgi mask, huh! The green laser paint from orbiting air controller is right where the remotely controlled missile hit....it hit the painted spot, coz ya can't paint the wall as easy from altitude ...we see it flash as the structure of the missile actually reflects the laser painted mark...being shined down from above

originally posted by: Pilgrum

Full credit to David Chandler for this work
The 2 security cameras at the entrance gate near the helipad were about 140mS out of sync and the plane appears in 1 frame from each camera. The frames have been adjusted for wide angle distortion and aligned to fix the background scenery overlap so the only thing moving in the 2 frames is the aircraft which can be seen with smoke billowing from an engine suggesting it ingested part of one of the light poles the plane struck coming in. Doesn't look like a cruise missile to me.

edit on 26-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Ah, you offer the obligatory MSM piece. Sorry, those statements impress me as being paid for. Money does talk you know.

We know nothing about those people but we do know the FBI moved quickly to confiscate video from all civilian surveillance cameras, almost like they didn't want people to see what ACTUALLY happened in the front lawn of the pentagon.

The reason the Fox news reporter could not see anything that looked like a wrecked airliner there, is because there was no wrecked airliner there.

a reply to: Salander

First, it was CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre. Second, you do not include the full story..no big surprise there. But the transcript and the video are still online. The anchor in the studio asks him about witness statements that the airliner hit the ground prior to hitting the Pentagon, and McIntyre states that there is no evidence that the airliner hit there (the ground). The part you skip...as do all conspiracy theories was the rest of the statement where he clearly states the airliner hit the building.

This, is the question that Jamie McIntyre was asked...

"WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?"

And this, is what conspiracy theorists hang their hats on....

"MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."

Now, what you do not, EVER, include is the full statement...

"MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. "


Now, why do you never include the full story?

Nor do you include THIS from Jamie McIntyre..
" I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane."


transcripts.cnn.com...


So, why do you continue to misrepresent what Jamie McIntyre had to say that day?????

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Thank you for the correction on the Jamie McIntyre information. Yes, I was aware of his full statement, and I did not reference it for several reasons.

How do I reconcile that the same airliner that penetrated through several of the rings in the building and left a very neat exit hole in one of the buildings, had actually begun to fall apart and leave small aluminum pieces on the lawn behind, while traveling at such a high rate of speed?

That is, did anybody ask McIntyre that? How does a fast moving airliner begin to shed certain tiny parts over the lawn, and still retain enough structural integrity to perform the miraculous and become an aluminum tunnel borer?


I give more value to McIntyre's statement that he saw nothing there suggesting a crashed airliner, paraphrasing.

Further, call me biased, but I don't believe a word from pentagon spokespersons. Some members of the 911 Commission wanted to charge some of those testifying from NORAD and the pentagon with perjury for the many "edits" afterwards of their testimony. Their story is a house of cards that collapsed years ago in the minds of the curious and observant.

I thought this thread was about proving a Russian missile hit the pentagon? Is this a failed thread?


Sad you ignore all the individual eyewitness statements that give an account of an American Airlines jet hitting the pentagon. Start discrediting the 87 eyewitness accounts. Are they lying? Are they mistaken? They only have recorded data, evidence, DNA, and the coroner supporting their accounts?

Analysis of Eyewitness Statements on 9/11 American Airlines Flight 77 Crash into the Pentagon
ratical.org...


3. Eighty-Seven Eyewitness Accounts Before and After American Airlines Flight 77 Crashing Into The Pentagon


1. Witness Statement by AA Flight Attendant
An American Airlines flight attendant, would have been scheduled to fly on her regular flight, AA 77, on September 11, 2001. That day she was excused from work because her father was ill. Her friend and fellow flight attendant, Renee, was on that plane.
Renee boarded AA 77 in Washington DC on this regularly scheduled route to Los Angeles. Over Ohio, Renee called her mother on her cell phone and told her to call American Airlines Operations and report that the plane had been hijacked. Renee said there were six hijackers. Press releases since then have only reported five hijackers. But that is a separate subject due to its size and scope. There were no sounds of struggle when Renee phoned her mother. Her mother could also hear crew members calling out phone numbers for American Airlines. Renee did not call her again.
The flight attendant states that she went to the crash site on Friday September 21st during the 10pm to 10am shift with her mother to give support to the crews working on the clean-up of the wreckage. She went inside the Pentagon crash site and saw parts of the plane that she recognized to be a American Airlines Boeing 757 that she was familiar with from her years of flying. She recognized part of a tail section bearing the A/A logo. She saw charred human bones. She has no doubts that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th.
I first heard this person describe her memories of the Pentagon crash, in Dallas at
the COPA Conference on the anniversary of the JFK assassination, on November 23,
2002. She was still shaken by the loss of her friend and the devastation she had seen on
September 11, 2001. Her words can be heard on the website,
www.parapolitics.info...
See Also: "The Pentagon Attack and American Airlines Flight 77," by Jo


54. O’Keefe,John
"I was going up Interstate 395, up Washington Boulevard, listening to the radio ... and from my left side, I don’t know whether I saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet," said the 25-year-old O’Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. "It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading.
"I’d just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, ‘That’s not going to make it to National Airport.’ And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon.
"There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black thick smoke."
"At the Pentagon: Airplane as a Bomb," New York Law Journal, 9/12/01

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

www.iangoddard.com...

Oh...just one or two.....

Even if those are real names and the actual words of eyewitnesses there is nothing to corroborate the fact, all we have is a bunch of words on a very crude web page.

Have you read this one...

Dagan Smythe - I was just getting back home after night shift, literally just unlocking my door and I couldn't believe my eyes, there was this missile flying at head height, straight for the Pentagon. My first thought was "We are at war!"

Probably not because I just made it up. It wouldn't be hard to make up the lot of them...

a reply to: Salander

The small exit hole was from landing gear. Do you have an explanation how the small exit hole supports the missile theory of this thread? How would a passenger jet weighing over 150,000 pounds not have enough momentum for its landing gear to punch the last hole vs a 16,000 pound missile that does not have landing gear? Nor would a missile contain the passenger and crew of flight 77. Nor the personal items from the crew and passengers of flight 77. Never mind the flight recorder, passenger seats, passenger jet wreckage......