Pentagon cctv 9/11 : where are the missing frames and the 757?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2003 @ 02:21 PM
link   
"In these two sites I tried to settle several hypotheses on the pentagon's crash of september 11 2001. The cover-up of what happened in Whashington D.C. on 9/11 is obvious. The official thesis of the suicid of an arab hijacker (Hani Hanjour) flying a Boeing 757 and striking the pentagon's front in a perfect horizontal flight doesn't stand. So, what happened really ? Let's try to find some locked doors and imagine what is behind them. Here are the materials and the analysis."


perso.wanadoo.fr...

So, did a 757 really hit the Petagon?

This should be looked into more.




posted on Jul, 8 2003 @ 03:47 PM
link   
criticalthrash.com...

Some more eye witness accounts.

However, it is looking like some evidence was tampered with... for no reason?

Odd.



posted on Jul, 8 2003 @ 05:52 PM
link   
They're all dupes on the take... I'll bet they even voted republican.



posted on Jul, 8 2003 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Don't normally jump in on topics about 9/11, but...

I lived in DC when the 9/11 stuff happened. Messed with me pretty bad because I worked in the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed until a few months before.

My best friend's younger brother, who was 19 at the time, is a volunteer firefighter, and his station was called for rescue/recovery.
The pieces of the plane were scattered inside the Pentagon. He had his fellow firefighters had to move some of the debris, including luggage, to get to the body parts.
Not bodies. Parts.
19 freakin' years old, and it tore him up.

I don't disagree that some aspects of 9/11 seem wonky, but I'm of the firm belief that it was indeed a passenger jet that crashed into the Pentagon.

-B.



posted on Jul, 8 2003 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Hmmm

My last post didn't seem to make it.

Digging into short term memory...

* Firefighters on the day saw "bits of plane" but "nothing resembling a fuselage"
* Rumsfeld ordered the whole front lawn to immediately be covered over with sand (standard safety procedure, but sad for evidence seekers)

BUT

* There are those pesky witnesses
* Aerodynamics "experts" say the wings would naturally have collapsed on impact.

Guided missile - no way!
No 757 - then where the hell did it go?

I agree with Banshee on the Pentagon evidence.

But it does not absolve the Bush administration of their lying complicity in every aspect of 9/11.



posted on Jul, 8 2003 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Hmmm

My last post didn't seem to make it.

Digging into short term memory...

* Firefighters on the day saw "bits of plane" but "nothing resembling a fuselage"
* Rumsfeld ordered the whole front lawn to immediately be covered over with sand (standard safety procedure, but sad for evidence seekers)

BUT

* There are those pesky witnesses
* Aerodynamics "experts" say the wings would naturally have collapsed on impact.

Guided missile - no way!
No 757 - then where the hell did it go?

I agree with Banshee on the Pentagon evidence.

But it does not absolve the Bush administration of their lying complicity in every aspect of 9/11.




Hmm, my vague-without facts friend.....are you just against the tragedy, or vaguely opinionated??



posted on Jul, 8 2003 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I am armed with too many facts that don't fit together.

You can find all of them in any dossier of 9/11 enquiry, including interviews with firefighters, safety protocols applied at the Pentagon on 9/11, reported eyewitness statements and expert assessments of why there is no gaping "757 with wings" hole in the ground floor of the Pentagon.

I encourage you to review some of those dossiers. There are many links to them at ATS.

In my opinion, it is not productive to research the Pentagon impact as a source of information about the real sequence of events in the US's security failures on 9/11 and the subsequent Bush administration cover-ups. It is a "red herring". In my opinion.

I can distinguish fact from opinion, fantasy from reality.

I encourage you to do the same.



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 11:18 AM
link   
About 6 months or so ago in Contractor magazine or maybe it was Design & Construction they had an ongoing article about the reconstruction at the pentagon. A lot of pictures. Some, of the mess just before they started. They did show some aircraft parts deep inside.

It all smells fishy to me. On Raging Bull's message board on the WWWW thread there was a guy posting on 9-10 about something going to happen tomarrow. His post showed some very suggesting symbols typed out in the shape of two buildings and a plane. His post were thoroughly reported then removed.



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I am armed with too many facts that don't fit together.

You can find all of them in any dossier of 9/11 enquiry, including interviews with firefighters, safety protocols applied at the Pentagon on 9/11, reported eyewitness statements and expert assessments of why there is no gaping "757 with wings" hole in the ground floor of the Pentagon.

I encourage you to review some of those dossiers. There are many links to them at ATS.

In my opinion, it is not productive to research the Pentagon impact as a source of information about the real sequence of events in the US's security failures on 9/11 and the subsequent Bush administration cover-ups. It is a "red herring". In my opinion.

I can distinguish fact from opinion, fantasy from reality.

I encourage you to do the same.





Surely it's obvious that the Pentagon could not be penetrated by a hijacked passenger jet without being shot down.
The pentagon/WTC means an attack on capitalism (WTC) and also against the US military (Pentagon). The Pentagon attack is definately a red herring, it would defie logic for the Pentagon to be involved, if they were attacked.

or didn't Hitler/Ceaser do the same?


Let's forget about the Pentagon attack, would elements in the intelligence agencies/military launch or allow the attacks in order to strengthen their hand in the establishment?

i don't know, it may seem silly but the CIA and the Pentagon are power hungry and don't seem to care much for human life, American or non American. They have the expertise and resources to carry out the attacks. Personally i think they used Mossad to infiltrate Al-Qaeda and carry out the attacks. Al-Qaeda don't care they are being used, they just want to kill westerners.

Note the Palistinians dancing, partying in the streets after 9/11, we all saw it on TV, just what the planners wanted, westerners to see Arabs laughing at our dead friends and family. this was planned all along, the Clash Of Civilizations is about to begin on a huge scale, we should never let ourselves be fooled into accepting this conflict, it will cause worldwide chaos. World War 3


My proposal is never to let 9/11 go. Never stop hunting for more facts, make sure however was behind the attacks knows that if they ever dare to do such a thing again they are not going to get away with it, if 9/11 was accepted, i have no doubt we would have seen more attacks, more eroding of civil liberties, more death, more terror, more money for the Carlyle Group, more support for Bush. Lets never shut up about the un-answered questions. Never



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Peace

I support your philosophy in the final para above.

I believe there are better angles than the Pentagon impact (even looking at Rumsfeld's symbolic "cover-up" on the day) to bring truth to the surface.

But I'm always interested to see new evidence...



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I still find it odd how a jet could even hit the pentagon.
I mean the security around the pentagon should have been at thier best, before and after.
Radar had enough time to pick up the Planes flightpath.
They must have tried to make contact with the plane and when it did not respond and continue to fly towards the pentagon they could have shot it down.
Thats what i think, i could be wrong though.
Deep



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeroDeep
 


I'm amazed that no one, in all this time, challenged these nebulous "Pentagon defenses" that some of the armchair tacticians seem to think exist -- banks of missile batteries, etc.

Doesn't anyone ever think to even ask some of the tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of former Pentagon employees who actually worked there? Anyone with a smattering of knowledge about air defense could tell you AD missiles are ridiculously impractical, even if you had enough warning to use them -- and you wouldn't. With the Reagan Airport flight path barely 100-200 yds from the Pentagon, a veering jumbo jet would give you a couple of seconds to do the whole deed IF you had a standing shoot-if-it-veers order (really likely, huh?)

I worked in the Pentagon (E-ring, 600 area) for 6 years - the "missiles on the roof" was a standard con everyone pulled on newbies, though only the clerks, REMFs or civilian secretaries ever bought it for more than a few seconds. I mean -- think about it: 24/7 manning, hidden so the other 5000 people would never see you or the missiles or acq & TTR antennas ... and then standing shoot-down orders for any domestic or international flight coming within ... how many hundreds of feet? It gets sillier the more you look at it (which was the point of pulling this con on the newbies, to see if they were idiots or not)

Yet this delusional fantasy gets passed around and around, and hardly ever gets the horse-laugh it so richly deserves.

I am truly amazed.

This is even sillier than the idea we must have had dozens and dozens of hi-speed cameras ringing the Pentagon ... but for what? Nifty nature videos of the rats in the dumpsters by the parking lots? Is National Geo doing a series on giant rats? The only point of the cameras is to give the civilian guards inside a heads-up if someone (usually a protester or nutcase) approaches the place. Assuming the guards wake up in time to see the screen. WalMart-level security hardware is perfectly adequate for that. Hi-dollar cameras wouldn't have helped us on 9/11, obviously, except to get neat approach videos -- which the conspiracy freaks would just claim were phony anyhow.

The best argument against a conspiracy is that even a moron in charge of the scheme would have cooked up some better video to plant, even if it was some phony "tourist" with a videocam.

Old Missileman,
as far back as the Nike-Herc days.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
I still find it odd how a jet could even hit the pentagon.
I mean the security around the pentagon should have been at thier best, before and after.
Radar had enough time to pick up the Planes flightpath.
They must have tried to make contact with the plane and when it did not respond and continue to fly towards the pentagon they could have shot it down.
Thats what i think, i could be wrong though.
Deep


What? You think that the security force was going to shoot it down with their 9mm handguns?

The Pentagon did not have missile defenses and the jets were out of position (and not armed for air to air combat) to shoot it down.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Hmmm

My last post didn't seem to make it.

Digging into short term memory...

* Firefighters on the day saw "bits of plane" but "nothing resembling a fuselage"
* Rumsfeld ordered the whole front lawn to immediately be covered over with sand (standard safety procedure, but sad for evidence seekers)

BUT

* There are those pesky witnesses
* Aerodynamics "experts" say the wings would naturally have collapsed on impact.

Guided missile - no way!
No 757 - then where the hell did it go?

I agree with Banshee on the Pentagon evidence.

But it does not absolve the Bush administration of their lying complicity in every aspect of 9/11.




The lawn was covered with sand so the heavy equipment could drive over it safely. That was AFTER they picked up the pieces of 757 off of the lawn.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Banshee
 


An interesting eyewitness account of what further happened that day, but one which throws up certain questions and contradicts the official account of what happened that day.

According to the official account, the plane that hit the Pentagon broke through to the inner rings as evidenced by the "supposed" hole seen in the inner ring allegedly caused by the nose of the plane, but the fusealage "vaporized". So parts of the plane outside the building yes, but inside no, because it "vaporized".

Now, when you say your friends younger brother saw luggage and body parts, is that insinuating it's from the plane? According to the official story that wouldn't make sense. The plane itself vaporizing but the luggage surviving? Body parts I can understand, because the deaths that day weren't just those inside the plane, body parts from the unfortunate victims within the building would be understandable, but any plane parts or luggage from the plane within the building doesn't make sense if you believe the official story. And your friends younger brothers account throws up more questions as to how the official theory works out. Plane or not, that guys account doesn't match with the official statement of what went down.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the alleged 757 flew through 5 light poles and yet failed to leave one scrap of metal anywhere before the Pentagon.

There are plenty of examples on the 'net of just what happens to a jet when it's involved in just low speed collisions during taxi!



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


I find it incredibly hard to believe that as long as you have been on this board that you have missed every single time that we have posted pictures of 757 pieces on the highway, median and lawn in front of the Pentagon....



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethia
 


If you would bother to do some research of your own and not take things so literal (actually out of context might be a better phrase), certain things might make more sense to you.

The "official" story talks all about the pieces of the jet that were found inside the Pentagon. "Vaporize" was a term that was very inaccurate as to what happened to Flight 77 and it doesnt help that the inaccurate statement is always taken out of context as well.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


I find it incredibly hard to believe that as long as you have been on this board that you have missed every single time that we have posted pictures of 757 pieces on the highway, median and lawn in front of the Pentagon....

I haven't. I aware of the bits of metal lying around, but I'd expect to see significant parts of the aircraft like wings etc..

Given the maneuvers pulled after hitting the light poles (he'd have to pull up in order to fly parallel to the lawn at least, according to the official story), and the damage sustained hitting the light poles, he'd likely cause the wing to fail under the load.

The strength of the wing comes in part from the sheeting top and bottom. Take that away, and there is nothing preventing the wing from folding up.

A quick note: as you pull back (climb), the loading on the wings increase.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


The strength of the wings comes from the sheeting? Does the term wing spar mean anything?

No breakaway light pole is going to shear the wing off an airliner. It will knock pieces off of the wing maybe, but not shear the wing.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join