Rumsfeld admits missile in pentagon !!

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Rumsfeld admits missile in pentagon !!


According to Rumsfeld, who was in the Pentagon during the attack, the damage
could really be a missile. In an interview with The Parade Magazine and posted
on the United States Department of Defense web site.

--------------------------------------------------------

Extract from The Parade Magazine interview.

Q:
This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?

~ Rumsfeld: There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues.

They (find a lot) and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.

--------------------------------------------------------

It was later explained that Rumsfeld made a mistake, that he simply "mis-spoke" and he really meant to say "AS missile". But strangely enough, the security camera clip released amongst the surely very numerous cameras at the pentagon seams to converge with Rumsfeld's mis-spoken comments.

This clip to the left provided by CNN on the day after 9-11shows some astounding clues which reveal the attacking aircraft could very well be a missile.







Note the smoke trail clearly visible behind the box to the right of the screen. It should be noted that turbine engine airliners such as the AA77 do not produce a smoke trail but a large variety of missiles do .... or was the clip "mis-spoken" just like Rumsfeld?. In addition to this, the mere size of the aircraft appears much smaller than a Boeing 757 as the picture from Sozen.com to the middle reveals ..... or again, perhaps the camera clip "mis-spoke" a missile for a Boeing 757 in the same manner Rumsfeld did??

Did Donald Rumsfeld let out a Freudian slip?? And did the pentagon security camera let out the very same Freudian slip?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu
------------------------------------------------

"Why of course the people don't want war. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. "

--Hermann Goering at the Nazi Nuremburg Trials

[edit on 18-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1] > pentagon footage re posted uncropped and speeded up to about 5 fps for a later purpose

[edit on 19-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]




posted on May, 19 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
just outa interest, onthe clip that shows ' something ' slamming into the pentagon, it says '2 september 2001'

what is the 2 refering too?
Im aware its cut off there but, shouldnt it say 11 ?



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   

what is the 2 refering too?
Im aware its cut off there but, shouldnt it say 11 ?


That was my fault, I didn't post a GIF with the whole view. It was not intentional, I assure you and I'll corect it when I get a chance. You are correct, it should be an "11" there instead of a "12" so I will explain why that is but first I which to ellaborate on a few things if you so allow me


Comparative quality of video footage output

During the last 3 years, I have spent a considerable amount of efforts and time trying to gather as many security camera footages from diffferent applications I have gathered well over 50 video footage clips, anything from car cams used in cop cars, nanny cams that caught a baby sitter masturbating, corner store cameras that caught a hold up, the Madrid train station footage of the Madrid bombing, a few footages of different places in shopping malls, gas station footage of a guy that caught fire, elevator footage of a girl who stipped for her boyfriend and the list goes on and on... Every single one of those camera footages were from security cameras, they were all from a fixed station and many where hidden
Every one of them, and I mean EVERY one of them had a time stamping on the footage indicationg the time and date and often there was also a frame count as well or the time was indicated in 10th or 100th of seconds. Also, every one of them were of far faster frame rates than the pentagon video footage shown in the head message here. Not everyone was in colour (about 3 out of ten were in B&W) but they were all of at least as good resolution as the pentagon footage as well. I looked everywhere on the net and in my area of town and nowhere could I find anyone using frame rates of 1 fps. The lowest frame rate I could find was in a corner store with a frame rate of about 5 to 7 fps (manually estimated).

In addition to this, I set out to install a web cam on my computer and here is what I installed:
3Com HomeConnect Webcam
~ Still Image Capture Resolution: 640x480
~ Video Capture Resolution: 640x480 or 1280x960 (software enhanced)
~ Digital Video Capture frame rate: 60 frames per second maximum
~ On the market since 2000 but I bought it 2 years ago for around $100 (not sure) however, it has been discontinued for some time now!
~ Number of colors: 16.8 milliion
It is capable of taking high resolution JPEGs every half second (thought that would not be the most compressible output). Together with two 120 hard drives for less than $100 each and you got a set up that can capture 640x480 resolution 30 fps video for well over 4 months non-stop, all for less than a $300 upgrade to any computer.

As you can guess, my own $300 set up at home produces far better results than that of the one and only pentagon video camera footage available to the public.

So I conclude that if the footage submitted in the head message of this thread is the actual unaltered footage, it is very sub standard in comparrison with the many many given applications I have found.

Are you buying into the idea that the pentagon (a high security level place) uses monitoring equipment far cheaper than the average corner store or mall or even a simple nanny cam or even my own $100 webcam?
Me neither!


Appropriate quality for it's intended purpose

It's been argued that the pentagon gate camera only needed be good enough for the purpose of capturing any vehicles driving in and out of that area within the first 15 feet or so of the camera's field of vision. So let's examine this assertion for a second:

At 10-15 feet away, the camera would have a field of vision of less than 20 feet wide. A small car or a rollerblader or a motorcycle travelling at only 13 mph (20 foot/second) could drive by without getting caught on any of the frames of that camera if the frame rate was indeed 1 fps. Geez! Even a fast runner could run by and not get caught on any of the frames! That is to say that at only 1 fps, that camera would be completely inneficient at doing the job you want to think it was intended to do!

However, the idea that a place like the Pentagon would use sub standard security equipment is simply ridiculous, especially when you consider my $300 desktop set up would be far more efficient that what the footage proposes the pentagon uses.... especially when you consider the fact that at one frame per second, the footage would be virtually useless for it's alleged intended purpose!

I don't buy it and I know you don't buy it either!

Now I bet you start to have some serious questions about the weird date that seems off on the footage and the authenticity of the tape ... or don't you?

More on this in my next post



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Dude, This is a dead horse you are beating. I was there. It was a plane as I have part from it. I used to be a crew chief before I cross-trained into comm. I know what I am looking at when it comes to aircraft parts. There were parts of that plane everywhere. Not only that but saw the charred bodies and luggage. There is a expose in this forum that does a damn fine job of building evidence that you can read if you don't want to accept my word.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ROMAD
Dude, This is a dead horse you are beating. I was there. It was a plane as I have part from it.


Really! You have a part of the wreckage?
Can we see some pictures of it?
But the way, taking evidences from a crime scene constitutes a crime in itself but I can assure you nothing's going to happen to you because they were in a rush to litterally take away any evidences from on that lawn (more on this later)


I used to be a crew chief before I cross-trained into comm. I know what I am looking at when it comes to aircraft parts.


I do not dispute that it was in fact an airplane going into the pentagon, just not a Boeing 757, something much much smaller!
Where did you find those parts any way?
The following picture shows the crash site mere minutes after the crash and for the life of me, I can'r see any aircraft parts on that lawn:

external image

external image

Image Link (dead)

I can't see any parts anywhere on thay lawn ..... can you?


There were parts of that plane everywhere. Not only that but saw the charred bodies and luggage.


There are at least a thousand different parts with a unique serial number on them that would connect those parts directly to that one specific aircraft .... were any of those parts ever found?
I didn't think so!




Mod Edit: Image size only, and changed last image to link.


[edit on 19-5-2005 by UM_Gazz]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   


only pics of the plane parts ive seen of the event.


[edit on 19-5-2005 by C0le]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I believe what hit the Pentagon was a military drone shattered by a missile (on impact with the pentagon)



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
jesus christ
((

not again!!! not again




posted on May, 19 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
We already have a discussion in this forum where these same issues are being discussed here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you'd like to skip to the last page of the above linked discussion Click Here

Edit: I am now going to re-open this discussion, The discussion linked above did cover this same topic in many ways, however that discussion has grown to over 50 pages and over 1,000 replies. You may want to use the above linked thread as a source of information for discussion here.

Please try to stay on topic.

Thank you.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by UM_Gazz]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I have to say that was one heck of a slip from the SECDEF. Plane or no plane - I certainly won't take ROMAD's after action report as on scene inspector.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
only pics of the plane parts ive seen of the event.





"Here we have another piece of wreckage. The color seems to be a lighter blue than that used by American Airlines. However the piece is also too small to correspond with the lettering on the 757 paint job according to other analysis work done on this web page. Just scroll down a ways to see it."

www.freedomfiles.org...



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Well I for one do not wish to go over a thousand responses in the the other post so here is my question. Has anyone slowed the camera and proven without a doubt that this was, without a doubt a 757 plane?



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
The choice of the word "missile" is strange but could be applied technically since a missile is any object in flight directed at something. I agree it is a bad choice of words but flimsy evidence. I am very surprised at the lack of wreckage unless most of it was inside the pentagon on fire. do you have any other evidence to support the "missile" theory.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ROMAD
Dude, This is a dead horse you are beating.


nope not quite dead though i am sure some wish it would die. just make all those embaresing questions disapear, just like the supposed wreckage.


I was there. It was a plane as I have part from it. I used to be a crew chief before I cross-trained into comm. I know what I am looking at when it comes to aircraft parts.


first off if you were a "crew cheif" (i asume for aircraft by what you have said), you would also know the serious type of offence that removeing part of aircraft wreckage is. even ia tiny part could be that critical piece of evidance needed to understand an aircraft accident. also if you know so much eactly what part is it? can you post propper pictures with scales ect for us to view. multi angle and decent quality would be nice.


There were parts of that plane everywhere.


where?? no one i have heard from has seen aboundant wreckage.


Not only that but saw the charred bodies and luggage.


again where is it? if such items as chared bodies and luggage existed we should have seen a whole lot littered arround the outside of the building. but we only see very few things at all. also wreckage seems to appear AFTER the first few pictures released. so i guess it was just invisible? mabe it slipped timelines for a bit? or mabe "this evidance" was planted to make it apear that a plain crashed. it's not like there isn't a major ammount of wreckage just hanging arround at accident reconstruction sites. mabe they just borrowed some.


There is a expose in this forum that does a damn fine job of building evidence that you can read if you don't want to accept my word.


lots of talk very little proof from what i have seen. would that be the one with that nice computer generated "reasonings" that are linked? i will remind you that a computer will ultimately show what the programmer wants it to. i have seen quite a lot of aircraft accident footage in my time. one thing about the whole 9-11 thing was so many planes so liuttle wrecage. in one day we saw what ammounts to the least ammout of wrecage ever. INVOLVEING 4 DIFFERANT AIRCRAFT. now one or two i could see as they would have been burried with all that wrecage from the buildings being blown up all. BUT 4? wow what a day for statistical anomilies showing up everywhere.

so MANY coincedences. so little wreckage. so verry rare to have all together involveing one day. i wonder if hell froze over as well that day?



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   
ummmm.....did u watch the coverage of Sept. 11th? if you did, how many times did u hear them use the word 'missle' to describe what those planes were turned into with all the fuel they had on board? I dont even know because i heard it all the time during the coverage and way after that.

no freudian slip. ur taking something in another way and tha'ts it. he was correct when he spoke, those planes WERE missles. and if u check the construction of his sentence, it makes total sense and fits well.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
just outa interest, onthe clip that shows ' something ' slamming into the pentagon, it says '2 september 2001'

what is the 2 refering too?
Im aware its cut off there but, shouldnt it say 11 ?


You are correct, the time stamp should read 11 and not 12!
I guess they put that there to hide the real time stamp, the one that would have shown the frame count and the time with the hundredths of seconds time increments.

You see, they did not want to show the whole clip because there was some frames that would have revealed the aircraft as it approaches the building and some frames might have shown a shock wave and a flash consistant with explosives (see my post here for more information on this)

Kerosene fuel explosions do not produce such shockwaves and such bright flashes so they removed those frames and they deliberately covered up the telling time stamps so you and I would not see the real time stamps.

In any case, the time indicated is wrong because the attack and the shadows on the ground suggest a mid morning and the fake time stamps indicated a late afternoon.

The official story is that they are showing the time stamps of the time those frames were edited but nobody is saying who did this and why were the original time stamps hidden ... you be the judge!

Any way, where are the real unaltered frames and why did they temper with evidences in what is argueably the crime of the century?
Nobody in the mass media is asking this and nobody in the government is answering that either.

Cheers,
Pepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Now, as some have raised some questions about this following part, I have some serious questions as well!



I am building a small two place airplane in my garage and I use basically the same techniques and the same materials at the Boeing does.
My airplane, just like the Boeing is of aluminum 6061-T6 monocoque construction riveted together with aircraft grade rivets.

Now, you have to realize that airplane aluminum sheets are very light and flimsy when not riveted together but it is the way they are folded, placed and riveted together that gives them great strenght for minimum weight.

So just imagine for a second that you have a sheet on aluminum foil stappled to a 2x4 piece of wood for a second.
Now, pull on that sheet of aluminum and see what happens.
The aluminum foil will likely rip at the stappled locations and create large dimples and large wrinkles were the stapples were.
However, this part shown above seems to have been drilled out of it's location, the rivet holes seen all over the part show no stress and the part is often ripped completely around the rivets while the rivet locations are left undamaged.

You see, every time you drill a sheet of aluminum or every time you scratch that sheet, you create what is called a stress riser.
When exposed to stress, that part will most likely break or tear at it's weakest location, namely where the stress risers are.

Let's zoom in on a specific part of that debris here:



Now, look closely as there has been a rip going all around the rivet locations, the rivets were gently lifted out of theri holes or the rivet head were torn out without damaging the area around the holes.

Do you see what I mean?
If you do the same with a sheet of aluminum foil stappled to a 2x4, as you pull on the sheet to remove it, the stappled part will either rip and remain on the 2x4 or there will be severe damage done to the sheet where the stapples were.

Just do this yourself at home:
Stapple a piece of aluminum to a piece of wood and try to remove the sheet without severely damaging the sheet where the stapples are located - it just can't be done.

Now, look at the next zoomed in rivet locations:



Here again, the rivet holes are not even dented around!
It is obvious to me that this debris was not ripped off it's location by some explosive force but it was drilled out and planted there on the lawn!

Still, there are literraly 40 or 50 different rivet locations that were completely undamaged as this part was taken off the aircraft.
You might say that the force of the explosion was so brutal and sudden that this is exactly why those rivet holes were left undamaged.
But if the explosion was so powerful, can you explain to me why that part looks completely free of suet and it appears to not have been exposed to any sort of heat or fire damage?

And again, why is it that this part was found later but it can't be seen anywhere on the following picture taken almost immediately after the first fire trucks arrived?



See any parts on this lawn?
Where is that big ass part seen later on?
Guees, I can't see any aircraft debris here, can you?

There are other debris which look very suspicious to me and I will get into those later on .... stay tuned!
Same Pepe channel, same Pepe time!


Cheers,
Pepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by gattaca
jesus christ
((

not again!!! not again


What's the matter?
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860} wrote "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident"

Which stage might you be at?

If you are not interested in this topic and if you feel this is "old news" than why are you getting involved and posting here?
Instead of trying to ridicule me, I suggest you try and bring in some arguement of your own or simply leave this thread to those interested in this subject ..... please and thank you!

Cheers,
Pepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Purplesunn
he was correct when he spoke, those planes WERE missles.

He didn't say that those planes WERE missiles, he mentionned the planes AND the missile.


and if u check the construction of his sentence, it makes total sense and fits well.

Sure it fits well, in fact it fits very well with the idea of a missile into the pentagon, don't you think?
Never mind the answer, that was just a retorical question.


Rumseld said:
Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.

Any way, if you study the quote a bit more, you will see that he had a moment of innaudible mumbling .... almost as if he had just realized he had said too much, as if he was turning his thoughts around thinking to himself "Darm, what did I just say here!"

Cheers,
Pepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
do you have any other evidence to support the "missile" theory.


I sure do!
I'll get back to you on that tomorrow if you don't mind.
The evidences pointing to a missile are enormeous and very abondant.
Unfortunately the countless videographic proofs has been removed completely, see my post here (about half way down) to that regard.

Cheers and don't eat yellow snow ... just trust me on that, OK?
Pepe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[edit on 23-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]





top topics
 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join