Rumsfeld admits missile in pentagon !!

Without becoming confused on the issue gentlemen, it all comes down to facts. Right now there are questions that need answering. I have not yet seen either side answer the tough questions, but just make assumptions on such. The line here is, "Were kicking a dead horse."

There are numerous cameras from the Pentagon, which captured the plane. Why are these vids not released to the public? Why do we have a doctored security gate camera?

Why, when it has been proven physically that the plane on a descent could never have leveled off, as it did, without making abrupt terrain disturbance, do we see no evidence of such?

Without being able to answer the simple security camera question, the Pentagon issue, in my book remains unsolved, and no conspiracy. Conspiracy is one thing based on assumptions - here we have sound facts that question motive. There is indeed sealed evidence. Because of foul play, or perhaps another reason?

Also, every one of them were of far faster frame rates than the pentagon video footage shown in the head message here

This is to save memory. It takes up alot of DVD/hardrive space to have many camers running every second 24/7. Many places do this. They set the camera or whatever to take a snap shot every second or half a second. The picture sucks but iy helps space. So actually these types pf systems are not video footage but more like many pictures shown in sequence.

Someone might have already posted this...I didnt go thru all the post

In regards to the plane parts, it was travelling in excess of 500mph, when something that heavy traveling that fast comes into contact with stationary concrete, the aluminum and everything else turns to confetti, particles no larger than 4"x4" can typically be expected to be located, as you had positive forward momentum and a structure that buckled underneath the impact, crash debris was projected forward and into the building and all vectors from the impact point. Not bounced back into the lawn area.

Originally posted by SportyMB
It takes up alot of DVD/hardrive space to have many camers running every second 24/7. Many places do this. They set the camera or whatever to take a snap shot every second or half a second. The picture sucks but iy helps space. So actually these types pf systems are not video footage but more like many pictures shown in sequence.

Someone might have already posted this...I didnt go thru all the post

Yup! I did post something to this effect.
I have well over 50 or 60 different survealance camera footages which I have acquired over the last 3 years or so.

Every single one of them shows frame rates in excees of 10 fps, about 95% of them show better resolution than the pentagon clip and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM shows a time stamp indicating the time of day, the date, the camera number and often a frame count as well.

Even my own $300 desktop upgrade can record better resolution (1280x960), far better frame rates (up to 30 fps) and if I clear out the porn from my tw0 HDs I can store up as much as 4 months of a far better quality footage than what the pentagon clip provides. (all for less than a $300 upgrade to my machine)

It should be said that you can purchase survealance camera systems that allow to be slowed down to as much as 1 frame per 30 seconds. But for the life of me, I could not find a single application where any surveailance cameras were recording a frame rate of less than 10 frames per second. I could be wrong, perhaps you can provide me with a footage where the frame rate is as slow as the pentagon, I dare you to do so. I can show you footages from diverse applications (just name it) and you will conclude every single one of them, even convenienced store footages, are way above pentagon grade quality!

Again. I will repost my comments for you to read, I think you will learn a lot from it:


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?


My only possible conclusion

Unless I can get my mental fingers around the idea that the pentagon uses video surveallance equipments far cheaper and far less performent that the average QuickyMart or even a good $100 webcam, there is only one possible conclusion.

Unless anyone can explain to me how a 1 fps frame rate can be of any use in this specific application sinse I have shown that such slow frame rate would be completely useless here, there is only one possible conclusion.

The five frames showed in the head post here are not the whole footage and several frames have been removed. Those frames would have revealed a much smaller aircraft crashing into the building.
Those frames would also have shown a very strong shockwave and a very bright flash resulting from the explosion.
Neither a shockwave or a bright flash would be consistant with a fuel explosion. The explosion was from an actual bomb!

Of course, to simply remove the revealing frames would have left the frame count showing on each frame so the original time stamps showing the frame count were covered up with a new, erroneous fake and useless time stamp.

There are numerous other footages available to the spin doctors but this one was selected because most other footages from other cameras would reveil the actual aircraft in practically every single frame, making the editing job impossible with the other footages.

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

[edit on 25-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]

i have little to add excpet an observation....
pepelapiu has asked many hard questions that NEED to be answered. the supporters of the official lie keep pulling the bait and switch. 'dead horse'? why do you bother coming to flog it, then. if you're bored of the discussion regarding the COVER-UP, then don't visit pentagon threads. simple, no?

for the rest of us, THANK YOU PEPELAPIU for your voluminous time and research. the truth loves you.

i have to disagree with you on one thing, though pepe. YELLOW SNOW IS GOOD FOR YOU! please DON't trust pepe on this, just as you don't trust his other observations, and go HAVE A FEAST!

Originally posted by StonewallTJJ
What happened to the 58 passengers on flight 77? Better yet, what happened to flight 77?

This is a question asked a lot and very few people have attempted to answer this.
I will get to that eventually, I promis you!
Please stay tuned and pay attention.

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

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear"
- Herbert Agar

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today."
- US President Theodore Roosevelt, 1906

"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. Take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. Take the red pill, you will stay in wonderland, and I will show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember, what I am offering is the truth, nothing more. Follow me."
- Morpheus , "The Matrix"

[edit on 25-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]

Originally posted by billybob
i have to disagree with you on one thing, though pepe. YELLOW SNOW IS GOOD FOR YOU! please DON't trust pepe on this, just as you don't trust his other observations, and go HAVE A FEAST!

I have no fears that if CNN and FOX ever get around to agree with you on that, you'll be observing the sheeples lining up and paying to eat yellow snow!

Cheers,
Pepe
(and thanx for the kind words of encouragement)

I don't think it was a missle, simply because missles of that size don't fly to low to the ground. They usually go from the air to ground.
I could understand it being a RPG or something, but the blast and damage is WAY to big.

Originally posted by evanfitz
I don't think it was a missle, simply because missles of that size don't fly to low to the ground. They usually go from the air to ground.
I could understand it being a RPG or something, but the blast and damage is WAY to big.

What about the idea that it was a missile AND the drone aircraft that fired it both crashing into the building!

You see, very shortly beforew striking, a drone (F-16 or Global Hawk or Predator, or a few other choices...) fired the missile into the wall to open it up and the plane followed directly behind avoiding any remains be left outside in plain view.

There are theories put out that it was a truck bomb or a missile alone but those are nothing more than lies made up to create confusion and discredit the truth.

Originally posted by ANOK
Could it be because it wasn't a missile but a Global Hawk unmanned aircraft painted to look like a commercial jet?

Actually, you are getting very warm to what it is I have been trying to hint.
Is it possible that it might be both a missile AND a Global Hawk?

Have you ever heard of the Predator?
Basically the Predator is nothing more than a smaller Global Hawk armed with missile capabilities

"In February 2001, the Hellfire-C laser-guided missile was successfully fired from a Predator air vehicle in flight tests at Nellis air force base, Nevada."
(source: Airforce-Technology.com)

Global Hawk


Predator, now armed with missile lauch capabilities


But really, who cares what hit the pentagon?
We both know it wasn't a Boeing piloted by a guy who, in spite of sporting a 600 hour American issued pilot's license, could not even muster the skills to rent a Cessna!
Strangely, we've had a few people who came out stating how bad a pilot he was but nobody, no one has come out saying they have seen Hani Hanjour flying.

Of course, it was said he used a flight simulator but that does not count toward the 600 hours of flight Hanjour claimed on his license.

Any way, was it a Predator, a F-16, a Global Hawk, a Lear Jet or a freaking UFO?
The answer does not matter, what matters is that it was not a Boeing 757 and the powers that be have gone throught great lenghts confiscating any evidence that might actually show us what the actually aircraft was.

It's just like the JFK business, it doesn't matter if Oswald was helped by either one or 50 other shooters, it doersn't matter if the Cubans and/or the Mafia was involved at the lower levels.
What matters is that only our own governmenmt had the power and the multi billion $ business interests in covering up the assasination, locking away prescious documents until 2036, witholding the Zapruder film from the public for so long and even forming the fraudulent fake front Warren commission.

Wake the F**K up America, the guys who keep taking half of your wages away from you did it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by robertfenix
In regards to the plane parts, it was travelling in excess of 500mph, when something that heavy traveling that fast comes into contact with stationary concrete, the aluminum and everything else turns to confetti, particles no larger than 4"x4" can typically be expected to be located, as you had positive forward momentum and a structure that buckled underneath the impact, crash debris was projected forward and into the building and all vectors from the impact point. Not bounced back into the lawn area.

AND..... a large airplane traveling that fast would freeeeekin damage that lawn with its wake! Not a single blade of grass was ruffled LOL! Must be some super strong mutant grass growing on the lawn in front of where the plane or "plane" hit the building.

It was a drone and/or missile possibly made to look like an airplane. The US military uses many airplane-looking drones for recon missions. Like the drone shot down near China years ago.

Did or has Mr. PepeLapiu1 looked at the ATS archives on this event, among others that occurred on 9/11?

How many past threads did the member see concerning the Pentagon hit?
Did the member bother to post his or her findings within one of those many past topics or as par, simply decided to ignore them and go with his/her own approach, thinking that they are presenting something that has not already been discussed or presented within ATS?

Never ceases to amaze me how many people feel others are in denial when in truth, it is they that are in denial.....




seekerof

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Seekerof]

In relation to billybob's assertion of Mr. PepeLapiu1, question:
Has Mr. PepeLapiu1 addressed each and every "hard question" that was given against what he/she is asserting or claiming in this topic?

The #1 Most Viewed Topic and the 4th Most Replied to Topic:
9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Btw, I used to believe the tooth fairy, till I realized I was simply in denial.






seekerof

I'm still waiting to find out what happened to the passengers on the flight...

there's promises of Pepe telling us where they went... but nothing yet...

Originally posted by elevatedone
I'm still waiting to find out what happened to the passengers on the flight...

there's promises of Pepe telling us where they went... but nothing yet...

Ok, okayyy! Here we go than!
I am a member of more than one list with very little time on my hands so if I don't reply right away, you just have to be patient.

About the passengers, yuou remember how the first list of passengers published had no Arab sounding names on it?
After the public questionned this, a new list was published with a few Arab names added to it, it was explained that none of the Arab names were mentionned the first time by respect to the victims.

Any way, what you should know about the pentagon, is that almost in straight line with the crash zone, there is Reagan airport just a mile up over the building.



See the Ladebahn arrow indicating the runway.

Of course, there is no way the Boeing could have landed there, but all that was neede is for it to fly by close enough to give the impression it was either landing or taking off from there.

Now, look to the pentagon side to the left of the crash side, the Boeing could have crashed there but there would have been way too many witnesses on that side to manage efficiently and spin them into the official lie.
Additionnally, Rumsfeld was in the building at the time to add credibility to the attack but he was at the opposite side, safe and away from the crash side.
So also, the pentagon is important to the spin doctors, remember that this lie is purportratred by the pentagon so they aren't going to destroy their very own building, now are they?

So the most quiet side, the side with the least possible witnesses was selected and the projectile destroyed a section that was mainly innocupied.
The fact that that section was under renovation and not occupied was probably a big help in planting evidences, possible bodies and most importantly rig the place up with bombs while nobody would be around to ask too many questions.

Now, look back at the picture above and immagine you are a terrorist, armed with your all mighty box cutter and determined to park your airliner into the building ~ what location would appear the easiest to fly into to you?

Personnaly, I would fly the plane right into the center court for maximum damage but this pilot somehow decided to go down and fly a little close to the ground to snag a few poles before hitting an empty part of the building while frying only a few feet off the ground with the pilot's already established poor piloting skills.... really! Does anyone buy this crap?

Well any way, back to the passengers ~ they were flown over the whole mess while a drone and missile were used simultaniously and they were landed on a deserted army base not very far from there (I forget the name right now)

What happened to them from that point on? Where they chopped up and feed to a vast of Wendy's chili recipe? Where they beamed up to the enterprise? Where they relocated to a witness program? Your guess is as good as mine!

What I do know is that the "bone guys" were called in to identify the remains.

About "bone guys": No, we're not talking folks that hang around secret Ivy League fraternaties. On May 31, 2002, theWashinton Post had this to say about 'bone guys':

"...When remains of the Waco dead or 9/11 Pentagon victims or Desert Storm casualties -- or most recently Chandra Levy -- need to be studied, the bone guys at the Smithsonian are called in. The bone guys read skeletons like intricate topological maps. Sometimes they can make identification from a skull fragment the size of a quarter. They can read race in the teeth and gender in the brow. They can tell you who had an asymmetric nose. They can tell you who may have been a factory worker, because bones grow more pronounced to accommodate certain muscles, and who may have been a weaver or a tailor, based on grooves in the teeth where thread was held...."

In other words, these were the fellows who helped tidy up the government’s story at Waco and with the Shandra Levy story and are “studying” the Sept 11th remains as well.

By now you have probably heard that many of the “hijackers” named by the FBI are alive and well. The Information Times, an on-line publication, reported that Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal told the Arabic Press after meeting with President George W. Bush on Sept. 20: "It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened."

According to The Orlando Sentinel, the Saudi Arabian embassy confirmed that four of the five mentioned by Al-Faisal -Saeed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Abdul aziz Alo mari and Salem Alhazmi-are not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington. (source: About "bone guys": No, we're not talking folks that hang around secret Ivy League fraternaties. On May 31, 2002, the Washington Post had this to say about 'bone guys':)

Really, what happened to the passengers and the airplane is not a difficult question to answer, anyone with the ability to master a plan like the 9-11 cover up will easily have the resources to hide orr destroy a plan and it's passengers, agreed?

By the way, remember that idea I first mentionned in this message about the passengers not having any Arab names at the forst publication?
Well, guess what?
A FOIA form was found to reveal no Arab names in the list of indentified remains.
All were identified except on infant and the five terrorists!

See the FOIA here:
www.sierratimes.com...
www.sierratimes.com...
www.sierratimes.com...

Any way, lastly, I really would like to see the official airline manufest with the complete list of passengers and their assigned seats.
Some have tried to request that list but American Airlines have declined repeatedly, why?

Of course, now you are asking why used a missile when they already had a perfectly good airplane?

I would be inclined to believe that a Boeing could not be very presice and hit the exact intended target with accuracy.
You can't really control a 120 ton airplane travelling at 530 mph that] accurately so a drone and missile were used while the illusion of a Boeing crashing in was given when in fact, it merely flew over the whole thing.

Of course, there might be much more to it all and the rason culd be entirely different but you see, since a poop-load of evidences have been hiddden from us, it is too difficult to conclude accurately on every facet of the crime.

Just give me the footages of the gas station, the footages of the Sheraton Hotel, the footages of the CCTV pentagon roof tops and the COMPLETE un-edited footage of the gate camera along with an actual independant investigation together with a ton of other evidences that have been hidden or altered and I will draw you an exact picture of the actual crime ..... deal?

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

Originally posted by Seekerof
Never ceases to amaze me how many people feel others are in denial when in truth, it is they that are in denial.....

Yeah! I know what ou mean there, partner!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."
~ Adolf Hitler

"What luck for rulers that men do not think"
~ Adolf Hitler

Originally by Hunting Veritas
Fuel and considering 757 fuel burns (NOT EXPLODES) at no less than 800 degrees

Ah, see what I mean about misconceptions and “common knowledge”. Sorry to ask, but where in the world did you get 800 Degrees Fahrenheit as the flash point on Av-Gas/ kerosene/ Diesel fuel?

PS: the difference between burning and exploding has to do with pressure, not temperature.

Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech
The Jet A involved in the Center Wing Tank (CWT) explosion had a flash point temperature of about 115 F and the decreased air pressure at the explosion altitude of 13.8 kft lowered the effective flash point to about 100 F.

members.aol.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Jet Fuels in the U. S.
Jet A and Jet A-1 (1950's -present) are the two fuels used by the commercial airlines and both fuels have a 100 oF (Min.) flash point temperature for safety reasons. Jet A has a freeze point of -40 oF whereas Jet A-1 has a freeze point of -53 oF. For this reason Jet A being more available and therefore more widely used. The commercial fuels in the US are not required to have the anti-static additive and generally do not have the additive.

You ever seen a fuel spill while an aircraft was being fueled at the gate? What does the ramp crew do?

1) Hit the fuel cut off switch. Call Airport Fire Department.
2) They get off their vehicles and leave them running, to prevent any possible back fire while shutting them down.
3) Wheel out the Halon Bottles.
4) Wait for the Fire Department to arrive to wash down the fuel.

Why do they go through this trouble if it cannot ignite until it hits 800 degrees, I mean paper burns at 451 Degree’s Fahrenheit? So why not just lean back and light up a cigarette? I mean after all “common knowledge” says you can put out a match in a can of Jet A.

Because the truth is that the Fuel can flash at 100 degrees Fahrenheit under the right conditions, and the pavement on the ramp, baked under the hot sun can EASILY reach this temperature. Add to this the temperature of the APU beating down on the pavement further heating things up.

Originally by Hunting Veritas
There is no Tail,

Another “ common knowledge” well known and documented fact by pretty much every one out there, eh? Always get a seat in the tail because it always breaks off and survives a crash, right?

Look at the pictures of the aircraft that this is the case on and I think you will notice a difference between them and a 757. THEY ALL HAVE ENGINES IN THE TAIL. A 757 does not. It’s an empty airfoil with nothing but the hydraulics to move the elevators and rudder, with an APU exhaust outlet coming right out the back of the tail. It is not reinforced like the tails on a DC-9, 727, MD-80, L1011, DC-10, etc…

Originally by Hunting Veritas
I would find it hard to imagine the same planes that desicrated the WTC did not do the same amount of damage to the pathetagon.

Needless to say there is a huge difference in the construction of these two buildings. Besides this a 767 was used in this attack, which is a widebody aircraft, more tonnage and more fuel. I believe that even our esteemed French Skunk would have to admit that one.

Originally by Hunting Veritas
How the F**K can a plane weighing in at almost 100 tons travelling at a minimum speed of 250* (max 600) MPH only punctures a hole in the side of a wall when according to the laws of physics and the crash at WTC it is IMPOSSIBLE!

May I see your mathematical figures to back up this claim? Did you learn them from the same class in physics where they taught you the flash point of Kerosene was 800 degrees Fahrenheit?

Originally by Hunting Veritas
I personally believe it was not a Boeing 757 as ALL current evidence prove different. Keep up the good work pepe.

Yep Pepe, look at the “common Knowledge” of those that support this claim of it not being a 757. It's this "Common Sense Knowledge" that you refered to eariler that has allowed this BS missle, Global Hawk, UFO theory to ever even come into bieng to begin with, and its those that hold this inside knowledge that allows this lie to continue to survive...

I bet I can write a book to prove that it was actually hit by a horizontally traveling meter that was pulled into orbit by top secret occult practices that were conducted at Bohemian Grove by the hillbilly clan, and people would buy it.

[edit on 5/26/2005 by defcon5]

This is foolhearty...it was a plane that in the video clip! You say that a "fast walker" could get by without being seen on tape, but, a missle can't?!!? That makes no sense. You can clearly see a very large object hitting the building. It was a plane. There are MANY MANY eye-witnesses who SAW a plane slam into the Pentagon!!


Please, for the love of God...give up this foolishness!!

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
Personnaly, I would fly the plane right into the center court for maximum damage but this pilot somehow decided to go down and fly a little close to the ground to snag a few poles before hitting an empty part of the building while frying only a few feet off the ground with the pilot's already established poor piloting skills.... really! Does anyone buy this crap?

Well if he was such a bad pilot maybe he was aiming for the center court and missed it. Maybe the aircraft got into a ground effect state and he could not get it to come down the last 30 or 40 feet until it was damaged by the light poles that it snagged, then it came down where it did.

Ground Effect and WIG Vehicles That having been said, let us now explore what happens when an aircraft flies very close to the ground. The phenomenon is most often observed when an airplane is landing, and pilots often describe a feeling of "floating" or "riding on a cushion of air" that forms between the wing and the ground. The effect of this behavior is to increase the lift of the wing and make it more difficult to land. However, what is happening in reality is that the ground partially blocks the trailing vortices and decreases the amount of downwash generated by the wing. This reduction in downwash increases the effective angle of attack of the wing so that it creates more lift than it would otherwise. This phenomenon is what we call ground effect, as illustrated below.

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
The Information Times, an on-line publication, reported that Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal told the Arabic Press after meeting with President George W. Bush on Sept. 20: "It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened."

I would like to know how common of name that these men had within their countries?
Like if John Smith had been one of them I am sure I could come up with 10,000 guys with that name to say it was not who they said it was. Bigger question is did that country have a reason to be afraid at the time that the terrorists were their nationals? Does the Foreign Minister still stand by the fact that these men are still alive and well?

BTW great sites to choose for you support information. Real top notch news sources you got there. If there were even a hint of truth to this you don’t think that it would have been reported in SOME mainstream press source, even one from outside the USA?
Especially considering how much some Foreign News Agencies are so anti-American?

American Freepress
WE CHOOSE LIFE
and that is why we've prepared this first issue of American Free Press, brought to you by the former staff of The Spotlight, who are now the publishers. We will bring you another issue every week. And this is exactly what each of us must do-choose a life of liberty under law and the Constitution-not slavery and death in the New World Order that is being prepared for us all.

Then this one looks like a mom and pop one man operation Sierra Times

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
I really would like to see the official airline manufest with the complete list of passengers and their assigned seats.
Some have tried to request that list but American Airlines have declined repeatedly, why?

Because this is airline policy WITH ALL FIGHTS, WITH ALL AIRLINES, always, no matter what, no exceptions… even back before 911, starting back in the late 1980’s.

Don’t believe me just try and call an airline to find out what flight a relative is coming in on, better yet try it now-a-days and you might just make the FBI watch list.

This is also the reason I am sure that the other video is withheld, because it is not the policy of the pentagon to release video surveillance footage. You claim that this government could pull off this great conspiracy and all this espionage intrigue stuff to fake what happened, then why could they not produce a better faked video, eh?
Better yet, why not fake the other footage and just go ahead and release it to shut up these theories?

More likely if it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it is in fact a duck.

This is security footage from a secure government facility, it’s made to work with video time compression. That camera is most likely 20 years old and was placed there to monitor traffic, not because something was going to maybe crash through the parking lot 20 years down the road. Maybe the pentagon does not wish to release the other video because it shows what the camera coverage of the area is and its frame rate and abilities. Maybe only 1 in every 10 cameras on that roof does not record or even work, but they don’t want the common public to know that. Maybe they are some ultra-high tech cameras that have special operational functionality that they similarly don’t want to be public knowledge.

So Anyway I see you answering everyone else's questions, and you promised me answers, when am I going to get them? What’s the hold up, you cannot answer my questions, or what?

Or maybe your theory just does not hold up under any real scrutiny.


edit Links not working

[edit on 5/27/2005 by defcon5]