Details Regarding the Confiscated Security Videos Of Pentagon Attack.

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Hmmm, so the mighty USAF, or was it the Army, launched a C-130 to 'intercept' ...

Where have you seen/read it was "launched" as an intercept? The C-130 was a NG aircraft returning to Minnesota, which just happened to be in the area at that time, hence the if you can locate, identify and monitor this craft [77] query from the ATCs.

Perhaps watch the video posted above by makeitso.

Originally posted by Griff
The C130 wasn't launched to "intercept" anything. It took off (8 minutes after the FCC grounded all flights mind) as a cargo plane to Missouri (not sure what state but I think it started with an M...Valhall?).

Uh so we got a cargo plane run by the military iding' the 757 when there is a no fly order and we GOT no interceptors anywhere to take that flight? Do I fully understand what is being said here?

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Corgidancer

Originally posted by ferretman2
Has no one researched where all the people on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon have gone?

How do we know that the people didn't land in the real plane in an abandoned military base and they are swimming in vats right at this very moment?

Maybe all of the passengers from the airliners are being detained in secret CIA prisons in eastern europe.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by In nothing we trust]

Logically, however, the simplest answer is most likely the correct answer. We were attacked by muslim extremists at the Pentagon. A passenger jet caused the damage because it was skyjacked by terrorists. If there are indeed missing videos of it happening, the simplest explanation is that our airforce shot it out of the sky before it could hit the capitol or white house. The government didn't want the country to know it had to destroy its own citzens to stop the plane.

[edit on 08/21/2006 by Corgidancer]

Originally posted by pepsi78
The best view would be from above, why doesnt some one try with google earth, I dont have it instaled.
Or maybe there are some old pictures from above with the pentagon, there has to be.
Any way the poster who started this thread has my vote

good job

[edit on 14-9-2006 by pepsi78]

I don't think they allow satellite photos over sensitive areas such as the Pentagon for national security reasons.

Originally posted by Majic


I don't know one way or the other, but I strongly suspect the stated mission for the C-130's flight wasn't "create a diversion".

Okay, but it obviously wasn't hauling toilet seats either. Whatever the C130's mission was, it was classified to the point that the Attorney General launched the largest and most exhaustive investigation in U.S. history (that's his words, not mine) and for more than 2 weeks the existence of the C130, and the fact it had identified two crashes of planes hijacked by terrorists was unknown to everyone, INCLUDING THE PENTAGON, because whatever mission between Washington DC and Minnesota it was on was deemed so classified even the Pentagon couldn't know about it.

Now - I have no idea what that mission was and I'm not going to start postulating here - but that's just a tad bit odd. Wouldn't you agree?

[edit on 9-14-2006 by Valhall]

Win the hearts and minds.

What to do?

Canvas every single elementary, secondary, and high school with the information about 9 11.

Teach your children well

thanks for the info. agreed it's not about WATS it's about the information. (but you got my vote for sure)
thanks a ton. bookmarking now.
-b

Originally posted by denythestatusquo


Uh so we got a cargo plane run by the military iding' the 757 when there is a no fly order and we GOT no interceptors anywhere to take that flight? Do I fully understand what is being said here?

My thoughts exactly. You must have known where I was heading with that.
And as Val says, we know the C-130 wasnt hauling toilet seats, so what was its super classified mission that allowed it to take off when ALL other flights were grounded, including all our air defense fighter planes?

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Majic


I don't know one way or the other, but I strongly suspect the stated mission for the C-130's flight wasn't "create a diversion".

Okay, but it obviously wasn't hauling toilet seats either. Whatever the C130's mission was, it was classified to the point that the Attorney General launched the largest and most exhaustive investigation in U.S. history (that's his words, not mine) and for more than 2 weeks the existence of the C130, and the fact it had identified two crashes of planes hijacked by terrorists was unknown to everyone, INCLUDING THE PENTAGON, because whatever mission between Washington DC and Minnesota it was on was deemed so classified even the Pentagon couldn't know about it.

Im sorry I dont have that one in my data base and I missed the link if it came up earlier, so could you please give a source for this info?

Now - I have no idea what that mission was and I'm not going to start postulating here - but that's just a tad bit odd. Wouldn't you agree?

[edit on 9-14-2006 by Valhall]

I would agree, and I will postulate.
In fact, I rather enjoy postulating, especially when there are intelligent people around here to keep me in check. Its good to have healthy discussions about 911 topics.
And I never said that the C-130s stated mission was to 'create a diversion', I was merely saying that it may have been
put in the area for a miriad of official reasons, but once in the area it created something for people to focus on, a 'distraction', whether intended or not, thats what it was.
So, NO, I dont think some general said 'get out there and create a diversion', thats absurd. I do think however that the C-130 being in the area of apparently TWO crashes, and all the while on a top secret mission, is HIGHLY suspiscious, and at the very least would confuse eye-witness testimony and cause conflicting reports and/or memories of exactly what plane they saw where and when they saw this plane or that.

Originally posted by Corgidancer

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Corgidancer

Originally posted by ferretman2
Has no one researched where all the people on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon have gone?

How do we know that the people didn't land in the real plane in an abandoned military base and they are swimming in vats right at this very moment?

Maybe all of the passengers from the airliners are being detained in secret CIA prisons in eastern europe.

Logically, however, the simplest answer is most likely the correct answer. We were attacked by muslim extremists at the Pentagon. A passenger jet caused the damage because it was skyjacked by terrorists. If there are indeed missing videos of it happening, the simplest explanation is that our airforce shot it out of the sky before it could hit the capitol or white house. The government didn't want the country to know it had to destroy its own citzens to stop the plane.

On the surface that would seem like the most logical answer, until you really start to look at things in more detail.

Originally posted by Corgidancer

Logically, however, the simplest answer is most likely the correct answer. We were attacked by muslim extremists at the Pentagon. A passenger jet caused the damage because it was skyjacked by terrorists. If there are indeed missing videos of it happening, the simplest explanation is that our airforce shot it out of the sky before it could hit the capitol or white house. The government didn't want the country to know it had to destroy its own citzens to stop the plane.

On the surface, in normal circumstances, that would be true.

But if you have learned anything from governments actions, you know that they ALWAYS meddle with terrorists and use false flags to further theyre goals. This is a status quo.

And even with that beside, with all the "coincidences" and the physical impossibilities with the buildings collapses, the "we were attacked by muslims" theory becomes more and more complex and confusing. It goes to the pointwhere its no longer the simple answer, its an answer in which you refuseto acknowledge data and information on all the other goings onthat day.

and the physical impossibilities with the buildings collapses,

Once agian flasehoods are being oushed foward. You should view the documentary 'inside the towers - 9/11'. It explains and shows why the towers fell.

DENY IGNORANCE!

The whole idea of the government hiding all of this information is so ridiculous to me. Why not just show us the truth? I have always been against CT speculation, but the camera disappearances raises so many red flags.

Don't the government officials know that in 20 years (or so) they wont be in office anyways? What the frick is the reason for all of the hush hush.

No matter what, the truth will come out, completely.

First off....there is no proof the the camera were acutally removed by the government. Places do upragde their security from time to time.

O where are the debunkers! catherehder hey kity kitty kitty.Looks like the skeptics and the govt debunkers got owned big time.i salute you jack tripper.keep up the good work

Originally posted by 11Bravo

Originally posted by Valhall

Okay, but it obviously wasn't hauling toilet seats either. Whatever the C130's mission was, it was classified to the point that the Attorney General launched the largest and most exhaustive investigation in U.S. history (that's his words, not mine) and for more than 2 weeks the existence of the C130, and the fact it had identified two crashes of planes hijacked by terrorists was unknown to everyone, INCLUDING THE PENTAGON, because whatever mission between Washington DC and Minnesota it was on was deemed so classified even the Pentagon couldn't know about it.

Im sorry I dont have that one in my data base and I missed the link if it came up earlier, so could you please give a source for this info?

I'm not sure which part of what I said you were saying you didn't have in your database, so I'll address all of it.

From page 30 of the 911 Commission Report:

United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington,
D.C. The precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute.The 10:03:11
impact time is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board
analysis and by evidence from the Commission staff ’s analysis of radar, the flight
data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic
control transmissions.168

Five minutes later, the Command Center forwarded this update to headquarters:
Command Center: O.K. Uh, there is now on that United 93.

FAA Headquarters:Yes.
Command Center: There is a report of black smoke in the last position
I gave you, fifteen miles south of Johnstown.
FAA Headquarters: From the airplane or from the ground?
Command Center: Uh, they’re speculating it’s from the aircraft.
FAA Headquarters: Okay.
Command Center: Uh,who, it hit the ground.That’s what they’re speculating,
that’s speculation only.169

The aircraft that spotted the “black smoke” was the same unarmed Air
National Guard cargo plane that had seen American 77 crash into the Pentagon
27 minutes earlier. It had resumed its flight to Minnesota and saw the
smoke from the crash of United 93, less than two minutes after the plane went
down. At 10:17, the Command Center advised headquarters of its conclusion
that United 93 had indeed crashed.170

And by the way, footnote 170 is important as well:

170. For 10:17 discussion, see ibid., p. 34. For communication regarding “black smoke,” see FAA memo,“Full
Transcript; Aircraft Accident; N591UA (UAL93) Somerset, PA; September 11, 2001,” May 10, 2002, pp. 16–18
(Cleveland Center, Imperial Radar position).This report from the C-130H was recorded on ATC audio about 1
minute and 37 seconds after the impact time of United 93 as established by NTSB and Commission analysis of
FDR, CVR, radar, and impact data sets—more than a minute before the earliest impact time originally posited by
the authors of the seismic data report.

Actually the Commission is being misleading with this footnote. TWO seismic reviews were performed by TWO separate groups of seismologists. The first stated the impact was at 10:06:05 a.m. The Pentagon didn't like that, because it didn't go with the 10:03 time they wanted to publish, so they hired a second group of seismologists to review the seismic record. That group came back with an impact time of 10:06:05 a.m. The commission report states impact time at 10:03:11 despite these two independent reviews.

As to the classified report of the C-130 and it remaining unknown to the Pentagon during the first weeks of the investigation: The news was first reported of the C-130 witness to the Pentagon strike on October 17, 2001 on Daily Press.

dailypress.com...

You have to have a subscription to access the archives to get to that Daily Press article. But the article is lifted here:

www.ratical.org...

I'll quote the pertinent statements:

Tuesday, he was pleased to hear the military is finally verifying what he's been telling people.

Wheelhouse and at least two other witnesses to the Pentagon attack were troubled that Pentagon spokesmen had until now said they were unaware of a C-130 being in the area at the time.

"So I wasn't losing my mind," he said.

In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard, the Pentagon spokesman said.

Please note the Pentagon had stated until the week of October 17 they did not know of the C-130..."because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard". That's almost 5 weeks.

[edit on 9-15-2006 by Valhall]

The replies Ive had from the Pentagon leave me with no doubt that there's quite a bit of footage that they dont want the public to see.

Great detective work by the way!

TG, mind posting the 'so-called' replies......

Well the CITGO video is an absolute waste of time, you can't see anything. Some parts are blurred out which doesn't help either.

www.judicialwatch.org...

You have voted Valhall for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Nice Post Val.
I argued with Howard Roark for nearly a month over the seismic data from Pallisades and I still don't understand why people can't see the big spike then the rumbling, if it were caused by debris hitting the ground, it would be a rumbling then a spike as the freefalling debris hit the ground.