Hotel CCTV Video of 9/11 Pentagon Explosion... And NO Plane!

If the FBI has nothing to hide then why the stonewalling? Why the claims of "national security" from the other intelligence agencies? Why has NIST saying that showing their simulations of WTC7 would be a "public safety risk?" If there is nothing to all of this then why the secrecy?

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

You can start by watching this vid, which I posted three times now.

All the live footage and the vids that showed up that day and the day after are proven fake, in this vid.

That is all the proof of an inside job you need.

when i came into this thread i was what you would probably call a truther, though a somewhat detached and not a very extreme one... i believed that all governments everywhere are prone to lying when they can, and there are enough fishy things about the whole 9/11 debacle to raise more than a few eyebrows, but that people claiming there were no planes are maybe a little too deep in their own paranoia...

the second time this video was posted i started to watch it, figuring that clicking on a youtube link is not a binding contract forcing me to watch it's entirety, and that MY lovely girlfriend would probably find a video link far more interesting than just watching me post about her and a lack of missiles all evening..
it's now forty-five minutes later, and barring one slightly wince-inducing musical interlude i don't think a minute went past where someone didn't say WAIT WHAT and shuffle a little closer to the screen
seriously i don't want to be a "no-planer"
i'm already 'strange' and 'fringe' enough in the eyes of the majority of people i speak to
but this, this is something else.
every technical aspect of what is bought up appears to be spot on
and so much of it is SO damning
self-twice-damning, in many cases.

please, all of you [and i read a few of you doing it] calling out this video and it's poster for being a no plane no brain crazy
stop being lazy
take a look at it
and then please please please explain why it doesn't work.
of course it isn't rational, of course i still don't understand how or why or what is with everyone saying different things
but
where i'm sitting right now i have on the one hand, well put together filmic daming evidence
and on the other "i can't be bovvered right now of corse there wus a plain"

halp

Does anybody know what the weather was like that day? Was there alot of wind? From all the official explanations they show the plane coming in meters off the deck many of you must have been in an aeroplane coming in to land on a windy day it is far from a smooth ride would a pilot have been able to keep a jet liner on course that low and on target without the plane digging in well before its intended target....just saying.
Sorry disregard this post as the weather that day was very good for flying.
www.washingtonpost.com... 661afe377_blog.html

Originally posted by kover27
Great video find how did you come across this video and everybody should know right now that the pentagon was not hit by a plane im thinking it was a missile

I'm thinking you're blind. Go look again.Look just over the freeway.You'll see something come in from left to right and I can guarantee you it isn't a missle. It's the tail end of a plane. Like someone else suggested earlier in this thread look at it full screen.Then get back to me.

reply to post by randomname


You wouldn't be filming the space shuttle as close as you would recreating the footage from the security booth to the pentagon.But if you did,yes,it'd be impossible to film it clearly.There's a bit of a difference filming something miles away that's traveling fast.When its 100 yards in front of you at ground level? Ain't going to happen my friend.

reply to post by ProperlyErrant


Indeed it does. But if that video showed a missle...guess what I'd see? A missle. Not the ass end of a plane. It's proof enough to me that it was a plane.I don't know why I didn't notice that before because I've seen that video 1000 times. I thank the member that told me to watch it in full screen

If there wasn't a plane, explain all the LAMPS knocked down!!

If the following video reconstruction doesn't put this conspiracy to bed, then nothing will:

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
If there wasn't a plane, explain all the LAMPS knocked down!!

If the following video reconstruction doesn't put this conspiracy to bed, then nothing will:

The street lights for me are a bit hard to explain as well. If the airplanes' wings bent and removed the metal light poles from their foundation, it's amazing that the plane continued on course as if the poles were nothing. I'm no expert on aviation mechanics, but those would have to be some amazingly strong wings to bend and break loose these poles, and still maintain its crash course.

I would think the wings would either break or would make the plane veer left or right, depending on which wing is hit.

And no, that video is not "proof." It offers a good explanation.

Proof would be the feds releasing the confiscated camera footage.

reply to post by Zaphod58


yah I saw that too, some white/bright/silver object blinks for a second over the highway just over the cement things and then you see explosion to the right over 2nd cement thing, this video was def. edited. Its missing like 1-2 seconds. Everything moves fine up until you see the blink, then feels like its fast forwarded or something.

I don't even care if it was a NASA rocket ship, hundreds of thousand of people made money on 9/11 betting against the airlines in put options, HOW THE HELL ARE THEY NOT IN JAIL
Because half of them are in our government agencies ? The other half are world banks and the ones who work for them. So how the hell did they know to bet against those 3 specific airlines the week of, days leading up to, and day of 9/11? For over a week a group of people knew SOMETHING. But we spend almost 7 trillion dollars looking for a ghost in the desert for 10 years, and then when we do find that ghost, we shoot it dead and throw it over board?, WTF, hahah seriously if you believe official story you are a fool.

Go look at hundreds of plane crash photos, even the smallest planes make TONS AND TONS of debris, paper suitcases, seats, bodies , body parts, you don't see that at pentagon or Penn. Just dark spots, petagon has like 4 -10 piece of what looks to be some kind of plane material funny thing is, most of the pieces they held up , still had clean white paint on it, how the hell can a plane crash into a building catch on fire and somehow some outside pieces are almost shiny new. Did they dust them off and polish them for the news?, no smoke or burn marks on them the only one piece that even remotely looked like it had been f'd up in a crash was a turbine from some kinda jet, but then a bunch of people pointed out that the turbine wouldn't go into a larger plane but a smaller plane so what's up with that. It was just in a plane crash that hit a building, Penn looks like a lightning strike of some sort. And the weird thing about Penn, the area where it was "downed" it has jack #$%$^ for plane debris, none what so ever

www.p12.nysed.gov... inside shank hole

Originally posted by Philippines

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
If there wasn't a plane, explain all the LAMPS knocked down!!

If the following video reconstruction doesn't put this conspiracy to bed, then nothing will:

The street lights for me are a bit hard to explain as well. If the airplanes' wings bent and removed the metal light poles from their foundation, it's amazing that the plane continued on course as if the poles were nothing. I'm no expert on aviation mechanics, but those would have to be some amazingly strong wings to bend and break loose these poles, and still maintain its crash course.

I would think the wings would either break or would make the plane veer left or right, depending on which wing is hit.

And no, that video is not "proof." It offers a good explanation.

Proof would be the feds releasing the confiscated camera footage.

As a safety feature those light poles were designed to break away if struck by car let alone a 100 ton plus airliner.

Here is some information on the tapes the FBI collected :-

www.911myths.com...

reply to post by nightstalker78


Definately a plane!

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~

Go look at hundreds of plane crash photos, even the smallest planes make TONS AND TONS of debris, paper suitcases, seats, bodies , body parts, you don't see that at pentagon or Penn. Just dark spots, petagon has like 4 -10 piece of what looks to be some kind of plane material funny thing is, most of the pieces they held up , still had clean white paint on it, how the hell can a plane crash into a building catch on fire and somehow some outside pieces are almost shiny new. Did they dust them off and polish them for the news?, no smoke or burn marks on them the only one piece that even remotely looked like it had been f'd up in a crash was a turbine from some kinda jet, but then a bunch of people pointed out that the turbine wouldn't go into a larger plane but a smaller plane so what's up with that. It was just in a plane crash that hit a building, Penn looks like a lightning strike of some sort. And the weird thing about Penn, the area where it was "downed" it has jack #$%$^ for plane debris, none what so ever

And you know what they all have in common? They were trying NOT to crash.

the peices that ARE left behind look like they came from this

www.globalsecurity.org...
only 1 turbine hrmmm and smalll, hrrmm hrmmm and can come in white as well hrm hrm hrm

so drone, missle dressed as a plane, the weird global hawk communications type plane with the bubble thing on top. giant huge ass plane with miles and piles of debris, not at either site. doesnt even matter at this point, its another jfk. no one of real importance will see death or time. accept the victims, if there are any. but now that we have built 2 wars around 9/11, made everyone a hero and killed thousands all on false pretenses. theres no way in hell anyone involved is going to out themselves or people involved.

There are plenty of parts that there is no way in hell they came off a Global Hawk, or off a missile. Large parts of landing gear that match perfectly with a 757, the turbine wheel is way to big to be off any UAV, etc.

Originally posted by nightstalker78

Originally posted by kover27
Great video find how did you come across this video and everybody should know right now that the pentagon was not hit by a plane im thinking it was a missile

I'm thinking you're blind. Go look again.Look just over the freeway.You'll see something come in from left to right and I can guarantee you it isn't a missle. It's the tail end of a plane. Like someone else suggested earlier in this thread look at it full screen.Then get back to me.

Really, you need people to suggest to watch that movie in full screen? Seems like the first thing to do.

Anyways, the object in the vid cannot be the plane, this was already established.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
If there wasn't a plane, explain all the LAMPS knocked down!!

If the following video reconstruction doesn't put this conspiracy to bed, then nothing will:

Lol, you really believe an untrained pilot actually made that groundhugging manouvre?

The poles were just props, how can anyone watch that vid and actually believe a plane flew like that.

There was no plane.

Originally posted by decepticonLaura

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

You can start by watching this vid, which I posted three times now.

All the live footage and the vids that showed up that day and the day after are proven fake, in this vid.

That is all the proof of an inside job you need.

when i came into this thread i was what you would probably call a truther, though a somewhat detached and not a very extreme one... i believed that all governments everywhere are prone to lying when they can, and there are enough fishy things about the whole 9/11 debacle to raise more than a few eyebrows, but that people claiming there were no planes are maybe a little too deep in their own paranoia...

the second time this video was posted i started to watch it, figuring that clicking on a youtube link is not a binding contract forcing me to watch it's entirety, and that MY lovely girlfriend would probably find a video link far more interesting than just watching me post about her and a lack of missiles all evening..
it's now forty-five minutes later, and barring one slightly wince-inducing musical interlude i don't think a minute went past where someone didn't say WAIT WHAT and shuffle a little closer to the screen
seriously i don't want to be a "no-planer"
i'm already 'strange' and 'fringe' enough in the eyes of the majority of people i speak to
but this, this is something else.
every technical aspect of what is bought up appears to be spot on
and so much of it is SO damning
self-twice-damning, in many cases.

please, all of you [and i read a few of you doing it] calling out this video and it's poster for being a no plane no brain crazy
stop being lazy
take a look at it
and then please please please explain why it doesn't work.
of course it isn't rational, of course i still don't understand how or why or what is with everyone saying different things
but
where i'm sitting right now i have on the one hand, well put together filmic daming evidence
and on the other "i can't be bovvered right now of corse there wus a plain"

halp

edit on 28-11-2012 by decepticonLaura because: theres and o's removal tactician

edit on 28-11-2012 by decepticonLaura because: (no reason given)

Very well put, and thanks for taking the time to watch.

Lol, I agree, it could've done without the musical interlude.

Check out cluesforum.info for more (911) fakery, look at the 911 simcity thread.

A is the object just after it suddenly appeared mid screen.

Why wasn't it visible from point B to point A, it was flying somewhat higher on that stretch so there was nothing blocking the view, and it shouldn't have been visible at point A, because at that point it was flying so low it couldn't possibly be visible from that camera, going by the official flight path.

I just realised the thread was removed from the HOAX forum and placed back in 911 conspiracies.

I can only applaud this decision.

Does this mean the blanket no plane ban is over?

Did you guys finally realise the importance and accuracy of the no plane claims, or was it becoming impossible to keep this subject locked away without showing an agenda?

reply to post by Arken

actually for me this one does show something that could be a plane. once you get a perspective of what you are looking at, there does seem to be a long shiny object heading right at the impact zone. From that distance you would not have seen a small missile but this clearly looks like the reflection off the back of a large jet. it's moving left to right and is behind the road where you can see vehicles driving left to right. the size is right and the speed is right. I can't believe nobody sees it. and I was even coming around to the possibility of the missile being true as it appears to be in the other surveillance footage, but this clearly shows a large shiny plane, I don't know what you're talking about

reply to post by bottleslingguy


It shows a smudgy object, and there's a couple of posts above that explain why it can't be the plane.

Originally posted by WoodSpirit

A is the object just after it suddenly appeared mid screen.

Why wasn't it visible from point B to point A, it was flying somewhat higher on that stretch so there was nothing blocking the view, and it shouldn't have been visible at point A, because at that point it was flying so low it couldn't possibly be visible from that camera, going by the official flight path.

edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)

you can actually see it before that point very clearly and moving in contrast with the big truck up on the road- this settles it for me, thanks. and I am one of the biggest conspiracy believers going and still consider this whole day a black flag op but just with Manchurian candidates trained by the CIA. Planes actually hit the buildings and #7 couldn't withstand the damage. Simple as that, no need for controlled demo and honestly I haven't seen anything close to convincing as far as needing explosives to bring them down completely.