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

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Merinda
So back to the video. Can the fin be seen sticking out or not?

Probably not. Nobody knows for sure and nobody has been bothered to go do the measurements to check. The fin can be seen above the entry gate on the released Pentagon video but it's quite subtle. I'll re-produce the video I did last time to show that it definitely does appear if you get the original MPEG.

The white tube is likely fuel or oil vapour caused by a damaged engine.

This is exactly what you see at 1:45 here:

As I touched upon in my earlier post, I for one have got a real problem with all these computer generated animated reenactment videos for the way they can tend to play upon human psychology. When they take a story and illustrate what likely happened (as per the story etc.), inserting animation over everything like a shiny virtual mental gloss veneer.

Smoothing out all the rough unbelievable edges etc.

You know, I just watched this video again and I think it's funny. It's funny that here we have a computer animation of a 757 impacting a sturdy building and the animation clearly shows the plane entering the Pentagon like butter.

Hey, where have I seen that before?! May want to hold off using this particular video animation to illustrate anything about 9/11...

Now the reenactments of what supposedly happened are looking a lot like what probably actually did happen! Even the same way! It's very amusing to me.

I mentioned another example of this too.

That Purdue University animation of what likely happened with the first hit on the North Tower.

It shows a grey 767 animated plane cutting into the north face of the North Tower in a sweeping progressive way. No problem there. Only problem is that's not what the Naudet clip of the actual impact shows happening.

So an animated video gets made of the first hit and gets a lot of play on youtube and gets trotted out whenever a neat clean handy explanation is needed to illustrate simply exactly what 'likely' happened, and nobody knows or realizes that the common sense animation doesn't even match the actual video shot of the impact.

And ya, I'm still wondering on that first hit animation how they determined what core beams were damaged and severed. Was there someone up there with the plans, a radio and a clipboard taking notes? I don't think so.

So suggestions are put forth in these slick animated productions which may not even be true.

Again I make the point that whatever you think the smoke trail is on the gate cam video, whether fuel or oil vapor or even smoke, No Pentagon witness mentions it.

Looking at the animation and the light pole sequence I got to thinking that maybe whatever actually hit the Pentagon (if something did) then that thing had a smoke trail, and the people who shot it knew it had one and would have one, maybe to cover for this they would down a series of light poles and make an animation of a smoking plane part to get across the idea that what hit the Pentagon was much wider than it actually was. If you think or are persuaded to believe that whatever hit the Pentagon first knocked down 5 light poles spaced pretty far apart, how could you even think it was anything but an airplane?

Again, we may be be back to the whole "misdirection" thing.

I like this video though, for showing something that the gate cam shows and offers up a potential gloss over explanation of what it might be. I like it for this cleverness and also for the actual video shots of the smoking generator seen puffing away. Something like I don't know 70% of the smoke and initial fire at the Pentagon crash site came from this too conveniently located generator trailer. I see it being there puffing away for shock and awe, to show people in the area without a tv or cable looking from afar that something big was going down, and for on scene concealment.

In fact between the smoking generator and the various "water lines" each spraying in such a way that you never get a good look at the 'hole' early on, makes me wonder if you don't see a lot of the first destruction because they needed to work on it some more behind the cover of smoke and water spray.

Later, you see parts on the lawn, and later the roof collapses etc. Only later.

That first shot of the yellow firetruck and pristine lawn makes it look like that moon landing thread. Where it was suggested that there was a backdrop background, a middleground, and a grassy foreground and maybe that first shot was filmed somewhere else and spliced in. Later that lawn had all kinds of small plane parts on it. Like I note though... "Later."

Check out the choochoo train like generator it looks like a train I once seen in an old Clint Eastwood western. Chug-chugging away all the live long day.

That thing is an obvious prop.


Cheers

Originally posted by NWOwned
...
In fact between the smoking generator and the various "water lines" each spraying in such a way that you never get a good look at the 'hole' early on, makes me wonder if you don't see a lot of the first destruction because they needed to work on it some more behind the cover of smoke and water spray.

Later, you see parts on the lawn, and later the roof collapses etc. Only later.
...
Check out the choochoo train like generator it looks like a train I once seen in an old Clint Eastwood western. Chug-chugging away all the live long day.

That thing is an obvious prop.

With respect this is just a paranoid rant. You have no evidence for any of this and you use exactly the same sort of video and animation to try and convince people of your point (see your avatar).

As a rant it's certainly impressive, but as a statement of fact it has nothing to it. What evidence do you have of a planted generator trailer? None. What evidence do you have that people were making the destruction worse behind the fire hoses? None. What evidence do you have that the US government produced that CGI video for the purposes of disinformation? NONE.

It's all well and good listing all the things you wish or believe might be true, but if you actually look at the reality of that day you'll find you are wrong in every major respect. Just read Firefight and you will see how incredibly impossible such fakery would be. Talk to people like Sean Boger who were tens of feet from the plane impact and literally watched it descend and impact.

Your rant is just that I'm afraid, not a convincing analysis of the evidence, just an angry accusation against the whole of the US government.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I also have a hard time believing cave dwelling muslim fanatics that only took a few courses in florida were somehow good enough to fly an approach crash course into the very short pentagon.

Only took a few courses? They were all licensed commercial pilots.

The media said the alleged pilots were taking flight lessons at a school in florida, but half the time never showed up or were late to class. They missed more classes then they attended. The instructors also said the students were rather dumb as they could not comprehend anything.

Do you remember?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

How come you are still believing long ago debunked crap spewed by Dylan Avery, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin et al? Why is that?

Who are these people? I NEVER HEARD OF THEM!

The questions I posed have been haunting me for a long time now. I think it is pathetic that their has been no official challenge to the official story, given the number of questions unanswered, the number of people dead, the wars built on possible bs, and the lack of punishment for these possible heneious crimes. People have hung for much less!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Those were refresher courses that pilots take when they haven't flown in awhile. All of the pilot hijackers were commercially certified pilots, and had passed FAA certifications. Hani Hanjour had his license revoked when he failed to attend a 6 month physical recertification, but all had their licenses.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Those were refresher courses that pilots take when they haven't flown in awhile. All of the pilot hijackers were commercially certified pilots, and had passed FAA certifications. Hani Hanjour had his license revoked when he failed to attend a 6 month physical recertification, but all had their licenses.

With all due respect, that is not what I remember reading and listening to.

They were working on their private pilot certification aka basic "entry level" instructions for those wanting to fly private small planes; like cessnas.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
With all due respect, that is not what I remember reading and listening to.

They were working on their private pilot certification aka basic "entry level" instructions for those wanting to fly private small planes; like cessnas.

Because conspiracy sites lie to you to convince you. I wish there were more to it but it's really that simple. Nobody is suggesting they were top gun ace pilots, and indeed it raised suspicions when they were so poor with english and flight procedures. Ostensibly because they didn't care.

Still, just a small amount of research (maybe the 911 commission report) will solve this conundrum for you.

reply to post by exponent


I remember hearing it on mainstream news many years ago. Probably shortly after 9-11-2001 took place. Did they change the original story since then? I would not be suprised. Here is something else that has been forgetten as well from Fox news.



Or this from CBS news.



Are you going to next claim that fox news and cbs news are conspiracy sites? Are they mainstream enough for people like you?

Just give up already. What the hell is wrong with people?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I think it is pathetic that their has been no official challenge to the official story, given the number of questions unanswered, the number of people dead,

That's easy to answer. Just think of how our (US) legal system works.
You can sue because your coffee is hot! etc...

There has been no challenge because there is no real ammo to use. It's all speculation and youtube videos produced be people in their basement or people making a living off the conspiracy.
Richard Gage, Dylan Avery et al.

I challenge you to find real court worthy evidence that proves anyone in TPTB took part in 911.

doesn't the pentagon have cameras around the building? i was thinking surely there must be?

is there any footage from pentagon CCTV cams?

this is good footage, but still not enough to convince people.

Why doesn't the Pentagon have any CCTV?

maybe someone can help me out here, something of good quality not some some crap with 2fps



heres a vid i just found




check 1:50, and 2:05. where is the footage from these in-particular? unless there somthing else? some say there lights

Actually it corresponds with what the witnesses say, just not the FDR video that was released. The actual FDR data also corresponds with the impact. You've been lied to by fraudsters, the truth is quite a lot more boring I'm afraid.

reply to post by exponent


No it doesn't. Half interviewed by CIT claim it's approach makes it impossible to have hit the light poles or that the plane was white. Other "official" witnesses have the plane slamming into the ground first and crashing into the Pentagon. Remember that one?

The Flight Data Recorder video is the data presented as a 3D flight path of the supposed American Airlines 77, along with other information, position of the yoke, speed, altitude etc. This is wrong yet some unreleased data is right and does in fact corroborative the other parts of this incident.

So the official video is a fake?

reply to post by samkent


There has been a plethora of circumstantial evidence to hint that 9-11-2001 terror attacs in the usa was a false flag event done by the military-industrial complex for its own benefit; more wars, more weapons, more rebuilding contracts after destroying the old infrastructure, more propaganda for bigger government.

Then we have highely suspicious terror attacks in the united kingdom and spain!

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by NWOwned
...
In fact between the smoking generator and the various "water lines" each spraying in such a way that you never get a good look at the 'hole' early on, makes me wonder if you don't see a lot of the first destruction because they needed to work on it some more behind the cover of smoke and water spray.

Later, you see parts on the lawn, and later the roof collapses etc. Only later.
...
Check out the choochoo train like generator it looks like a train I once seen in an old Clint Eastwood western. Chug-chugging away all the live long day.

That thing is an obvious prop.

With respect this is just a paranoid rant. You have no evidence for any of this and you use exactly the same sort of video and animation to try and convince people of your point (see your avatar).

As a rant it's certainly impressive, but as a statement of fact it has nothing to it. What evidence do you have of a planted generator trailer? None. What evidence do you have that people were making the destruction worse behind the fire hoses? None. What evidence do you have that the US government produced that CGI video for the purposes of disinformation? NONE.

It's all well and good listing all the things you wish or believe might be true, but if you actually look at the reality of that day you'll find you are wrong in every major respect. Just read Firefight and you will see how incredibly impossible such fakery would be. Talk to people like Sean Boger who were tens of feet from the plane impact and literally watched it descend and impact.

Your rant is just that I'm afraid, not a convincing analysis of the evidence, just an angry accusation against the whole of the US government.

Um, excuse me?

But didn't you say:

'The white tube is likely fuel or oil vapour caused by a damaged engine.'

Well, which is it? Fuel or oil vapor?

The Truth is you don't know and cannot prove what it is. It could be the exhaust of an incoming missile for all you presently know and can prove etc.

In fact you posit two alternatives because you cannot prove what it is. If you could prove what it was you would just say it's fuel (or oil vapor) for THIS reason right HERE. (listing reason etc.)

But you don't because you can't.

So what you said basically amounts to a speculative UNPROVEN SUGGESTION on your part.

You therefore seem cool with your posting of speculative unproven suggestions about the Pentagon incident.

When YOU do it.

But when I do it, openly and with the qualified word 'maybe' even thrown in then I am a "paranoid ranter".

That's very interesting.

You can't prove anything.

You're like one of the guys (maybe you are one) who thinks there was jet fuel in the North Tower. Really? Can you prove it? Didn't think so.

But you know what I can do? I can prove that the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' conclusively shows that no 767-200 airliner crashed in there.

That's what I can do and have been doing.

I don't know how you can get away with 'respectfully' calling me a "paranoid ranter" when that's not very nice or respectful and I was only doing what you were doing and speculating and offering a few unproven suggestions concerning the Pentagon incident.


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned


If people like you would stop with the no plane theory in relation to the twin towers, THEN PERHAPS the no plane theory for the pentagon would hold more water. Lots of people saw planes with no windows and blue logos hitting the twin towers that fateful day BUT NONE have seen ANY AIRPLANE hitting the pentagon. There isn't even one video showing any airplane...so IT IS EASY to conclude there was no plane. Even rumsfeld and bush stumbled on occasions and called the make believe airplane a missle. It is hard to brainwash yourself to see something that does not exist. Human nature is good for the most part, minus the rotten apples at the top.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Every eyewitness I heard describing the planes as having no windows were seeing them from over a mile away. As I showed in an earlier post, even at close range, in a high definition picture it's difficult to see the windows on some planes, because they blend into the paint around them.

As for the hijackers, the ORIGINAL flight school said that they had little aptitude. That was in early 2000. They continued training until about mid 2001, and all received their pilots licenses prior to 9/11. The media focused on the early school, because it was more sensational to say they couldn't fly and pulled off the attacks.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by NWOwned

 

BUT NONE have seen ANY AIRPLANE hitting the pentagon.

Beats me how you can post such a bald statement when there are scores of such witnesses on record :-

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by Morg234
No it doesn't. Half interviewed by CIT claim it's approach makes it impossible to have hit the light poles or that the plane was white. Other "official" witnesses have the plane slamming into the ground first and crashing into the Pentagon. Remember that one?

We also know that witnesses are notoriously unreliable, demanding that they give exactly identical stories doesn't change the fact that even CITs witnesses confirm the plane hit the building.

The Flight Data Recorder video is the data presented as a 3D flight path of the supposed American Airlines 77, along with other information, position of the yoke, speed, altitude etc. This is wrong yet some unreleased data is right and does in fact corroborative the other parts of this incident.

So the official video is a fake?

No, the official video was not correctly configured. You can just look at the previous tracks on the FDR to see how misaligned it is.

Originally posted by NWOwned
Um, excuse me?

But didn't you say:

'The white tube is likely fuel or oil vapour caused by a damaged engine.'

Well, which is it? Fuel or oil vapor?

The Truth is you don't know and cannot prove what it is. It could be the exhaust of an incoming missile for all you presently know and can prove etc.

Correct, I just presented the two plausible options. A missile exhaust is not plausible.

So what you said basically amounts to a speculative UNPROVEN SUGGESTION on your part.

You therefore seem cool with your posting of speculative unproven suggestions about the Pentagon incident.

When YOU do it.

But when I do it, openly and with the qualified word 'maybe' even thrown in then I am a "paranoid ranter".

That's very interesting.

There's a bit of a massive gap between our posts. I'm not the one suggesting the fire department were in on it, the construction crews were in on it etc etc. You are. That's why it's a paranoid rant.

You can't prove anything.

Sure I can, I've proven there's an object in that video a number of times that's the size and shape of a 757 tail.

You're like one of the guys (maybe you are one) who thinks there was jet fuel in the North Tower. Really? Can you prove it? Didn't think so.

Certainly, how many witnesses would you like to prove it? 20? 40? 60? Jet fuel smell or liquid was reported on almost every level of both towers by civilians and firefighters alike.

But you know what I can do? I can prove that the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' conclusively shows that no 767-200 airliner crashed in there.

That's what I can do and have been doing.

No, you've been demanding that what you think is the truth, you've never presented any evidence. You clearly don't understand even how to use interpolation in zooming in as your avatar itself contains 'evidence' which is manipulated in a way which destroys its use.

I don't know how you can get away with 'respectfully' calling me a "paranoid ranter" when that's not very nice or respectful and I was only doing what you were doing and speculating and offering a few unproven suggestions concerning the Pentagon incident.

Actually I called it a paranoid rant. I didn't call you a paranoid ranter. I was as respectful as it is possible to be while dismissing someone's speech. I notice out of everything I wrote the list of evidence at the end that you don't have is something you didn't challenge.

Evidence comes before a theory, you seem to be getting them the wrong way around.

if there's nothing to hide they would have released all of the CCTV footage surrounding the pentagon. the fact that they don't is pretty much confirmation for me that no plane hit the pentagon.

how many years did we have to wait just to get that crap 5 frame video, which has been edited to show nothing.

reply to post by Alfie1


i do not care for written testimony, i would be more interested in seeing video testimony from these witnesses. missle hit the pentagon