Pentagon surveillance cctv 2001/9/11 - Please Read

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2003 @ 12:10 PM
link   
www.thepowerhour.com...

Go to the link posted to view a very good analysis of the Pentagon 9/11 crash. Tell me what u think!!!

I particularly like the calculation made in which it is asserted that, from the (lack of)video evidence, the plane must have been travelling at 2880 km/h (mach 2.5)!!!!!!!!




posted on Sep, 13 2003 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Well... considering that my brother, a Georgtown english professor, saw the plane about 5-7 seconds before it hit, and related his observations to authorities (along with someone else who as with him, and other people who were driving on the highway)... I'm going to believe my bro.



posted on Sep, 13 2003 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I don't buy it either. It's a well thought out theory, but it just doesn't hold water.

How many died on the plane that slammed into the pentagon? It would be hard to fake that.

As for the camera? I spent several years in private security for various companies and I know from experience that cctv is flaky at times. Unless you spend a fortune on one, your pictures and video will have "gaps" and quality is usually pretty poor.



posted on Sep, 13 2003 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Like what Hillbilly said, CCTV often films every 2 or 3 seconds to save on film and time if you're going over it.



posted on Sep, 13 2003 @ 03:21 PM
link   
This is that same Frenchman that believes a missile hit the Pentagon.

It has to be the Stupidest theory i have heard thus far! Because eyewitnesses on the gound, hundreds, maybe even thousands, saw the plane before it hit, it was seen by too many people. There is the question of the passengers. Hard to make up that many people when you have families everywhere that are missing these relatives.

The question is not whether or not a plane hit the pentagon, it did, the real question is in the 40 minutes after two planes hit the world trade center, and why during those 40 minutes flight 77, hijack confirmed and heading towards dc, was not challeneged.



posted on Sep, 13 2003 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I'd say it was a plane. If only due to the "strange" coincidence of an intelligence agency planning an exercise in which a plane would crash into one of its buildings on that very day.

Story supplied by the aassociate press.

www.boston.com...

[Edited on 13-9-2003 by heelstone]



posted on Sep, 14 2003 @ 03:40 PM
link   
www.thepowerhour.com...

www.thepowerhour.com...

www.thepowerhour.com...

I don't care what theories are presented, the pictures tell their own story.



posted on Sep, 14 2003 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peace
www.thepowerhour.com...

www.thepowerhour.com...

www.thepowerhour.com...

I don't care what theories are presented, the pictures tell their own story.


I don't care what amatuer photo opinionists present,
the witnesses who saw a plane skim I-395 and crash into the Pentagon tell their own story.

BTW, in your links, why are the "entrance hole" and "exit hole" photos of the same "hole"?

-B.



posted on Sep, 14 2003 @ 03:51 PM
link   
*Gulp*. Wish i hadn't posted this now!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 14 2003 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The first one has a shadow of the next ring in from the first one,it is obviously the back of the first ring.

The second one that is claimed to be the entry hole has open area visible through the window in the background,if it were the entry hole there would be the second ring visible,you would see a wall,the window faces out away from the pentagon obviously.

And most obvious,if you look really close you will notice that all three pics are of the same hole on the backside of the first ring,look close,the 2nd and third pic are the same hole,look at the broken edges,same pattern,even the spraypaint is the same between the 2nd and 3rd pics.

And the little sign you see on the first one,it's there in the 2nd and 3rd ones too.

These are all pictures of the same hole on the backside of the first ring being passed of as an exit and entry hole.

It was just a heavier portion of the aircraft that passed through the building in the pics,not a missile.

That's if they are even pics of the pentagon that is.

It's bull#.



posted on Sep, 14 2003 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by uNBaLaNCeD
The first one has a shadow of the next ring in from the first one,it is obviously the back of the first ring.


Good catch!



That's if they are even pics of the pentagon that is.

It's bull#.


Yeah, that's the Pentagon.
(used to work there)
And those pics really don't portray what they claim to portray.
So why doesn't there seem to be any damage from the plane's wings? I mean, that's the question that too many people ask, especially after that pathetic French website was passed around with the nice picture of a plane superimposed over the Pentagon.
Those wings are composed of 1/8" thick aluminum. Remember, a plane has to be lightweight to fly.
The Pentagon was hit in "Wedge 1," which is the section that had recently been completely remodeled. It wasn't a design job; Wedge 1 was gutted, it's support columns and exterior walls reinforced (the walls, notably, with a web of steel beams), and special blast-proof windows were installed.
Believe me, I saw firsthand what Morse Diesel/AMEC did there.
The comparitively fragile wings weren't just sheared off, they disintigrated when they hit 24" of solid limestone & concrete. The sturdier fuselage was carried through the first ring and into the second. The subsequent fire damaged all five rings.

Let's not forget the eyewitnesses.
urbanlegends.about.com...

-B.



posted on Sep, 14 2003 @ 04:56 PM
link   
The pictures dont tell much either. Are the really from the pentagon?

They tried the same crap from the world trade center, they made an obvious mistake.

They pointed to the number of floors hit, and said that the puncture holes were larger than the plane itse,f put up a picture of the plane, nest to the hole, showing it was smaller than the hole.

watch the tapes of the plane right as they struck the WTC.the plane tilts dramatically at like a 45 DEGREE ANGLE, THIS, THE WINGS TEARING THROUGH SEVERAL EXTRA FLOORS THE PLANES BODY MISSED. It was obvious from the pictures the planes, both of them, were tilted to bring even more destruction, to take out more floors.

In DC, thousands of eye witnesses on the ground SAW A PLANE. Now while a shandfull of selected eyewitnesses on the ground could be faked, thousands of ordinary people on thier way to work, on the capitol beltway, with no gov connections, all saw the plane. Thousands, and i restate, THOUSANDS of people, with thier OWN eyes, saw the plane, and many more who didnt see it, HEARD the plane, plane engines make a distinctive noise that most people recognize.

Thus, the EYEWITNESS testimony of THOUSANDS of people on the ground, plus people I personally know who told me how they instinctively threw themselves on the ground because the plane was flying so low, a plane they SAW with thier own eyes, is enough for me to agree on this point with the govornment: a plane hit the pentagon. A plane full of real breathing people whose families have lost them and now are very upset because thier loved ones have been killed.

The question in my mind, again, is not a matter of whether fully loaded passenger jets struck major US landmarks, but of why flight 77 was hijack confirmed for over 40 minutes after two planes struck the WTC and nothing at all was done in washington, the surface to air missiles at the pentagon were not deployed, and fighter jets near by werent returned to guard US airpace over DC.



posted on Sep, 14 2003 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Probably broke off at the root and were dragged into the hole that the fuselage made by the larger structural elements of the inside of the wing,the wings are built to be rigid against up and down forces,but they don't offer much resistance to force from the front edge,they would have snapped back without doing that much damage to the concrete building,also,that particular portion was recently strengthened against bomb and missile attack,wasn't it?.
I don't know,I just think about how things work,I may be wrong...bla!!.



posted on Sep, 14 2003 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Yes, Banshee, thank you for explaining that.

the structure of the pentagon would have crushed, accordioned, and disinitgrated the light aluminum of the plane on impact. because it was solid reinforced concrete.

The WTC, on the other hand, the reson the wings took out more floros was again, the structure. Unlike the pentagon, the WTC was made of steel and glass, which are alot more fragile, light weight, and offer less resistance than does solid reinforced concretes, thus, it would not have disintigrated or acordioned the planes on impact, but trather, through thier monetum into the building, as they came in contact with more structure.

If you take a metal car, aluminum, and hit say a wall of glass and steel, youll rip the car to shreds, but will shatter the glass and bend the steel because of the less resitive nature of thise sundtances. Take the same car into a solid wall of concrete or cement, and you will basically crunch the car into nothing, and leave a smaller mark on the wall where you made impact.

The plane punched that hole in the pentagon that looked like that because of the way the pentagone was structured, specifically, to reduce the effects of a bomb blast, the pentagon is half bunker, half office. The WTC was built for beauty and height, and thus, was made much more fragile like.



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by uNBaLaNCeD
Probably broke off at the root and were dragged into the hole that the fuselage made by the larger structural elements of the inside of the wing,the wings are built to be rigid against up and down forces,but they don't offer much resistance to force from the front edge,they would have snapped back without doing that much damage to the concrete building,also,that particular portion was recently strengthened against bomb and missile attack,wasn't it?.
I don't know,I just think about how things work,I may be wrong...bla!!.


I'm sorry I don't believe that flight 77 ever hit the Pentagon. There is no evidence to support that. Where is the debris? What about the luggage and bodies? I remember the Pentagon saying the first three rings were hit. I went to www.spaceimaging.com... and saw that only the outer ring was hit. A 757 is much larger than the first ring. Plus where is the debri from the tail? Show me hard evidence than I might believe you.



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Umj, yeah. The evidence is:

Thousands of people saw a #ing plane. Unless the govornment has holographic technology to make people see non existant pobjects at high speeds, then yes, people saw it.

Where is the plane wreckage from the world trade center? didnt see anything there either. because it was ripped into itsy bitsy pieces and scattered everywhere. there was no luggage strewn all over NYC, just a bunch of office stuff blown out the windows and a few pieces from the plane that were very tiny.

read above posts please. the structure of the pentagon would have reduced flight 77, going at the speed it was going, into a crumpled up little hunk of metal with no recognizable parts, that is, those parts that werent disinitgrated



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Can be found on one of my previous post in this thread,if you look at he holes that come up when you hit the links that are supposedly picture of the pentagon,you will notice that there are 3 photos which are all of the same hole,passed off as being an entrane hole,exit hole,and another pic that is vaguely refferred to.
Look close,the holes are the same,just slightly different angle from the camera.
The proof is that someone is bull#ting,the people who wrote the site that claims that it was a missile are skewing the facts.
There have been very few actual photos of the true entry hole because the building was on fire and the aircraft which it was impaled by was obscured by smoke,an hour later it collapsed and burned.
The section of the pentagon that was struck just happened to be strengthened shortly befor the plane struck it,the reinforced walls would have basically caused the wings to be obliterated from the impact,the massive parts of the plane burrowed into the structure,remember,they were going 200 plus mph,they dont just come to a halt.
The website making th claims that there was no plane is a hoax,the actual plane was witnessed by someone that was related to someone else ont this thread,and a whole bunch of other people saw it too.
What kind of hard eveidence can you get 2 years after the fact?,there isn't any,but i am satisfied that the website claiming that there was no plane is a hoax,so I will go with other reports such as eyewitnesses.



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 05:07 PM
link   
In just over four months membership at ATS, I have seen this same material discussed exhaustively on five different threads.

This to me isn't one of the unanswered questions in relation to 9/11.

More interesting Pentagon-related observations are:

* the whole failure of FAA and NORAD protocols
* movements of specific officials who were in the know
* the supposed simulation happening the morning of 9/11
* large movements of staff working areas at the Pentagon in the weeks prior
* silencing of firefighters and rescue workers
* the mop-up exercise (in general) and the immediate secrecy and stonewalling around every aspect of complicity, negligence and security failures.



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
* silencing of firefighters and rescue workers

silencing? could you expand on that a bit more? never heard about that before.



posted on Sep, 16 2003 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Maybe this bogus investigative site that this thread is based on is to do exactly that,distract attention away from the true ,obvious failures that allowed it to happen at all.
Somehow I am really,actually beginning to believe that it was all allowed to happen.
Mostly because the Bush administration has used it to further their agenda,which does not look like it is designed to benefit the citizens of the US at all.
They are still using the scare tactics 2 years later........read the news.
I wonder what they have planned next?,maybe they will drop a suitcase nuke in yellowstone lake to set off an eruption and declare a national emergency to take control the rest of the way,it seems to be their way,I wouldn't put it past them..........

[Edited on 16-9-2003 by uNBaLaNCeD]





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join