9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23465
Printed Date: July 19 2025 at 19:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...
Posted By: Tony R
Subject: 9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 07:19
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm%20 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm
The US Govt has finally released video footage of the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that this debunks,once and for all,the conspiracy theories that claimed a missile and not a plane had hit The Pentagon. I have my own views on this,but do you feel this puts the matter to rest now? |
Replies:
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 07:26
|
No it doesn't for me, Tony. It looks like a cruise missile to me. It's just too pointed and too small to be a 'plane. But that's just my opinion... -------------   
|
Posted By: darren
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 07:33
|
Why did they release that footage? Doesn't prove anything, they just made things worse.
I don't believe there is a conspiracy, that's just what they want you to believe so you don't realize what's really going on.
------------- "they locked up a man who wanted to rule the world. the fools they locked up the wrong man." - Leonard Cohen |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 07:35
I thought it was a Pendragon video!
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 07:43
Actually what you just said is a conspiracy theory..... 
|
darren wrote:Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 07:46
In other words a conspiracy!
I cant run this at work. I'll check it out tonight at home, but having seen the damage to the Penatgon, and having heard certain experts say that the damage was not consistent with a plane hitting the building, I'm inclined to believe the whole thing stinks. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 08:00
|
I can't watch this,my oldest nephew was killed in the Pentagon attack. -------------  |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 08:07
I'm sorry to hear that Jody. I'm not certain but I believe the reports said it was a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon, there is no way in hell that that was a passenger plane that hit the building in that video, its way to small and doesnt even show any of the details, like wings and engines, that you get on a plain. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 08:07
|
Thats awful, Jody. Im very sorry.
------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 08:09
|
Looks like a plane to me....and i donlt know how anyone can judge the size of it.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 08:12
A 757 is not a small plane and would have filled that view infront of the Pentagon before impact. This does of course depend on the fact that it was a 757, I dont have the time to check up right now though. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 08:18
|
^ I disgree, it depends on our distance from the impact.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Man Made God
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 08:23
I'm very sorry to hear that... Awful!
It was a 757, as some articles on internet say. It doesn't prove a thing in my opinion. I can't see anything that looks like a plane, and I wish they would've released better footage, as this is only making things worse. I'm sure there must be better footage than this, but that will be kept confidential I guess ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/manmadegod/?chartstyle=ScarlettJohansson1"> 
Focus on the music... Focus! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 08:27
Here is a simu;lation, and it doesnt fill up the front of the Penatgin http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg - http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 08:28
|
My condolences Jody, I am sure the pain is still with your family after 5 years, nothing can replace him. The victims families have a right to know the truth (if, indeed, what is porported to be the truth, isn't the truth, of course). An odd question this... and I am sorry if it angers anyone, I don't mean to... but if the 'plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go? -------------
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 08:55
|
Thanks to everyone for the kind words and thoughts.
I just said to a buddy of mine,the wounds will never heal but I have tried to make peace with it. ------------- |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 09:24
Do not need experts to realize that the damage to the building could not have been by a plane. I know armoured concrete building resist well, ( there were no trace of wings in the footage at the time) , but from there to eating plane wings , this was a a very defensive building
 ......  Stiiiiinnkyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!How about them releasing the pictures of the fourth plane shot overthe Pennsylvania forest. I mean that plane was surrounded by US airfoce planes fully loaded >> so loaded there was no more room for a camera filming the plane getting shot down by the US Aiorforce, Right?
 STTIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!............ ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: JrKASperov
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 09:35
So the plane goes down, skips the ground, hits the pentagon and enters it TOTALLY in less than ONE SECOND (disregarding the stopping force of the building), immediately explodes AND leaves no trace of a plane and they call this proof that a plane hit the building? ------------- Epic. |
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 10:06
If the USAF did shoot that plane down do you disagree with that? ------------- |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 10:22
|
Did the Pentagon really only just release that video? I'm sure I've seen that video in the past. To Jody - I'm very sorry to hear about your nephew. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10"> 
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 10:25
|
Jody: I add my sincere sorrow for your loss. Although it may be no comfort, the 9/11 truth movement (of which I have been a member for over 2 years) includes many of the victims' families, who do not believe the "official story" re the WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania. These people are doubly angry because they not only lost family and friends, but believe that the government was complicit in those deaths. For example, I know of at least half a dozen families (and there are many, many more) who had family or friends die at the WTC, but nevertheless believe that they were brought down by controlled demolition.
That said, I have three inital comments on the Pentagon tape.
First, as many have pointed out, there is actually nothing on the tape that proves it was a 757: it remains ambiguous, and only creates more questions than it answers.
Second, the Pentagon is one of the most heavily protected buildings in the world. There must be dozens, perhaps hundreds, of cameras surrounding the building. Is the DOD suggesting that only one single camera caught the "crash?" This stretches credibility a bit far, don't you think?
Third, within minutes of the crash, the FBI confiscated closed-circuit videotapes from a gas station, a hotel, a supermarket and another venue, all of which had clear shots of the crash. If all of the tapes show the same thing, why only release the DOD tape and not the others? Food for thought.
As Sean suggests, no matter how the government "spins" the "official story," one single, indisputable fact speaks volumes: a 757 has a wingspan of 141 feet and a tail height of 44 feet. Yet the hole in the Pentagon was 60-75 feet wide, and the windows on the third floor - at a height of only 30 feet - were completely intact. End of story.
Still, it is important that anyone who has an interest in this subejct - "9/11 truth" - do their own research. By all means, read government-issued reports and statements, and sites that support the "official story." And go to the many sites that provide evidence of "alternative theories" of the events of 9/11. Then use your own innate sense of logic, common sense and discernment to come to your own conclusion.
Peace.
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 10:26
|
Bob, apparently it has just been released. You may have seen the stills from this video, that were made into an animated gif. The video is clearer, but still is inconclusive.
-------------
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 10:28
Actually If I had been president I probably would've ordered it shot down >> force majeure, It just had to be done.
but I would certainly not have hidden that I had ordered shot down, >>> the fact of inventing this rebellion so they died as heroes as they said it happened >> that is utter trash and disgraceful
Of course the lawyers of families would've been there claiming interest and more
But we will never really know, uh?
And please accept my full sympathy
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 10:38
|
Sorry about your nephew, Jody! But I agree that people should try to obtain all information available on the subject and then make up their minds and decide what THEY believe. Here's an interesting video - highly recommended! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848 ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 11:27
|
Thanks for the link. That is very interesting indeed!
-------------
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 11:56
|
Sorry about your nephew Jody. Was he IN the Pentagon when this happened?
Also as far as these conspiracy theories go, if it was not a plane then someone needs to let our Solicitor General Ted Olsen know where his wife Barbara is because she was last seen boarding that plane along with a friend of mine's brother and sister-in-law! |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 12:22
I'm glad I'm not the only one getting deja vu; it's not only still images I've seen in the past, I'm sure it was a video
Jody - my sincere condolences - I hope this ongoing discussion thread doesn't prove too upsetting. ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 15:13
|
I don't believe anything the government says anyway. I wouldn't even believe this tape was from a security camera if they told me so (and they did).
Face it:
For the past half century, people have come to distrust the government (at least in the USA) more and more, and the Bush administration pushed everyone's fears over the edge by lying so much and explioting 9/11. It's sad, really. I want to trust the people that have the ability to command armies (essentiall, my frends and I), but I don't. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 17:41
|
I do believe an airplane hit The Pentagon. Having scrutinised pictures of the lawn outside,the size of the hole in the building and the condition of exterior and interior walls,despite the fact that the Govt claims to have only this small video evidence,I can only come to one conclusion: one would have to be extremely stupid not to believe the Govt's version of events. >face-saving edit?  |
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 17:50
|
I think that this is the right time to release another video like that... Sincere sorry to Jody...
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 17:53
And one would have to be pretty paranoid to hang on to this theory. So I ask again, WHERE ARE THE PASSENGERS THEN?! |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 19:08
Were's the plain wreckage?
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 19:08
|
Mark:
Where are the passengers? Are you sure you want to know the (possible) answer to that? After all, if Roosevelt permitted 2400 U.S. servicepersons to die on 12/7/41 in order to have a pretext for entering WWII, and Johnson (and Nixon) escalated the war on the false pretense of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, causing the unnecessary deaths of over 58,000 American servicemen (and over 3 million Vietnamese...), and if the alternative theory people are correct about 9/11 and the government allowed over 2500 Americans (and others) to die in a controlled demolition of the WTC, the answer to your question is devastatingly, horribly obvious: either they were deboarded from the plane during the time that the transponder was off, and "disappeared" then, or the plane was escorted out to sea and shot down over the Atlantic Ocean. There is some evidence to support the latter theory.
Peace.
|
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 19:19
I share that opinion! -------------  
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 19:34
Where was plane wreckage in the WTC buildings? They didn't come up with any major parts. The answer, according to an Air Force Capt. was they were disintegrated. These planes blew up as a cause of impact, not skidding down in a farmers field. There are no wings left because that's where the fuel is and I think the tail has an auxillary tank. When jet fuel is ignited in open air under pressure as opposed to inside an engine, it burns over 100 times hotter because it's exposed to more oxygen. The hottest point of the explosion is the white flash at the point of impact. Now, the shell of a 757 is not exactly an armored car. I forget the technical name of the alloy they use. But it's basically an eggshell. This isn't coming from me, I got this last year at a veteran's forum where they had this same discussion. And this Air Force chap basically just said that any kind of crash involving a jet impacting is not going to leave much. In fact I think I remember he mentioned that he was at the crash site of Dean Martin's son who crash his F-14 into a mountain and all they could find was some landing gear and parts of the engines and cockpit. Not even bones! I'm no expert on this, so just take for what it is. |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 19:58
Now as for you Jim Garrison, do have any idea what it would take to pull off something this elaborate? You would need at least half the government in on it. Nixon couldn't keep his wiretaps and buggings a secret. Don't you think some whistleblower would've surfaced by now? Or have they all disappeared too? |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 21:35
|
It's only a conspiracy when there are no concrete facts to back it up. In the case of 911 there is enough evidence to throw the key away. Inside job all the way. Buildings don't just fall down in a controlled way for the fun of it. Terrorists?, it's laughable. It's all done to remove your rights and freedoms. They just needed an excuse, that's all.
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 21:45
You forgot to mention about Elvis and the UFO's involved. 
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 23:30
|
Mark:
Re "whistleblowers," see my post in the other 9/11 thread.
Re the passengers on Flight 77, that one is actually quite easy, and would not require the knowledge of more than a handful of people at most, if we are considering the second theory I mentioned: the "shoot-down."
We know that Flight 77 was "off radar" for almost 40 minutes. We also know, from the 9/11 Report, that two fighter jets were scrambled from the air force base near Dulles. We also know, from the 9/11 report, that those planes actually spent about 20 minutes off the coast wating for further instructions.
My guess is that the two fighter jets "escorted" Flight 77 out over the Atlantic and blew it out of the sky. In all the craziness already surrounding the WTC, it would have been easy for this to occur without witnesses. Indeed, had there been any "debris" from the shoot-down, it could easily have been dealt with, since everyone's eyes were elsewhere. Once Flight 77 was "out of the picture," the drone plane or missile that actually hit the Pentagon would be sent in.
The only people who would have had to know about the shoot-down were the person who gave the order, and the two fighter jet pilots.
I accept that this is just a theory. But, as noted, there is evidence to support it.
Peace.
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 23:50
It doesn't work that simple maani. Orders have to cleared and not just to the pilots either. You forget the people involved in shooting whatever you think it was into the Pentagon. The eyewitnesses that saw it would have to be planted. Ever been to the Pentagon? I worked there for 3 years. It's one of the busiest buildings in Washington. People constantly going in and out all over the place especially around 9-10am. The parking lots are always buzzing with people. In fact, I just remembered talking to client a few weeks ago who lives in Crystal City right next to the Pentagon and he saw the plane going down and heard the explosion. Sorry maani, this is just too close to home for me to even consider these "theories". I generally try to keep my opinions and viewpoints based on my own past experiences and not from a bunch of blogs or whatever. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 17 2006 at 23:59
|
Then you would know about the security cameras installed in the Pentagon then? Why has there only been released a very poor video from a carpark CCTV camera? And then the hotel opposite (as well as other places) had their tapes removed and have never been released... what's going on with that? Here are the two CCTV camera views they've released... http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml - http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml It's inconclusive. -------------
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 06:02
What difference does it make? Maybe the other cameras didn't get as good of a view. But that's neither here nor there. The point is it would be impossible pull off an elaborate hoax like that at a moment's notice with all the parties that would be involved and not to mention all the potential witnesses. Use some common sense. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 06:10
|
At a moments notice? I don't think a hoax like this would have taken a moments notice. Besides, there were other witnesses, all telling different stories. I'm also pretty sure that other cameras gave a better view. Just two CCTV camera images have been released, both from virtually the same position and both showing very inconclusive proof (in my opinion). Even if the other views do not show anything of worth, surely they should be released to the public, for benefit of the doubt purposes? And then there are The Garage and Sheriton Hotel camera images that have never seen the light of day, why? -------------
|
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 06:44
Perhaps this link might shed a little light on how they could pull off an elaborate hoax at a moments notice. http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/13052/New_9_11_Documentary_Everybody_s_Gotta_Learn_Sometime - http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/13052/New_9_11_Documentary_Everybody_s_Gotta_Learn_Sometime The more of these I see, the more uneasy I get about the direction we are being led. |
Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 06:54
I found it strange that the video made no mention of the February 1993 bomb attack on the World Trade Center apparently by a group of four men masterminded by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.
I have an open mind on these things, but I think in fairness the other side of the coin should also be presented:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1 - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1
------------- http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=326" rel="nofollow - Read reviews by Fitzcarraldo |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 07:16
Commercial aircraft tend to be made from an Aluminium aloy (cant remember the specifics about it) and yes your right about the intensaty of a aviation fuel igniting in open air, but did you see the video, there was no white flash, just an orengy red fireball. This suggests there was no aviation fuel in the vecinaty, ergo no plane.
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 07:26
|
I've watched and read a bit about all this and I have to say, the conspiracy is more compelling than a non-conspiracy. Ergo: The conspiracy of it being an "inside job", rather than suicide bombers or Al Quaeda (sp.). There are just too many inconsistencies to mull over. I realise it's distressing and it brings back all these memories, but don't you deserve the truth? -------------
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 08:15
Very inconclusive. Nothing is proved either way in these films. In the first film you see something thin and white coming in very low on the right side of the frame, which then promptly vanishes before the explosion comes. I realise whatever it was was travelling very fast, but it's as if there are a number of frames missing from the film. We need to see that film frame by frame. The difference between a Boeing 757 and a cruise missile should be blatantly obvious at any speed. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 08:19
|
^ it should be pointed out that an object travelling at 500 kph moves more than 60 meters each 1/24th second. I don't know the exact speed of the plane, but even if it had been very slow (250 kph) it would still be 30 meters.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 08:34
Thats true, but a frame by frame analysis should reveal more than that I would have thought. Certainly in terms of the size of the the thing. Maybe not. I guess we'll never know. I'd like to hear the testimonies of the eye witnesses again. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 08:57
Like hell there's no white flash! Take a look a the frame-by-frame. Right at the instant it hits you see a bright flash just for a second. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 09:00
|
Wow, you have the same ideas as I have. I felt it a bit weird had the "object" just disappeared. It's in the right corner and then there is a gap... and then a fireball. I know this may sound odd... but I saw nobody on the scene, nobody running, no vehicles (except the Police Car and one vehicle driving away from the Pentagon after the "'plane" has gone in - which seems military to me, but it's so fuzzy and distant). Edit: I must add... after reviewing the CCTV footage, it has become even clearer that it's not a 757. The seemingly white fuselage of the object seems to be either on the ground, or a few feet or less above the ground. Now, I'm no pilot, but to me to be able to fly any large aircraft at such a height and at such a speed, would be nigh on impossible. Surely it'd be easier to come in at a shallower angle and at a slower speed? The damage could have been greater this way. The fact that the only major damage was caused to a refurbished part of the Pentagon, also sounds somewhat fishy. And the whole thing was repaired in a year, or something like that. Has anyone else had these same doubts? -------------
|
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 09:11
|
The video of the Pentagon is inconclusive but no-one can doubt the WTC surely. There are videos from members of the public clearly showing planes hitting the buildings. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 09:15
|
But there is doubt to whether they were military or civil 'planes Bob. They may have even been radio controlled.
-------------
|
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 09:18
Watch the video on the link I posted earlier, Bob. Nobody is saying the planes didn't hit the towers. The question is - who directed them - and why did the towers fall like a demolision - and why did WTC7 come done later in the afternoon - and why is there only a round hole in the Pentagon with no wing penetration points - and why did the hit on the Pentagon occur in a newly reinforced section. There are too many questions here. The video puts forward some very compelling arguments |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 09:19
|
Watch video that I posted earlier - it explains how the planes were "abducted" and then modified for radio controlled operation. I'm not saying that I'm convinced that that's what happened - I'm merely saying that they do have a point. In the end there will always be doubts - about both sides of the story. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 09:28
|
It's very easy to make an aircraft radio controlled, they experimented with such things during the war (and possible pre-war also), so that's not a new phenomenon. Besides, they have fly-by-wire and autopilot systems installed as well. I don't believe to be a Skywarrior either, by the way, so I'm not sure how the engine tallies in... -------------
|
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 09:45
|
This would have been so hard to fake ... radio controlled planes and all the passengers disappear. If the USA wants to invade countries, they don't need to fake terrorist attacks in their own country to do so. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 10:08
| Ignore the radio controlled crap. Watch the damn video I posted... |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 10:27
|
I only said it was a possibility they could have been radio controlled of course. I'm still unsure as to what conspiracy I believe, but I am pretty sure there is one to believe. -------------
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 10:47
|
Am I the only person who thinks a bunch of American-hating fanatics climbed into four planes,flew two into the WC,one into the Pentagon and failed to crash the other into a viable target because the hostages rebelled and made the aircraft crash????????? ------------- |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 10:55
No I agree with you. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 10:56
|
Not at all Jody, if anything, it is us "conpiracy theories" that are more in the minority. Of course, you have a right to an opinion, as we all do and as you are aware, we have no conclusive proof. So your views are also valid. -------------
|
Posted By: Firepuck
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 10:56
|
^
I'm with you Jody.
Conspiracy theorists live in a scary world.
Seeing as Bush has been fighting public apathy for the war in Iraq and his poll numbers have steadily declined over the last several years one would think another 'staged' attack would have already happened. ------------- Kryten : "'Pub'? Ah yes, A meeting place where humans attempt to achieve advanced states of mental incompetence by the repeated consumption of fermented vegetable drinks." |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 10:57
I've had a look and there's some very interesting facts there that I'd never heard of. I don't believe that the FBI would have let the attacks happen. What I believe is that no-one took the threat seriously. If you had told me before September 11th what would happen, I wouldn't have believed that anyone could seriously consider doing such a thing. Certainly no-one could considering doing such a terrible thing to their own country. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 11:01
|
Talking about conspiracy theories, I think their are such theories for everything. I have been reading about people who don't think they landed on the moon. One of these moon conspiracy theorists annoyed Buzz Aldrin so much a few years ago that he went out and punched the guy. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 11:05
|
But Bob, how about the London bombings? They were by English born muslims, so in this instance, it is their own country. Also, what about the alleged goings on by Saddam Hussein? Again, his own country and his own people. Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Chechenya (sp.)? A quick look at history down the years is all that is needed to debunk your theory. Therefore, it is quite possibly - but (to many) highly unlikely - for the American government or the F.B.I., to do harm to their own country. -------------
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 11:06
|
The planes flying into the towers looked like passenger jets to me. I thought the film footage of those was clear enough.
I dont buy all that remote control stuff. I still think the whole episode stinks, though. I would say IF, there was somekind of conspiracy - apart from the one touted as the official line - it's more likely that they knew it was going to happen and let it. Didn't Condie Rice change her travel plans that morning, and Dick Cheney? Ariel Sharon also was alleged to have cancelled a plan trip to the US on 9/10. I remember the BBC and Fox both reported that huge amounts of shares in (American Airlines?) were sold the previous day. The story disapeared off the BBC website rather promptly, but I'm sure there is something still out there in cyberspace relating to that story. I'll try and find something from a 'mainstream' news source. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 11:08
|
The mention of shares is mentioned on the video that MikeEnRegalia posted.
-------------
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 11:16
|
All:
Of all the links to alternative theory sites that have been posted - and I have checked out all of them - the one that will answer (in its own way, of course) many of the issues and questions that the "non-conspiracy theorists" have is the one posted by MikeEnRegalia:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848
It is an hour and 20 minutes long, and is well worth it, as it goes through all three of the incidents - WTC (including #7), Pentagon and Shanksville - and provides quite a bit of information, including basic science and engineering, that many of you are still asking about. Obviously, the site has its own "spin," but I believe it to be the best of the "alternative theory" sites posted thus far. Those who are skeptical of the alternative theory claims should take the time to see this and then come back to the thread and comment on it. I'm sure many of you will simply guffaw, and that's okay, if that's the way you feel. But I think others of you may see and hear things that will raise doubts about your sticking to the "official story."
Peace.
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 11:18
It's covered in this essay, I found on a Google search.. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/sep11andbushadmin31aug03.shtml - Complicity? The share dealing prior to the attacks does lay to rest the idea of remote control 'non commercial' aircraft, and missiles hitting the Pentagon, though. If those major share holders were 'in the know' surely they'd know that UA and AA planes were not ultimately going to be used. Just a thought. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 11:23
|
Well said Maani. I watched this video yesterday and it just increased my already doubtful mind, so thank you for posting it here. Some of the evidence shown in this video is pretty difficult (to me anyhow) to debunk. Especially in relation to flight AA77 and the size of the hole in the Pentagon. A lot of the rest is open to conjecture, but that particular evidence is self-explanatory, in my opinion. The evidence used is genuine, using footage, as well as stills from the site at the time, that was reported in news bulletins. -------------
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 12:09
Not at all, I dont doubt that two planes were abducted and flown into the WTC at all, but I am completely unconvinced about the attacks on the Pentagon and the Pensilvania (sp?) incident, theres just to many inconsistencies surrounding them for me to accept the US governments official reports.
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 14:01
|
By the way, there is a really incredible book that is must reading on this issue. It is called "The Terror Timeline," by Paul Thompson. What is amazing about the book is that Thompson uses only articles and photographs from mainstream media sources - i.e., those that the majority of Americans accept as "legitimate," whether liberal or conservative (i.e., network, cable, etc., but not "alternative publications") - and using only those sources is able to show that if we look carefully at those sources, even they ultimately debunk the "official story." A good example (which is also in the video link provided by MikeEnRegalia, which I re-posted) is the number of news anchors, firefighters, employees of companies at the WTC, and even passers-by who spoke of "multiple explosions" in the twin towers, suggesting a controlled demolition.
Two other books I highly recommend are by David Ray Griffin, a theologian and 9/11 truth movement leader. His first book on this issue - "The New Pearl Harbor" - is an important book. And his second - "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" - is a careful parsing of the "official story."
Peace.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 14:20
BTW: Dalezilla initially posted the link to the video in another thread two months ago.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: cucacola54
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 14:45
Sorry to hear that ------------- Most listened albums last week 
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 16:16
|
I was living in northern Virginia and working in Washington DC in Sept.
2001. I was driving into work when the Pentagon was
attacked. If anyone knows Washington, I was on the beltway at the
southern end of the city, driving across the Wilson bridge. Radio
reports were coming in that Washington was now under attack, as New
York had been. I didn't believe it until I looked up the river
and saw the awful plume of black smoke rising... You all are presenting various pieces of evidence....I'm usually a highly rational person, but I'm going to disagree with all these conspiracies for one reason - I just can't believe. Our lives changed forever on Sept. 11 - at least those like me fared better than poor Jody who lost family, or of course all the victims who lost their lives that day. But I can easily separate my emotional state, my mindset, into pre- and post-9/11 frames; I'll never have that pre-9/11 life back. Our government has problems and I know a lot of the world is angry and upset with America now for our actions overseas, but I just simply can't believe that our government would do this to us, to shatter all our lives to some degree in this way. I'm sorry that I can't offer more rational arguments but anyway I had to say this. Again Jody I'm very sorry for your loss. |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 17:05
|
NaturalScience: Your reaction is perfectly understandable. After all, who of us was not affected "in the moment" - psycho-emotionally traumatized by the immensity of what we were witnessing? But that is the entire point: it is because we were traumatized "in the moment" that we were unable to really look at what was happening - to "coldly" analyze what we were seeing, hearing, etc. There are those who were able to do so - who immediately suspected a controlled demolition of the WTC, and did not "buy" that a 757 hit the Pentagon - but they are few and far between. Instead, it took time for those of us in the 9/11 truth movement to "get over" the initial "shock and awe" of that moment and begin really looking at the "evidence" provided in the "official story," and seeing the discrepancies, ambiguities, lies, etc.
What occurred on 9/11 is like the magician who uses "misdirection" to make you look at anything except what he is really doing. It is "smoke and mirrors" and "blue screen technology" that make you believe that what you are seeing is "real." It is the very traumatization created by such acts that is used to "hide" the "strings" being manipulated by the puppeteers.
Your feelings are perfectly understandable - and, indeed, normal. But it is important to get beyond those feelings and get back to a rational, coldly analytical frame of mind so that you can start to see the strings, the blue screen, the misdirection. It will hurt - alot - to do so, both because the traumatization was so severe and because what you will find will almost certainly make you angry at your leaders. But it is also extremely healthy - not just "politically," but also psycho-emotionally - to allow a very supportable "righteous indignance" and anger to replace a cynically-induced trauma.
Peace.
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 17:18
|
I don't believe the conspiracy theorists.
This is why: There is simply too much at risk for the government to do this. What's the possibility of a missile hitting the Pentagon, and no other civilian recording device capturing it!?!?! Let me tell you, if this was the case, and people found out, I am confident, most sectors of the government would be overthrown, Bush's head (and maybe even Clinton's, depending on how far back this went) would roll( literally) and thousands of high-ranking officials would be executed. Why risk all that?
Perhaps I don't want to believe the theories for other reasons. In fact, I know this to be true. If it turned out to be so, that the governmet actualy killed 3000+ American in order to get involved in two wars, then... *
* Edited for fear of the government charging me with a crime under the Patriot act. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 17:21
well there weren't any civilian devices caught the plane hitting The Pentagon either.No one's going to tell me that Military Intelligence dont foot the bill for all local CCTV set ups. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 17:23
Not CCTV. A simple camcorder or cell phone. And if not the impact, then at least the flight towards the Pentagon. I'm not saying that someone did capture it, but the possiblity of someone capturing a missile on its way or hitting the Pentagon is too high. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 17:25
They didnt capture video of a plane either which would have been flying a very scary trajectory for quite a few minutes and doubtless that area (though I'm guessing) would normally be free of air traffic,certainly low flying jets! |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 17:27
Argh!  I'm talking only of the POSSIBILITY of something being recorded!------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 17:31
|
Yep,I know. You are saying that surely if a missile had been heading towards The Pentagon someone would have noticed and caught it on their phone. I'm saying that that supposition stands for the plane theory. No civilian video exists of either. Which means the "risk" assessment you made was faulty. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 17:35
|
Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't logically have happened. This had to have been considered at the time of planning. Most U.S. domestic and foreign operations are covert. This was very overt, reguardless of who did it. This being so, extra precautions had to be taken. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 17:37
Originally posted by stonebeard: I don't believe the conspiracy theorists. This is why: There is simply too much at risk for the government
to do this. What's the possibility of a missile hitting the Pentagon,
and no other civilian recording device capturing it!? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Me: I dont disbelieve the conspiracy theorists. This is why: It is relatively simply and not too much at risk for the government to do this. What's the possibility of a plane hitting the Pentagon, and no other civilian recording device capturing it!? Understand now? |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 17:42
^ Maybe Patrick Stewart captured the film after Mel Gibson threatened to go public with it?
 ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 17:57
|
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 18:00
^ Oi !!! Abuse! Abuse, I say!!! 
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 18:43
|
I have to say that the following academic paper analysing the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings makes interesting reading:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html - http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Also interesting is the 1 hour 50 minute video of Professor Jones' Feb. 2006 lecture, followed by a 10-minute Q&A session followed by 10 minutes of footage of the three buildings collapsing and the controlled demolition of various high-rise buildings. The footage of the collapse of WTC7 is particularly interesting.
The hyperlink to the lecture video is on the above-mentioned page, but I recommend reading the paper first.
EDIT:
Subsequently to the above post I read something else about Professor Jones' paper. According to http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm - http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm , his paper was peer-reviewed by the journal Research In Political Economy, and not by a scientific or engineering journal. According to the Wikipedia page on Professor Jones, his paper will be included in the book "9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out", a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, and scheduled for publication in 2006 by Interlink Books (not Elsevier as I had written in a previous post). I had hoped that Prof. Jones' paper would be submitted to an engneering or scientific journal. This is the only way to gain credibility for his hypothesis of controlled demolition. According also to http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm - http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm , the Chairman of the Brigham Young University Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
I do hope that Prof. Jones submits his paper for peer review in an engineering or science journal, rather than just publishing it in a book edited by an advocate of the controlled demolition theory. ------------- http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=326" rel="nofollow - Read reviews by Fitzcarraldo |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 18:49
|
Fitz:
I actually have a copy of Prof. Jones' abstract. It is important to let people know that this is the first paper relating to alternative theories of the WTC collapse that has been accepted for peer review by the scientific community. If it passes peer review, it will undoubtedly find its way to one of the major "hard science" publications.
Peace.
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 18:53
|
I read somewhere that the video that Mike posted is being shown to the British Government in June or July, but I bet it'll be scoffed at and completely debunked. Especially by Blair and his cronies. -------------
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 18:55
|
Stonebeard:
Tell me - how fast do you think you could whip out your cellphone camera or camcorder? Fast enough to capture a plane or missile travleing at hundreds of miles per hour? It would only be in your frame of reference for seconds. Even if someone were standing on the corner with a camcorder filming "local color," it is doubtful that, even if they swung it around as soon as they heard a strange noise, they would have captured anything on tape.
I am also curious why you find it so hard to believe that the U.S. government would blatantly murder its own citizens. This would not be the first time, nor would it be the last: it would only be the most "spectacular" example. We do it "over there" all the time, in covert ops that end up killing civilians, including Americans, as well as whoever the target(s) is/are. Never heard the term "collateral damage?" If the "goal" is important enough, then "collateral damage" could (and has) easily include American citizens.
Peace.
|
Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 18:58
|
It's due to be included in a book to be published by Elsevier (a well-known publisher in the science and engineering fields, as I know myself). I may purchase the book. However, according to his Feb 2006 lecture, publication in an engineering or scientific journal is not currently on the cards. To be published in an engineering or science journal of repute he would have to write a new paper if his current paper is published in the aforementioned book.
EDIT: I have subsequently read on the Wikipedia page on Professor Jones that the publisher will be Interlink Books, and not Elsevier. ------------- http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=326" rel="nofollow - Read reviews by Fitzcarraldo |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 19:03
|
Maani, I know you have read a lot about all this, so I was curious, re: The Pentagon. I've viewed the two CCTV cameras footage and was curious to know whether you knew about how fast evacuation was from The Pentagon? I see no sign of anyone leaving the building, is it reasonable for me to believe I should see people? I've read reports about a woman who was by her car when the aircraft flew over her head... where's the carpark she refers too? I also notice one solitary vehicle leaving the scene and no emergency services... I would have thought The Pentagon would have had emergency services close-by. How fast was the response time, any ideas? I hope you can answer my questions! -------------
|
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 19:10
|
Has anybody watched one of those movies where they finally got the government/corporation badies by publishing evidence on the internet. Well, there seems to be enough evidence floating about on the internet concerning this to sink a boat load of badies. Apathy, ain't it grand. I thought only Australians were apathetic. Blindly following the government is not patriotism. Allowing your privacy and liberties to be taken away is not patriotism. But all this is happening. The draft bill is back on the agenda - has WWIII already begun? |
Posted By: cobb
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 20:14
Most of what you want to know can be found here. http://www.911truth.org/ - http://www.911truth.org/ For those who want to know why there are doubts, try the top 15 reasons to doubt the official story - Link at top of page. Too many question and no answers.... Ps- this discourse is probably now being monitored by the FBI, CIA, PNAC and untold others... so don't give them your address
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 20:23
|
Cheers Cobb.
-------------
|
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 21:04
|
GeckO:
Re evacuation, that depends. Remember that the wing of the building which was hit by the plane was undergoing renovations, so there were very few people in that wing at the time to evacuate. It may well be that evacuation was occurring out of other wings that the c/c camera does not show. (Though one could ask where the tapes from those cameras are!). So, no, one wouldn't necessarily see evacuation activities on this particular tape.
Haven't heard about the woman in the car.
You bring up a good point about emergency services, one which I don't think has actually been raised with any rigor: wouldn't the Pentagon have on-site emergency services? As it was, the first fire department trucks did respond within 2-3 minutes, according to witnesses at the site. (Though how credible those witnesses are is anyone's guess...).
Cobb:
Thank you for posting that site. It is one of the main sites for the 9/11 truth movement. The organization I work most closely with is the New York affiliate, whose site is at:
http://www.ny911truth.org/ - http://www.ny911truth.org/
Peace.
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: May 18 2006 at 21:10
|
Indeed, the videos they've just released go on for a while after and apart from one vehicle, I didn't see much else. Those CCTV cameras were set up in a carpark, surely people would have run to their vehicles? Also, apparently there was a worker outside at the time and who is a witness. Maybe the distance is too far... but I see nobody around. Thanks for the information. Here's those two quotes I mentioned:
"Instantly I
knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed
perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed," Owens
said. "The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon. The impact
was deafening.
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/09/12terrorspreadsto.html -
," Mary Ann Owens
- Delaware Online (9/12/01) -------------
|