:wtf: I never knew that vid was released. Or is that a fake? There is no 757 in the footage hitting the pentagon.
metalgearsolid
looks like a fake to me.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
A CTer? The last time I checked, the word 'theorist' had no 'er' as a suffix but whatever. I don't even like the phrase as I find it to be too negatively connotative. I like 'truth seeker' much better as it's right on the mark in regards to what me and many others are striving to do.
hehe, i quite like the CTer, mostly for its negative connotations. i would take the "truth" comment more seriously if people here had more of a commitment to explaining plausible explanations that are necessary for all the data to be believable. again- nobody has put forward ANY suggestion for what happened to the plane, passengers, crew, or how the blackbox was recovered from the sight, personal effects, dead bodies etc. this is paramount if any alternative theory is to be taken seriously. as i havent seen anything come even remotely close, i am unable to take it seriously.
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
The funny part is, all the government would have to do is release one of the several dozen surveillance videos the FBI confiscated, showing the alleged plane hitting the Pentagon. All they can give us is a few seconds of some grainy bullsh*t that doesn't really show much of anything. Besides, there are just too many inconsistencies in the whole story. This is just one small part of it.
that's an assumption that you have all been making, and i am STILL waiting for any evidence to surface to support any of it. i have not been able to find a single supporting document that says the pentagon are hoarding a bunch of tapes that show a damned thing. saying it repeatedly does not make it so.
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
As far as I know, many eyewitnesses saw what they described as a missile as well. Oh yeah, that and a C-130 cargo plane flying not too far overhead while it all happened ;)
that's pretty disingenuous trancer.
firstly, how many people do you really think are going to be able to catch sight of a (tomahawk) missile that travels at 550mph? you know, given the disparity in size and shape between a missile and a plane. i am more likely to accept hundreds of eyewitnesses that see a plane (people are more or less familiar with passenger jets) that passes them right overhead, than they are identifying a difficult to see projectile. also, that testimony could have been from people very far away, describing how it looked.
asides from the "arguments about doubt" there isn't a single piece of evidence to suggest a missile hit the pentagon. it really is ridiculous that some people think the government could tell the world that a plane hit the pentagon when it was a missile. you cant cover up things like this that are investigated. its just not possible in a liberal democracy, im sorry to break this to all of you. too many ways to get caught out.
so, i appreciate your response to where the personal items, the black box, dead bodies came from, as well as what really happened to the passengers, crew and plane :)
Shakka
So what praytell happened to all of the people who were aboard American Airlines flight 77? I'm sure their families would like to know why they never came home. Being directly related to someone who was actually IN the Pentagon when it was hit, lived to tell about it and saw physical evidence of plane wreckage on the lawn, I have a very difficult time swallowing the conspiracy pill. Additionally, personally knowing someone who was in D.C. and gave an eyewitness account of actually seeing an airplane fly into the building, I'm not ready to put any stock in a crudely concocted conspiracy theory. If the goal of this government was to gain unfettered permission to wage a pre-emptive war on whomever they desired, why in God's name would they attack the cerebral cortex of the very military they would be dependent on to do so? Call me a kook if you must.
culorut
Shock and Awe.
Spacey Orange
the fact that the video does not show the airplane means nothing. bad angle, recording speed to slow, bad lighting, filters, etc
stevieboy32808
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
Welcome back buddy. I never seen that video before either. I swear I don't know where you pull this information from. I pretty much weighed out the evidence and accepted that the goverment could not do such a thing, but when you posted the video and then this story came out:
that really answered the question of whether or not they can pull off such a stunt. I'm confused now.
pkcRAISTLIN
:rolleyes:
its funny how the CIA's "shady past" is referred to by conspiracy theorists as somehow evidence in the 9/11 debate, yet nothing even approaching the supposed government 9/11 plot has ever been brought to light.
of course the truthers will point to the operation to blow up an airline and blame cuba, but of course that plan was never carried out.
there is no way the government could have pulled off this operation in the way described. the entire conspiracy makes little to no sense at all. nobody would ever devise a plan like this. its ridiculous. almost as ridiculous as some TAs' inability to think everything through logically.
M.Johan
quote:
Statement by Thierry Meyssan “ New DoD’s Videos confirm clearly that no Boeing hit the Pentagon on 9/11 ”
19 May 2006
From
Paris (France)
On May 16th, 2006, the US Department of Defence released two videos recorded by security cameras and supposed to prove that a plane crashed on the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. The passing on of these documents - that were already broadcast in static images shape on March 8th, 2002 - to the media took place about five years after the September 11th events. In a statement made in Paris, Thierry Meyssan considers this measure as an attempt to forestall the controversy about the attacks, which swells nowadays in the United States. The ”The Big Lie” and “Pentagate” author is very glad about the broadcasting of these videos and invites each one of us to notice for ourself that no sign of a Boeing 757-200 can be seen on the images.
“ Several opinion polls show that today more than half of New Yorkers, more than a third of the German population and more than four Arabs and Latin-American out of five reject the “ world islamic conspiracy ” theory and believe the government of the United States is involved, at least passively, in the organization of the September 11th, 2001 attacks.
This point of view needs to spread. In November 2005, the Voltaire Network organized an international conference, Axis for Peace, widely broadcast by independent television channels in Latin America, the Arab world and the Russian-speaking world. Many personalities attending it denounced the direct responsibility of U.S. power in the organization of the attacks. In the United States, billionaire activist Jimmy Walter handed out 200.000 DVDs debunking the official story and several hundred websites were devoted to the subject. Besides, he offered - in vain – 1 million dollars to anybody who would scientifically explain the World Trade Center collapse. And the latest developments: in the last days, Iranian president Ahmadinejad has expressed his skepticism in an open letter to president Bush while the Venezuelan parliament is about to open an investigative commission on the events.
It is in such a context, the United States’ Department of Defense has released the complete footage of the video recorded by the Pentagon’s parking lot security cameras. This footage does not bring any new evidence compared to the previously published frames that were extracted from it. Everyone can see for himself that no Boeing 757-200 crashed on the Pentagon. As I explained in The Pentagate, and is confirmed by this video, the attack was perpetrated using a very small size, single-engine aircraft. It didn’t crash onto the building, but punched a hole through it and provoked a short and violent explosion. All those elements point towards a missile and absolutely not a commercial airliner.
It is everyone’s duty to shed the light on those attacks in which name many constitutional rights were suspended by the Patriot Act, an anti-democratic regime was established, and the conquest of the Middle-East oil fields was launched.”
"New" official video The Pentagon magic plane, part 2
by Pierre-Henri Bunel
19 May 2006
From
Paris (France)
The Effects Of A Hollow Charge, 4th chapter of book Pentagate
What is the nature of the explosion that took place at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001? An an’alysis of the video pictures of the impact and the photographs of the damages permits one to know by what type of device the attack was caused. Did the explosion correspond with that produced by an airplane’s kerosene or that of a real explosive? Did the fire correspond with a hydrocarbon fire or with a classic blaze?
Deflagration or detonation?
As a preamble, it seems indispensable to make clear to the reader an essential distinction: the difference between a deflagration and a detonation.
The combustion of explosive chemical materials - powders, explosives or hydrocarbons, for example - release energy by producing a shock wave. The diffusion at high speeds of the enormous quantity of gas produced by the chemical reaction is accompanied by flame, by a noise caused by the displacement of the shockwave through the air, and by smoke. One also often observes, even before seeing the flame, a cloud of vapor due to the compression of the air surrounding the zone of the explosion. The air can’t be set into motion immediately, so it compresses under the influence of the shockwave. At first, under the compression of the air molecules, the invisible water vapor that the atmosphere always contains in greater or lesser quantities compresses and becomes visible as a white cloud.
What I would like to underline here is the notion of the shockwave. An explosion is a reaction that projects gas at a greater or lesser speeds. Explosive materials, according to their chemical composition and the physical arrangement of their molecules, impart upon the gases they generate a greater or lesser speed of propagation. One says that they are more or less progressive. The observation of the shockwave is thus a precious indication of the speed of the gases projected by the explosion.
Explosive materials are divided into two groups, according to their progressiveness. Explosives produce a shockwave whose speed of propagation is superior to a value of about six thousand feet per second. One says that they "detonate". Explosive materials whose shockwave speed is lower than that do not detonate. They deflagrate. This is the case, for example, of gunpowder or hydrocarbons.
In an internal combustion engine - and the turbojet of a Boeing 757 is a continuous internal combustion engine - the fuel under pressure deflagrates and does not detonate. If it detonated, the engine’s structure would not withstand it. The kerosene of an airliner that crashes ignites and does not generally produce even deflagration, except in certain circumstances and at points limited to the engines. In the recent case of the Airbus that fell on a Queens neighborhood in New York in November 2001, the engines did not explode upon arriving at the ground. Kerosene is a heavy oil analogous to diesel fuel, tri-filtrated in order to satisfy the physical conditions of passage through the fuel injectors of jet engines. It is in no sense an explosive.
The color of explosions as also fairly remarkable. In detonations, the shockwave displaces itself rapidly. If the explosion occurs in the air without obstacles, the flame is often pale yellow at the point of the explosion. As it moves away from ground zero it turns orange then red. When it encounters obstacles, such as the walls of a building, one practically doesn’t see the pale yellow part. The duration of illumination by this color is brief. The form of the flame gives an impression of "rigidity" because of the speed of propagation. It is only when the dust lifted by the shockwave starts to bum due to the brutal rise in temperature that smoke appears. This is fire smoke that has little resemblance to the black, heavy coils given off by hydrocarbon fires.
But solid explosives are not simply chemical combinations. One can improve their effectiveness by playing with their physical forms. In principle, the shockwave propagates perpendicularly to the surface undergoing reaction. By working the shapes of the explosive charges one can orient the shockwave in such a fashion as to send a maximum of energy in a given direction, like directing the light of a lighthouse with a reflector. We thus find spherical charges whose shockwaves go in all directions; cylindrical charges like those that equip shrapnel shells, those weapons that burst into minuscule pieces of steel the size of a tab of chocolate and spray the battlefield; t1at charges, that allow making holes in plane obstacles with a minimum of energy lost in useless directions; but also hollow charges. These latter concentrate the principal shockwave in the shape of a high-temperature jet bearing a quantity of energy capable of piercing armor made of steel, composites or concrete.
The ignition
The explosive that constitutes the weapon [1] should explode at the desired time. In order for it to react exactly as the user wishes, it needs a certain degree of stability. The explosive that constitutes the principal charge of a weapon is too stable to explode by a simple shock. In fact, to initialize the chemical reaction, the charge must be submitted to a shockwave provoked by a more sensitive and less powerful explosive that we call the detonator. The explosive charge of the detonator reacts to a shock, to a spark or to an electrical or electromagnetic impulse. It then creates a shock wave that provokes the detonation of the principal charge.
The system that commands the explosion of the detonator is called the ignition system. The devices vary considerably and it would take too long to examine all of them. I will thus only deal with the two systems that might have been used at the Pentagon, explosive ignition systems commanded by the operator and ignition systems for hollow charges by instantaneous percussion with a short delay.
Shells, bombs or missiles are equipped with an ignition system which comprises the release, the delay system and a detonator. This device is called a fuse. It is fixed on the weapon either during its construction, or at the moment of conditioning for firing. It includes a security system that prevents the ensemble from functioning until being armed.
The release can be activated by a shock in the case of percussion fuses, by a radar detector at a distance in the case of radio-electric fuses, by the reaction to a source of heat or a magnetic mass in the case of thermal or magnetic fuses.
Either the release provokes detonation instantaneously, or the delay system acts so that the weapon only detonates several milliseconds after the impact. In this last case, the weapon begins to penetrate the objective by physically denting it with its armor. The charge detonates once the weapon has already entered the objective, which increases its destructive effect.
For certain very hard fortifications, one even finds that there are multi-charge weapons. The first charges fracture the concrete, while the later one or ones penetrate and detonate. In general, anti-concrete charges are hollow charges. The jet of energy and melted materials penetrate the fortification and spread inside quantities of hot materials pushed by a column of energy that pierces the walls like a punch. The great heat produced by the detonation of the hollow charge provokes fires in everything that is combustible inside.
During the Gulf War, the anti-fortification missiles and guided bombs pierced all of the concrete bunkers that were hit, notably at Fort As Salman. A single bomb could pierce through three thicknesses of armored concrete, having begun with the thickest, on the outside.
The missile
In order to conduct an attack with such a weapon system, a launcher is obviously needed. In the case of guided bombs, the launcher is a plane or at the very least a powerful helicopter. The weapon then leaves with an initial speed which is that of the carrier vehicle. It descends in a glide and generally guides itself by following a laser illumination. In the case of a missile, its range is much greater because the missile has its own engine. If needs be, one can conceive a system so that the missile depart from its own launch pad on the ground. There are in fact ground-to-ground anti-fortifications missiles.
A cruise missile of a recent model generally follows three phases of flight. The launch, during which it attains its tlight speed in emerging from the bay of an airplane or a missile launch-tube. Pushed forward by the engine at full power, it reaches its cruising speed and deploys its wings and tail fins. It then descends to its cruising altitude and follows its approach trajectory. In the course of this flight phase, it frequently changes direction, turning according to the Hight program, climbing or descending to remain low enough to escape detection as far as possible. One might then mistake it for a fighter plane in tactical Hight maneuvers. It keeps this altitude until it reaches the point of entry to the terminal phase. This point is situated a certain distance from the objective; two or three miles depending on the models. From this point, the missile flies in a straight line t?wards the target and undergoes a strong acceleration that gives it maximum speed to strike the objective with the maximum of penetrative force.
The missile thus has to reach the point of entry to the terminal phase with great precision, so that before acceleration it is not only in the right spot but also pointing in the right direction. That is why it often happens that the missile ends its cruising flight with a tight turn that allows to adopt the right alignment. A witness might observe that the missile reduces its engine power before throttling back up.
The type of explosion observed at the Pentagon
On 8 March 2002, a month after the beginning of the controversy on Internet and three days before The Big Lie was published in France, five new images of the attack were released by CNN [2]. A photo agency then distributed them very widely to numerous newspapers throughout the world. These images originating from a surveillance camera were not made public by the Pentagon itself, which contented itself with authenticating them. In them, one can see the flame developing from the impact on the façade of the Department of Defense’s building.
Originally posted by Spacey Orange
long time no see trancer-x.
:tongue2
I hope you're doing well, Spacey!
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
hehe, i quite like the CTer, mostly for its negative connotations. i would take the "truth" comment more seriously if people here had more of a commitment to explaining plausible explanations that are necessary for all the data to be believable. again- nobody has put forward ANY suggestion for what happened to the plane, passengers, crew, or how the blackbox was recovered from the sight, personal effects, dead bodies etc. this is paramount if any alternative theory is to be taken seriously. as i havent seen anything come even remotely close, i am unable to take it seriously.
LOL - okay, but it's okay for the government to destroy most of the evidence at the crime scenes, block any independent investigation and then when the victims families become too outspoken as a result, they have a whitewash committee (the Kean/Zelikow Commission - with Zelikow being a Bush Administration insider) which does a hack job of creating a 500+ page joke of a report after barely even doing any real investigating into the attrocities of 9/11. They didn't even include any of the testimony from the first responders who witnessed explosions - pretty damning if you ask me.
quote:
that's an assumption that you have all been making, and i am STILL waiting for any evidence to surface to support any of it. i have not been able to find a single supporting document that says the pentagon are hoarding a bunch of tapes that show a damned thing. saying it repeatedly does not make it so.
Ummm, amazingly, it was even on the news that the FBI went to every business, hotel, service station, etc., immediately after (only minutes after) the incident and collected all of their surveillance tapes. What rock have YOU been hiding under? I understand that Attorney Scott Hodes has been our biggest asset in trying to obtain those tapes through the Freedom of Information Act. His website is here
quote:
that's pretty disingenuous trancer.
firstly, how many people do you really think are going to be able to catch sight of a (tomahawk) missile that travels at 550mph? you know, given the disparity in size and shape between a missile and a plane. i am more likely to accept hundreds of eyewitnesses that see a plane (people are more or less familiar with passenger jets) that passes them right overhead, than they are identifying a difficult to see projectile. also, that testimony could have been from people very far away, describing how it looked.
asides from the "arguments about doubt" there isn't a single piece of evidence to suggest a missile hit the pentagon. it really is ridiculous that some people think the government could tell the world that a plane hit the pentagon when it was a missile. you cant cover up things like this that are investigated. its just not possible in a liberal democracy, im sorry to break this to all of you. too many ways to get caught out.
so, i appreciate your response to where the personal items, the black box, dead bodies came from, as well as what really happened to the passengers, crew and plane :)
Actually, if you take a moment to watch the news feed I posted a few posts ago you'll get to see and hear one of those witnesses for yourself. ;) No disingenuity at all! Also, whoever said it was a Tomahawk? I don't remember anyone saying that. From what I gather from eyewitness testimony which has described it as a small passenger plane at best, it was probably something more like a Global Hawk or perhaps some other prototypical unmanned aerial vehicle and not a Tomahawk. Even if it was, they're really not too hard to spot especially given the high pitched whine of their engines. There have been plenty of witnesses in the past who have seen Tomahawks fly by after we've sent them to wreak havoc on their countries.
I think you're missing the whole point. There was no real investigation just like there was no real debris (other than the subterfuge which was scattered after the coverup crew arrived on the scene), no bodies, no engines, etc. Nothing remained, not even a magical/indestructible terrorist passport like the one that allegedly survived the WTC's jet-fuel fireball.
A 60 ton plane - vaporized. I'm sure that David Copperfield is quite envious.
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit and an “Application for a Preliminary Injunction” with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to force the release of videotapes confiscated by law enforcement from areas surrounding the Pentagon on 9/11 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Case No. 06-1135). Judicial Watch also filed a formal request for a court hearing on the matter to occur on or before July 12, 2006. The FBI admits it has videotapes responsive to Judicial Watch’s original Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, but refuses to release them.
“As Judicial Watch has a statutory right to the tapes at issue under FOIA [Freedom of Information Act], and there no longer is any legal justification or excuse for the FBI’s failure to make the tapes publicly available, there is no reason to delay production of the videotapes any longer,” Judicial Watch argued in its court filings.
Judicial Watch originally filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004 seeking all records pertaining to September 11, 2001 camera recordings of the Pentagon attack from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The FBI admitted in a May 22, 2005 letter that it possessed videotapes responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. However, the FBI refused to release the videotapes. Judicial Watch filed an appeal on April 4, 2005. The FBI had until May 3, 2005 to respond, but failed to do so, prompting Judicial Watch to take action.
“Why does the FBI continue to play games with the open records process? There is no valid legal reason to withhold these videos from the American people. Yet there is enormous public interest in having them released. These tapes may show us nothing in the end, but it is important to complete the public record of that horrible attack,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Judicial Watch obtained two Department of Defense videos of the 9/11 Pentagon attack on May 16, 2006, which have been viewed more than 1.5 million times online.
Click here to view JW's complaint, click here to view JW's request for hearing, click here to view JW's application for a preliminary injunction.
Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life.
