Assuming the Federal Government has nothing to hide & that the Bush Administration was completely honest, why do they refuse to release footage of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11?
I see no mention of the engine they found not belonging to that plane, pictures of further in where there was no plane wreckage, no wings ever found which were "sheered off", no damage shown to the lawn yet the plane hit low enough to where the bottom of the plane would have been 3-4 feet into the earth to hit so low, or why the wing that got hit was magically abandoned and "under construction."
If you are going to conspiracy theorize, you need to bring it much harder than just some structural pics ;P
I believe they talked about it in 'Zeitgeist', actually (which is to be taken with a grain of salt, just like anything else, but still)... The closest match for the engine that they found was one belonging to a cruise missile, not an aircraft.
The video from the gas station across the way (which was very quickly confiscated after the event) seems to support that, for what it's worth.
Never seen Zeitgeist, however, the moment the "official" report came out from the towers stating that fire weakened/melted the steel beams that held the towers, I did research on my own. Those pesky facts seem to get in the way when you attempt to lie through your teeth, such as the fact that steel is very strong under heat and does not lose structural integrity until right before it melts, being the official story said that jet fuel weakened/melted it and the burning tempurature for jet fuel is VERY much under steel melting point you can easily surmise that the offical story is horse crap. Not mentioning that the towers bellowed black smoke which means the fires inside were oxygen starved which means they were not even burning at full temp. Then to add to all that, ANOTHER building falls right next to them that did NOT get hit by a plane and they say the same story? That building fell with only a small portion of the top on fire, what kind of morons are they pandering to?
So with that in mind suddenly I find out the pentagon states a huge plane flew into a hole only half the size of the plane, there is nearly zero debris from a plane (plane crashes scatter debris for MILES yet this one is disney magically different?) that was flown into a building by a pilot that the instructors said could not even hold a plane steady much less fly it failing his flight training, at about 200-600 mph a mere 1 1/2 ft off the ground without damaging the lawn in any way even though the plane would have to go 3-4 feet into the ground based off of the "top hole" diameter.
You do not need to be a conspiracy moron to put 2 + 2 together and realize that someone else telling you that equals 53 is wrong.
It's quite interesting, though (as I said), everything can (and should) be taken with a grain of salt, even when the premise is something that you wholly believe in.
Also, there was another link posted this morning that you might want to take a look at: Pentagon crash -- Scroll down for a picture of the UAV / missile that I was referring to.
Oh so it's not from where the plane impacted and was on fire? Gee sounds exactly like what I just said.
Picture makes a better argument for their not being even a missile there, since there is no fire damage to ANYTHING there - no scorched walls or anything.
Just because the fire didn't reach that specific spot doesn't mean a plane didn't hit there!
Because the big red button is operated by human beings who might have been in a state of disbelief and wishing/hoping that that plane would not hit so they hesitated to press that big red button to launch whatever missiles that would have killed all the people in the plane.
Obviously. Nobody at NORAD or the Pentagon has any training for situations PRECISELY like this, nor are they staffed with cold-blooded douches ready to blow up anything just for the hell of it. No sir. On that day they all turned into little girls, including the hardened generals, whose orders everyone else must follow.
In this subreddit, it seems that a good amount of people really know what is going on and what the score is. That said, I have argued with so many morons, I feel that myself as well as a large number of others are so used to these jackasses (disinfo?) that satire is largely lost. I can easily see someone having the veiw you mock (many people obviously do to believe such) and that is truely scary. I symanthize with that WAKEUPSHEEPLE guy (where the fuck has he been in the past few years?).
To the downvoters: It's a valid point/opinion. If you don't agree that's fine, by all means comment on it. You'er only supposed to downvote spam or general crap or stupid shit. Not valid points.
I believe this is why Obama hasn't done shit since getting elected; because the TRUE powers the be won't let him. Same way 'they' keep 9/11 a secret, the same shadow group that won't release the footage, etc...
Our gov't is not controlled by who we think it is.
The reason why this question is out there is because all the witnesses around the Pentagon who saw the plane saw it on the North side of the then Citgo gas station, now Navy Exchange.
The plane on the north side does not cause the damage path as proposed but the Gov't. What that means is the plane fly over the Pentagon. A plane on the north side cannot cause the damage path of light poles and generator and path through the building.
They couldn't get the plane to fly exactly where they needed it to. It was close, but not close enough. So that is why you'll have all the "detractors" saying the witnesses are lying or were mistaken.
They cannot deny the triangulated position of the plane. Two Pentagon Police at the Citgo see it fly by north of them, thus north of the station. The four Arlington National cemetery workers see it fly by south of their position and Sean Boger working in the Pentagon heli-port tower sees it fly right at him.
It's pretty simple. If the plane was not on the south side it cannot cause south side damage at all. That means only one option is left over. The plane flew over the building.
Ask me about Keith Wheelhouse. He makes the story all the more juicy.
He pushed a story that ran in some local news papers. He described a plane that was able to "shadow" AA77 as if it was guiding it into the Pentagon only to turn away at the last moment and fly away.
Its meant to muddy the waters and manipulate two groups of people.
The first group would be anyone who is skeptical about the event. It would put a wrench into anyone thinking about how it happened. Who would shadow AA77 into the building?? Who, what, where and why Etc. etc. Just another conspiracy theory. This is how they undermine our process. Toss up crazy shit and some people do jump on it and blow it out of proportion. Hitler said, the greater the lie, the more people will believe it right? Exactly like the missile theory.
The second group would be anyone who actually saw the plane flying over the building and away. They needed to fuck with them, as well as ensure that the flyover theory sounds like BS because....the C-130 was in the air too right? Those stupid people just saw the C-130 that O'Brien flew! Sheesh.....what a bunch of idiot conspiracy theorists!
Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien flying a C-130 was ordered into the air from Andrews AFB which is only a paltry 10 miles from the Pentagon. They needed some cover for the Operation. They needed something else. O'Brien flew north out of Andrews, turning west over the Washington mall. Way north of the Pentagon.
The point is, O'Brien was no where near the Pentagon until loooong after the explosion at the Pentagon. There is video on youtube that shows this. I'll try to link to a pic or video later if found.
Anyway, the point is the shadowing of AA77 could not have happened.
1) O'Brien's story is totally different than that of a shadowing event. His flight path is documented and on radar. Can't be denied.
2) The C-130 is a 4 engine turbo prop, no possible way it was able to keep up to a jet liner like a 757.
So, long story short......the critical detail to think about and that just adds to the whole bullshit around 9/11 is, why would this story even exist? Why and how could it happen? It's definitely not possible.
It simply shows how far they have gone in order to confuse things and to put people off their tracks. Besides WTC7, I think the Pentagon flyover is one of the most damning bits to the OT. It is very simple, but it has been very hard to understand because or reoccurring BS about missiles impacts or that global hawk BS.
Look how hard they work on your guys. You have to realize how hard they are working to keep you ignorant. They pour unknown amounts of money into the operation and then who knows how much to keep it confusing and just out of reach. How can people see what is going on with those crazy conspiracy theorists and their crazy theories right? We're the easy scapegoat right now.
It's coming to an end though. We have them, and they know it. It is only a matter of time. People need to push hard and talk to people. It's only your life and your future. They are breaking ALL the rules in order to control you. They don't live by the rules you and I do in life. They will do anything to control and manipulate.
The sooner we all realize this, the sooner we will all stand up and ensure it cannot happen again. Remove them by any means, preferably non-violently. We have to be better than they are. They use caveman tactics, we have to be smarter.
So eyewitnesses who saw an airliner at the Pentagon are credible, but eyewitnesses who heard (and saw) explosions in all three towers that fell were confused or something?
Take what you just said and turn it around. If you swear by what people said at the WTC, how can you say the people who saw the plane hit the pentagon are lying?
People saw an airplane. What do you think they saw? Holograms? The "explosions" that people heard in the WTC can be caused by a number of things. There's a huge difference here. I highly recommend you explore the links that I have begun accumulating here
This is one of the most compelling reasons why. We are told officially that it's for "national security."
Evidence of how we were attacked on 9/11 does not affect national security. If you have the burden of proof, provide. Show us it happened as you say it did. Prove to us you are correct.
Those are more like still images than an actual video. What I find hard to believe is the fact that the Pentagon has a worse security system than I do on my own house. It's totally crazy to believe that the Pentagon's security cameras are that shitty. That's just inconceivable. Not to mention, there were hundreds of recordings that were confiscated the day of 9/11 from businesses all around the impact area. Where are they at?
a) it's too harrowing to watch
b) they don't want them used as propaganda overseas (if they showed it on Iranian TV for example)
Mind you, you could say the same about the NYC footage from the same day and how public and widely available that is so I'm not really sure or convinced.
Why would they not just fly a plane into it? If it is a conspiracy it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't fly a commercial jet liner into it. It's not like they couldn't. Ya'll believe they capably flew airliners into the WTCs, so why wouldn't they just do the same to the Pentagon? Why leave that giant hole? Why risk people seeing something other than a commercial jetliner plowing into the building? And if it wasn't a jetliner, where oh where did that plane go?
Oh, cause it was a jet liner and it wasn't a conspiracy.
perhaps the vast majority of the public couldnt handle the truth because it would cause them to (maybe) rethink verything the government has been telling them all thier lives.
Damn, there are a lot of nutters on this subject, so many that it makes me suspect they are being pumped by deliberate disinformation.
There are enough grounds to believe there is information on 9/11 being withheld by government agencies, that there is no need to stray into crackpot theories that something other than planes were responsible for the Pentagon and Twin Towers disasters. Wasting time on such nutty theories merely takes focus away from the role of Israel in failing to inform the US about the impending terrorist action, which, yes, may have had a Mossad component to it.
The overwhelming evidence supports the official story that a plane hit the pentagon. The few left who still cling to a conspiracy regarding a missile or otherwise "not a plane" do so only due to ignorance. They dismiss all photographic, eyewitness, and first responder testimony. They want a video confirming their theory, but they would hate to actually see a video of a plane hitting the pentagon, because it unravels their entire theory surrounding the controlling party that pulled it off. One would think that 9 years ought to be enough for anyone to come to a reasonable conclusion regarding those events due to the high amount of scrutiny the "official story" has been put under. But no, after 9 years, still reaching for desperate straws.
That's not the real reason. They confiscated 86 or more videos. You'd think they would want to put all of this to rest. Right?
If they had solid video evidence showing the plane hitting the building, they would show it for sure. They need the war to continue. They need the support.
Yet they hide the videos that would confirm what they say? You believe them when they say, the plane hit the building......but deny you the videos? The Pentagon is likely one of the most secure buildings, and that means cameras. They can't even show you their own evidence.
My comment was tounge in cheek, I was taking the piss.
I was pointing out that there is no reason whatsoever they shouldn't release the footage, which basically means there's something wrong with it, ie it doesn't show a plan hitting the Pentagon.
what if they had a video showing a wall exploding and no plane flying into it? would they show it then? of course not. that is why there are no videos.
what war? The one in Afghanistan. The one that was started in response to 9-11. The one in Iraq was about "WMD's". What about the one that looks like it is going to happen in Iran? I think you are being naive about the power of the military industrial complex in this country.
I guess you didn't see the "looks like it is going to happen" part of the war in Iran. As for relatively cheap, I guess almost 10 years of soldiers being away from families for long periods of time, countless civilians getting killed by both our drones and Taliban rockets and bombs, the 2090 reported coalition dead, and who the ,knows how many, Muslims that have been radicalized from our occupation, is 'relatively cheap' by your standards.
So wait, I thought we were talking about the so-called "military industrial complex"? Do you mind not randomly changing the subject? Or are you trying to play off an emotional argument...?
I think the wars are about the military industrial complex. So I dont think its "randomly changing subject" applies. As for an emotional argement, any talk about wars where people are dying, is inherently emotional. I think you should put down the crack pipe.
a) The majority of the population believe their story, so there is no point.
b) The videos are all 'classified' since they depict the Pentagon, and so the order to release those videos would have to come from very high up and the bureaucracy would first of all have to review all the videos and de-classify them, this would cost time and money.
c) The people high up don't care about a few loony conspiracy theorists.
d) Even if they were released, those loony conspiracy theorists wouldn't believe them anyway and just claim they were 'shopped (like the NASA Moonlandings etc).
I see no mention of the engine they found not belonging to that plane, pictures of further in where there was no plane wreckage, no wings ever found which were "sheered off", no damage shown to the lawn yet the plane hit low enough to where the bottom of the plane would have been 3-4 feet into the earth to hit so low, or why the wing that got hit was magically abandoned and "under construction."
If you are going to conspiracy theorize, you need to bring it much harder than just some structural pics ;P
Oh so it's not from where the plane impacted and was on fire? Gee sounds exactly like what I just said.
Picture makes a better argument for their not being even a missile there, since there is no fire damage to ANYTHING there - no scorched walls or anything.
Just because the fire didn't reach that specific spot doesn't mean a plane didn't hit there!
70 comments
16 [deleted] 2010-09-21
Because it didn't happen
http://imgur.com/7u4sd?full cross beams and windows intact
http://imgur.com/gYOYu?full
http://imgur.com/F9jXM?full Plane melted yet books, computers, desks and furniture unburned
8 BobOki 2010-09-21
I see no mention of the engine they found not belonging to that plane, pictures of further in where there was no plane wreckage, no wings ever found which were "sheered off", no damage shown to the lawn yet the plane hit low enough to where the bottom of the plane would have been 3-4 feet into the earth to hit so low, or why the wing that got hit was magically abandoned and "under construction." If you are going to conspiracy theorize, you need to bring it much harder than just some structural pics ;P
3 [deleted] 2010-09-21
Add what you can by posting up some pics, I was just keeping it simple but do expand
1 [deleted] 2010-09-21
I believe they talked about it in 'Zeitgeist', actually (which is to be taken with a grain of salt, just like anything else, but still)... The closest match for the engine that they found was one belonging to a cruise missile, not an aircraft.
The video from the gas station across the way (which was very quickly confiscated after the event) seems to support that, for what it's worth.
2 BobOki 2010-09-21
Never seen Zeitgeist, however, the moment the "official" report came out from the towers stating that fire weakened/melted the steel beams that held the towers, I did research on my own. Those pesky facts seem to get in the way when you attempt to lie through your teeth, such as the fact that steel is very strong under heat and does not lose structural integrity until right before it melts, being the official story said that jet fuel weakened/melted it and the burning tempurature for jet fuel is VERY much under steel melting point you can easily surmise that the offical story is horse crap. Not mentioning that the towers bellowed black smoke which means the fires inside were oxygen starved which means they were not even burning at full temp. Then to add to all that, ANOTHER building falls right next to them that did NOT get hit by a plane and they say the same story? That building fell with only a small portion of the top on fire, what kind of morons are they pandering to? So with that in mind suddenly I find out the pentagon states a huge plane flew into a hole only half the size of the plane, there is nearly zero debris from a plane (plane crashes scatter debris for MILES yet this one is disney magically different?) that was flown into a building by a pilot that the instructors said could not even hold a plane steady much less fly it failing his flight training, at about 200-600 mph a mere 1 1/2 ft off the ground without damaging the lawn in any way even though the plane would have to go 3-4 feet into the ground based off of the "top hole" diameter. You do not need to be a conspiracy moron to put 2 + 2 together and realize that someone else telling you that equals 53 is wrong.
2 [deleted] 2010-09-21
I'd suggest watching it.
It's quite interesting, though (as I said), everything can (and should) be taken with a grain of salt, even when the premise is something that you wholly believe in.
Also, there was another link posted this morning that you might want to take a look at: Pentagon crash -- Scroll down for a picture of the UAV / missile that I was referring to.
1 [deleted] 2010-09-21
When you think about how musch power the owners of the Federal reserve have, it all seems even more plausible, and also watch Zeightgiest
1 TheRealHortnon 2010-09-21
I like how you try to say pic3 came from the same place even though it's clearly not
2 [deleted] 2010-09-21
Yes it is, on my iPhone now but when back at my computer I will post the further out picture showing that is the inside left after the roof collapsed
2 TheRealHortnon 2010-09-21
Oh so it's not from where the plane impacted and was on fire? Gee sounds exactly like what I just said.
Picture makes a better argument for their not being even a missile there, since there is no fire damage to ANYTHING there - no scorched walls or anything.
Just because the fire didn't reach that specific spot doesn't mean a plane didn't hit there!
-2 jcm267 2010-09-21
There was a plane at the Pentagon. You're so wrong it's pathetic.
4 postdarwin 2010-09-21
See when I think of a plane crash, I picture something like this:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/pilots_in_2005_teterboro_plane.html
It really looks like a plane hitting a building. Just the first random example I came across, probably travelling about 100mph according to witnesses.
12 [deleted] 2010-09-21
The real question is: how could an airplane even approach Pentagon without being shot down?
-1 [deleted] 2010-09-21
The real question is: "what is the matrix"?
-3 lightspeed23 2010-09-21
Because the big red button is operated by human beings who might have been in a state of disbelief and wishing/hoping that that plane would not hit so they hesitated to press that big red button to launch whatever missiles that would have killed all the people in the plane.
i.e. Wishfull Thinking. A bad thing.
20 [deleted] 2010-09-21
AFTER two passenger jets crashed into WTC? Really?
-2 naoptovke 2010-09-21
Obviously. Nobody at NORAD or the Pentagon has any training for situations PRECISELY like this, nor are they staffed with cold-blooded douches ready to blow up anything just for the hell of it. No sir. On that day they all turned into little girls, including the hardened generals, whose orders everyone else must follow.
5 Haven 2010-09-21
HAHAHA, are you kidding me!? NORAD was practicing drills for a situation PRECISELY like this...ON September 11, 2001.
4 Aff3ct 2010-09-21
They were playing this "drill" on the exact same day it happened???
No way! Oh wait, it is true.
http://911review.org/brad.com/batcave/WarGames.html
3 naoptovke 2010-09-21
No they weren't. They were all braiding each other's hair.
2 [deleted] 2010-09-21
As I feel you are being sarcastic, let me whoosh everyone who downvoted you.
1 naoptovke 2010-09-21
Holy shit, people didn't get that that was sarcasm? I guess I have to work on my written sarcasm skills. :)
1 [deleted] 2010-09-21
In this subreddit, it seems that a good amount of people really know what is going on and what the score is. That said, I have argued with so many morons, I feel that myself as well as a large number of others are so used to these jackasses (disinfo?) that satire is largely lost. I can easily see someone having the veiw you mock (many people obviously do to believe such) and that is truely scary. I symanthize with that WAKEUPSHEEPLE guy (where the fuck has he been in the past few years?).
11 RDS 2010-09-21
didn't cheney give a 'stand down' order?
2 Aff3ct 2010-09-21
Not really.
http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html
0 lightspeed23 2010-09-21
To the downvoters: It's a valid point/opinion. If you don't agree that's fine, by all means comment on it. You'er only supposed to downvote spam or general crap or stupid shit. Not valid points.
12 Digitalabia 2010-09-21
I believe this is why Obama hasn't done shit since getting elected; because the TRUE powers the be won't let him. Same way 'they' keep 9/11 a secret, the same shadow group that won't release the footage, etc...
Our gov't is not controlled by who we think it is.
2 Johnny_Cash 2010-09-21
You are so right.
7 bittermanscolon 2010-09-21
The reason why this question is out there is because all the witnesses around the Pentagon who saw the plane saw it on the North side of the then Citgo gas station, now Navy Exchange.
The plane on the north side does not cause the damage path as proposed but the Gov't. What that means is the plane fly over the Pentagon. A plane on the north side cannot cause the damage path of light poles and generator and path through the building.
They couldn't get the plane to fly exactly where they needed it to. It was close, but not close enough. So that is why you'll have all the "detractors" saying the witnesses are lying or were mistaken.
They cannot deny the triangulated position of the plane. Two Pentagon Police at the Citgo see it fly by north of them, thus north of the station. The four Arlington National cemetery workers see it fly by south of their position and Sean Boger working in the Pentagon heli-port tower sees it fly right at him.
It's pretty simple. If the plane was not on the south side it cannot cause south side damage at all. That means only one option is left over. The plane flew over the building.
Ask me about Keith Wheelhouse. He makes the story all the more juicy.
Please watch
EDIT for late night spelling /EDIT
2 KingsX 2010-09-21
What about Keith Wheelhouse?
3 bittermanscolon 2010-09-21
He pushed a story that ran in some local news papers. He described a plane that was able to "shadow" AA77 as if it was guiding it into the Pentagon only to turn away at the last moment and fly away.
Its meant to muddy the waters and manipulate two groups of people.
The first group would be anyone who is skeptical about the event. It would put a wrench into anyone thinking about how it happened. Who would shadow AA77 into the building?? Who, what, where and why Etc. etc. Just another conspiracy theory. This is how they undermine our process. Toss up crazy shit and some people do jump on it and blow it out of proportion. Hitler said, the greater the lie, the more people will believe it right? Exactly like the missile theory.
The second group would be anyone who actually saw the plane flying over the building and away. They needed to fuck with them, as well as ensure that the flyover theory sounds like BS because....the C-130 was in the air too right? Those stupid people just saw the C-130 that O'Brien flew! Sheesh.....what a bunch of idiot conspiracy theorists!
Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien flying a C-130 was ordered into the air from Andrews AFB which is only a paltry 10 miles from the Pentagon. They needed some cover for the Operation. They needed something else. O'Brien flew north out of Andrews, turning west over the Washington mall. Way north of the Pentagon.
The point is, O'Brien was no where near the Pentagon until loooong after the explosion at the Pentagon. There is video on youtube that shows this. I'll try to link to a pic or video later if found.
Anyway, the point is the shadowing of AA77 could not have happened.
1) O'Brien's story is totally different than that of a shadowing event. His flight path is documented and on radar. Can't be denied.
2) The C-130 is a 4 engine turbo prop, no possible way it was able to keep up to a jet liner like a 757.
So, long story short......the critical detail to think about and that just adds to the whole bullshit around 9/11 is, why would this story even exist? Why and how could it happen? It's definitely not possible.
It simply shows how far they have gone in order to confuse things and to put people off their tracks. Besides WTC7, I think the Pentagon flyover is one of the most damning bits to the OT. It is very simple, but it has been very hard to understand because or reoccurring BS about missiles impacts or that global hawk BS.
Look how hard they work on your guys. You have to realize how hard they are working to keep you ignorant. They pour unknown amounts of money into the operation and then who knows how much to keep it confusing and just out of reach. How can people see what is going on with those crazy conspiracy theorists and their crazy theories right? We're the easy scapegoat right now.
It's coming to an end though. We have them, and they know it. It is only a matter of time. People need to push hard and talk to people. It's only your life and your future. They are breaking ALL the rules in order to control you. They don't live by the rules you and I do in life. They will do anything to control and manipulate.
The sooner we all realize this, the sooner we will all stand up and ensure it cannot happen again. Remove them by any means, preferably non-violently. We have to be better than they are. They use caveman tactics, we have to be smarter.
OK, that turned out to be a long one. Thanks.
4 Johnny_Cash 2010-09-21
EYEWITNESSES TO AIRLINER IMPACT AT PENTAGON
2 naoptovke 2010-09-21
So eyewitnesses who saw an airliner at the Pentagon are credible, but eyewitnesses who heard (and saw) explosions in all three towers that fell were confused or something?
There seems to be some inconsistency here...
2 Rupp 2010-09-21
Take what you just said and turn it around. If you swear by what people said at the WTC, how can you say the people who saw the plane hit the pentagon are lying?
0 naoptovke 2010-09-21
I can't, but that's my point. Eventually you still have to take someone's word for it.
2 Rupp 2010-09-21
Yeah but if you take someone's word then you discredit the other persons. Real head scratcher at times. Thanks for understanding what I meant.
1 jcm267 2010-09-21
People saw an airplane. What do you think they saw? Holograms? The "explosions" that people heard in the WTC can be caused by a number of things. There's a huge difference here. I highly recommend you explore the links that I have begun accumulating here
3 Aff3ct 2010-09-21
They "saw" and in addition to what they "saw" we have clear videos to back this up. Including the traffic cam that caught everything.
Now these videos will NEVER be released to the public. Please explain to us why that is.
3 Aff3ct 2010-09-21
This is one of the most compelling reasons why. We are told officially that it's for "national security."
Evidence of how we were attacked on 9/11 does not affect national security. If you have the burden of proof, provide. Show us it happened as you say it did. Prove to us you are correct.
2 [deleted] 2010-09-21
for national security....clearly....
3 finallymadeanaccount 2010-09-21
'National Security.' (The 'quotes' are important.)
FTFY.
2 midir 2010-09-21
Because they were released. Google for flight77-1.mpg and flight77-2.mpg.
Edit: These are them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xX7aD9zgE4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaPoD_7TmNc
They're not robustly convincing but it's incorrect to say they didn't release this.
3 kimaaze 2010-09-21
Those are more like still images than an actual video. What I find hard to believe is the fact that the Pentagon has a worse security system than I do on my own house. It's totally crazy to believe that the Pentagon's security cameras are that shitty. That's just inconceivable. Not to mention, there were hundreds of recordings that were confiscated the day of 9/11 from businesses all around the impact area. Where are they at?
1 Eddie_Hitler 2010-09-21
I'd wager they've been taken away because
a) it's too harrowing to watch b) they don't want them used as propaganda overseas (if they showed it on Iranian TV for example)
Mind you, you could say the same about the NYC footage from the same day and how public and widely available that is so I'm not really sure or convinced.
3 Aff3ct 2010-09-21
The most heavily video taped government building, and they release spotty videos like this as "proof"
We are not that foolish.
2 [deleted] 2010-09-21
Well maybe I should get out my FOIA form and see what happens. :P
1 Aff3ct 2010-09-21
You will get yourself one of these:
http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/foia-july-2008.jpg
2 s4gres 2010-09-21
its on a need to know basis, and YOU DONT NEED TO KNOW!!!!
2 netpuppet 2010-09-21
There has never been one part of a plane with a serial number that can be traced to Flight 77 EVER recovered from the pentagon
1 mainsworth 2010-09-21
Why would they not just fly a plane into it? If it is a conspiracy it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't fly a commercial jet liner into it. It's not like they couldn't. Ya'll believe they capably flew airliners into the WTCs, so why wouldn't they just do the same to the Pentagon? Why leave that giant hole? Why risk people seeing something other than a commercial jetliner plowing into the building? And if it wasn't a jetliner, where oh where did that plane go?
Oh, cause it was a jet liner and it wasn't a conspiracy.
1 Aff3ct 2010-09-21
Because, as you've found with planning, (a-la Building 7) shit often doesn't go according to plan.
I don't think our government as a whole did this. Just one nation that depends on us.
1 Giablo 2010-09-21
perhaps the vast majority of the public couldnt handle the truth because it would cause them to (maybe) rethink verything the government has been telling them all thier lives.
1 tttt0tttt 2010-09-21
Damn, there are a lot of nutters on this subject, so many that it makes me suspect they are being pumped by deliberate disinformation.
There are enough grounds to believe there is information on 9/11 being withheld by government agencies, that there is no need to stray into crackpot theories that something other than planes were responsible for the Pentagon and Twin Towers disasters. Wasting time on such nutty theories merely takes focus away from the role of Israel in failing to inform the US about the impending terrorist action, which, yes, may have had a Mossad component to it.
0 tupidflorapope 2010-09-21
The overwhelming evidence supports the official story that a plane hit the pentagon. The few left who still cling to a conspiracy regarding a missile or otherwise "not a plane" do so only due to ignorance. They dismiss all photographic, eyewitness, and first responder testimony. They want a video confirming their theory, but they would hate to actually see a video of a plane hitting the pentagon, because it unravels their entire theory surrounding the controlling party that pulled it off. One would think that 9 years ought to be enough for anyone to come to a reasonable conclusion regarding those events due to the high amount of scrutiny the "official story" has been put under. But no, after 9 years, still reaching for desperate straws.
Good luck on your blind searches all.
-2 jimmiejaz 2010-09-21
Because all the cameras where running Windows and crashed.
rimshot
/too soon?
1 BobOki 2010-09-21
It is NEVER too soon to bash windows ;P
-4 [deleted] 2010-09-21
Because if the media got hold of it they'd play it over and over and over it would just be horred... ah.....
EDIT, just seen I missed an 'n'. Should have read 'horrend...' (horrendus). Looks like I just misspelt horrid
7 bittermanscolon 2010-09-21
That's not the real reason. They confiscated 86 or more videos. You'd think they would want to put all of this to rest. Right?
If they had solid video evidence showing the plane hitting the building, they would show it for sure. They need the war to continue. They need the support.
Yet they hide the videos that would confirm what they say? You believe them when they say, the plane hit the building......but deny you the videos? The Pentagon is likely one of the most secure buildings, and that means cameras. They can't even show you their own evidence.
Still believe them? C'mon.....
3 [deleted] 2010-09-21
My comment was tounge in cheek, I was taking the piss.
I was pointing out that there is no reason whatsoever they shouldn't release the footage, which basically means there's something wrong with it, ie it doesn't show a plan hitting the Pentagon.
EDIT: My fault, typo in post above, see edit
2 asdfafdafa 2010-09-21
what if they had a video showing a wall exploding and no plane flying into it? would they show it then? of course not. that is why there are no videos.
0 TheRealHortnon 2010-09-21
All of what? A couple crazies on the internet? $5 says they don't even know who you are
What war? The one winding down in Iraq causing massive budget cuts in the DoD?
2 [deleted] 2010-09-21
what war? The one in Afghanistan. The one that was started in response to 9-11. The one in Iraq was about "WMD's". What about the one that looks like it is going to happen in Iran? I think you are being naive about the power of the military industrial complex in this country.
1 TheRealHortnon 2010-09-21
The one that's actually relatively cheap compared to what a "real" war would be?
And what war in Iran?
2 [deleted] 2010-09-21
I guess you didn't see the "looks like it is going to happen" part of the war in Iran. As for relatively cheap, I guess almost 10 years of soldiers being away from families for long periods of time, countless civilians getting killed by both our drones and Taliban rockets and bombs, the 2090 reported coalition dead, and who the ,knows how many, Muslims that have been radicalized from our occupation, is 'relatively cheap' by your standards.
1 TheRealHortnon 2010-09-21
So wait, I thought we were talking about the so-called "military industrial complex"? Do you mind not randomly changing the subject? Or are you trying to play off an emotional argument...?
2 [deleted] 2010-09-21
I think the wars are about the military industrial complex. So I dont think its "randomly changing subject" applies. As for an emotional argement, any talk about wars where people are dying, is inherently emotional. I think you should put down the crack pipe.
1 [deleted] 2010-09-21
Actually his mind would probably open a little more if he hit the crack pipe.
-4 lightspeed23 2010-09-21
They don't release the videos because:
a) The majority of the population believe their story, so there is no point.
b) The videos are all 'classified' since they depict the Pentagon, and so the order to release those videos would have to come from very high up and the bureaucracy would first of all have to review all the videos and de-classify them, this would cost time and money.
c) The people high up don't care about a few loony conspiracy theorists.
d) Even if they were released, those loony conspiracy theorists wouldn't believe them anyway and just claim they were 'shopped (like the NASA Moonlandings etc).
3 Aff3ct 2010-09-21
They retain the burden of proof. We're at nearly 50% that believe it didn't occur as the 9/11 commission said.
Hell, the 9/11 commission saw the failures themselves. But you would rather believe the lies than the truth.
-8 redspin 2010-09-21
Do you have a Ph.D. in engineering and use Mac OS X due to its BSD Unix core?
1 TheRealHortnon 2010-09-21
I like how you try to say pic3 came from the same place even though it's clearly not
8 BobOki 2010-09-21
I see no mention of the engine they found not belonging to that plane, pictures of further in where there was no plane wreckage, no wings ever found which were "sheered off", no damage shown to the lawn yet the plane hit low enough to where the bottom of the plane would have been 3-4 feet into the earth to hit so low, or why the wing that got hit was magically abandoned and "under construction." If you are going to conspiracy theorize, you need to bring it much harder than just some structural pics ;P
2 TheRealHortnon 2010-09-21
Oh so it's not from where the plane impacted and was on fire? Gee sounds exactly like what I just said.
Picture makes a better argument for their not being even a missile there, since there is no fire damage to ANYTHING there - no scorched walls or anything.
Just because the fire didn't reach that specific spot doesn't mean a plane didn't hit there!
-2 jcm267 2010-09-21
There was a plane at the Pentagon. You're so wrong it's pathetic.