9/11 Video

Black87LSC

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
1
Location
New Hampshire, the FREE state
Ok here goes nothin.....

I havent posted much in the political threads, and I dont pay as much attention as some of you do to what is going on. My friend showed me this video, and I was stunned. I dont know what is fact and what isnt in this video, but I think it should be put out here on LVC if it hasnt already. It is a very long clip, but very interesting and worth watching.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848
 
Lots of questions, but no real proof of anything. Lots of supposition. Easy to explain lots of stuff in that video. Like the video of bin Laden, supposedly doing things right-handed. That could easily have been mirrored.

One other thing: You'd think, with all the effort that they put into discrediting and bashing the Bush administration, that ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, or the NYT would have at least mentioned this, let alone jumped all over it. Yet they give it no air time at all. That says a lot to me.
 
The U.S. government does little to quell conspiracy theorists by releasing unclear video. I'm sure there is better video than was just released through Judicial Watch. Anyone looking at the Judicial Watch video with an objective viewpoint would not be able to decisively conclude the Pentagon was struck by an aircraft, much less a commercial airliner.

If a missile struck the Pentagon one of the basic elements to prove existence of a conspiracy would be that the commercial aircraft in question (American Airlines, Flight 77) was fictitious and was therefore not lost on 9/11. I found a web site claiming that Flight 77 did not exist; however, USA Today has a website devoted to the individuals that were lost on Flight 77. So, apparently, Flight 77 did exist, or USA Today is part of the alleged conspiracy.
 
now what about the planes that struck the towers?were they filled with passangers or not?
 
I live only a few miles from the Pentagon and on 9/11 my wife worked for Congress and was on the hill that day. I will never forget get sitting in gridlock traffic, with no Cell signal, and watching F-16s scream above the highway so close I could almost see the pilots faces and wondering if my wife was alive.

Even from the moment the first incident there have been and will always be conspiracy theories. Some might, one day, pan out to truth, most will remain in the gray area.

I doubt any of us will ever forget the moment we heard or saw, for the first time, what was happening that day. Just don't forget.

Whether we knew or didn't does not matter to me, it is what we do from here to prevent it from happening again.
 
fossten said:
Like the video of bin Laden, supposedly doing things right-handed. That could easily have been mirrored.

Wow that took a long time for me to download and watch...sorry

The bit about the Bin Laden right handed faux pas: The video is not mirrored. If you'll notice in the foreground there is a man eating...he picks up and places food in his mouth with what is his right hand. If the video had been mirrored, the man would have to have been eating with his left hand and thus have been breaking a very strict islamic taboo.
 
raVeneyes said:
Wow that took a long time for me to download and watch...sorry

The bit about the Bin Laden right handed faux pas: The video is not mirrored. If you'll notice in the foreground there is a man eating...he picks up and places food in his mouth with what is his right hand. If the video had been mirrored, the man would have to have been eating with his left hand and thus have been breaking a very strict islamic taboo.

So is wearing a ring, but he obviously broke that taboo! You can't have it both ways.
 
Either way you look at it I still want to know WHY the windows and ALL areas of the Pentagon were in TACT!

No wing or upright damage? Engine damage? Something?

I totally don't buy it was an Airliner and I know it wasn't. It's a physical impossibility. Say whatever you want but again just one thing sinks the entire Airliner load of Government lie bull$hit. Theres ONE SMALL HOLE and NOTHING ELSE. Thats enough for me.
 
ONEBADMK8 said:
Either way you look at it I still want to know WHY the windows and ALL areas of the Pentagon were in TACT!

No wing or upright damage? Engine damage? Something?

I totally don't buy it was an Airliner and I know it wasn't. It's a physical impossibility. Say whatever you want but again just one thing sinks the entire Airliner load of Government lie bull$hit. Theres ONE SMALL HOLE and NOTHING ELSE. Thats enough for me.



:I there is no wing span damage. even the the planes at the WTC made an imprint of a plane if you look at the videos be it from the link posted or any news clip you will see the what seems to be damage caused and left from the wings
 
ONEBADMK8 said:
Either way you look at it I still want to know WHY the windows and ALL areas of the Pentagon were in TACT!

No wing or upright damage? Engine damage? Something?

I totally don't buy it was an Airliner and I know it wasn't. It's a physical impossibility. Say whatever you want but again just one thing sinks the entire Airliner load of Government lie bull$hit. Theres ONE SMALL HOLE and NOTHING ELSE. Thats enough for me.

My thoughts exactly... Most of the other things in that video can be argued, but the Pentagon crash is plain BS. It's clear that NO PLANE hit that building.
 
fossten said:
So is wearing a ring, but he obviously broke that taboo! You can't have it both ways.
Bin Laden was not the one who ate with his right hand in the video clip, watch it again.

What is more likely:

1) Two separate people broke a big taboo, all while being filmed backwards...

2) One person was a bad actor and forgot that he was supposed to be left handed, or was a body man for Osama

Further proof that the film is not flopped is that the tail of the turban is over the proper shoulder.
 
I don't suppose any of you have ever been on a crash detail for a high speed aircraft impact? I have been on three in my career. One F-15E crash at Mountain Home AFB. There was nothing bigger than a dime left. Another was a C-130 crash in south central Idaho. We found a few pieces about the size of a football but not much. Yet another was an F-16C at Luke AFB. Once again...nothing left...nothing.

The simple fact is that the two aircraft that hit the towers hit glass and lightweight metal. It was easy for it to make an imprint. The aircraft that hit the Pentagon was fighting a losing battle against stone and steel. It simply came apart. As for the windows...they were Lexan...not glass. Lexan doesn't break.

So quit fishing for reasons to hate big bad America. The rhetoric is getting quite tiresome.
 
I'm not about to sit through another one of these crazy, misleading conspiracy theory movies. But- the small hole that these nuts usually report, that was made by the landing gear. Next to it is a seventy plus foot wide hole, that's from the body of the plane.

This debate is ridiculous. And these film makers are so misleading it's offensive. All of them cry conspiracy, but none can give a plausible scenario. Where did the body parts found in the wreckage come from?

If you really are interested in this, just do a little research. Each of the stupid, misleading points these nuts state can be addressed specifically.

I still can't understand the purpose of these silly conspiracies. Are people just hiding from the truth- that a population of motivated fanatics will do anything to kill us, and it's not that hard to do?
 
FreeFaller said:
I don't suppose any of you have ever been on a crash detail for a high speed aircraft impact? I have been on three in my career. One F-15E crash at Mountain Home AFB. There was nothing bigger than a dime left. Another was a C-130 crash in south central Idaho. We found a few pieces about the size of a football but not much. Yet another was an F-16C at Luke AFB. Once again...nothing left...nothing.

The simple fact is that the two aircraft that hit the towers hit glass and lightweight metal. It was easy for it to make an imprint. The aircraft that hit the Pentagon was fighting a losing battle against stone and steel. It simply came apart. As for the windows...they were Lexan...not glass. Lexan doesn't break.

So quit fishing for reasons to hate big bad America. The rhetoric is getting quite tiresome.

Ok not to sound like a conspiracy nut or anything but all the planes you talked about are made of different materials of that what a commercial plane is made of also carry a different type of fuel if I’m not mistaken. thus giving you a different type of explosion and it still does not explain how landing gear would go through so many layer of the pentagon.

What would be the problem with releasing the rest of the footage taken from the other surrounding cams unless they would try to hide the fact that maybe they breeched more than commercial equipment and more like federal/armed forces equipment which would really show how weak we really were back then as far as security of our bases. Like when this kid got in to spay paint AIR FORCE ONE. That would be like a slap in the face if that was what happened.
 
All responses cut and paste from Popular Mechanics.

ONEBADMK8 said:
Either way you look at it I still want to know WHY the windows and ALL areas of the Pentagon were in TACT!

Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

ONEBADMK8 said:
No wing or upright damage? Engine damage? Something?

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

ONEBADMK8 said:
I totally don't buy it was an Airliner and I know it wasn't. It's a physical impossibility. Say whatever you want but again just one thing sinks the entire Airliner load of Government lie bull$hit. Theres ONE SMALL HOLE and NOTHING ELSE. Thats enough for me.
When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
 
JoeyGood said:
Ok not to sound like a conspiracy nut or anything but all the planes you talked about are made of different materials of that what a commercial plane is made of also carry a different type of fuel if I’m not mistaken. thus giving you a different type of explosion and it still does not explain how landing gear would go through so many layer of the pentagon.

You are mistaken. The planes are all made of the same materials. The fuel i very similar.

What would be the problem with releasing the rest of the footage taken from the other surrounding cams unless they would try to hide the fact that maybe they breeched more than commercial equipment and more like federal/armed forces equipment which would really show how weak we really were back then as far as security of our bases.

Because those vids may contain the faces of government agents as wel as terrorists involved in the Pentagon attack.

Like when this kid got in to spay paint AIR FORCE ONE. That would be like a slap in the face if that was what happened.

Mark Ecko's video of spray painting AF1 is a fake. He admits it, and several workers at San Bernadino came forward that they were hired to paint a 747 to look like AF1.
 
Again, where are Flight 77’s passengers? Are they alive and part of a big cover-up too? I mean, come on, all the video and seemingly suspicious circumstances can’t explain away the deaths of 58 passengers. Unless the conspiracy theorists can prove that just one (1) passenger on the list of 58 is still alive then all of the conspiracy theories and videos amount to nothing. Those 58 passengers can’t all fit in an F-16 or a commuter jet, or ride on a cruise missile.
 
ONEBADMK8 said:
Either way you look at it I still want to know WHY the windows and ALL areas of the Pentagon were in TACT!

That's several inches thick armoured glass. Even the windows that blew clear out of their panes were intact.

No wing or upright damage? Engine damage? Something?

f6a79f72.gif


I totally don't buy it was an Airliner and I know it wasn't. It's a physical impossibility. Say whatever you want but again just one thing sinks the entire Airliner load of Government lie bull$hit. Theres ONE SMALL HOLE and NOTHING ELSE. Thats enough for me.

Seems like it's the right size to me:

e7f4f6d0.gif


More than a hole too:

7a9b955c.gif


210a4aa4.gif

634f84a0.gif



7607ed5a.gif


fcd5d1bb.gif



745842c6.gif


a6e4a31c.gif


a119fec9.gif


be3d72db.gif
 
Dominus said:
These two images are ones even I have a problem with.

The first, a bearing race from the rotor blades of a turbofan engine, is much too small for any of the turbofans installed on the plane that purportedly crashed in to the building. Additionally, there could not have been any other jet engines at the scene already to account for the rogue part. That part is clearly only about 1.5-2.5 ft in diameter (seen by being placed so closely to a man's leg...you measure your own, but unless you're stumpy or in the NBA, the average is about 24 inches from foot bottom to knee). On all the engines installed on the plane, that part is at least 3 feet in diameter, and experts from all the engine manufacturers (Honneywell, Prat & Whitney, and Rolls Royce) have stated that is not part of one of their engines.

The second, a jet engine diffuser case, does not have specific identifying marks of a Rolls Royce jet engine.

By the way, the best the debunk sites can come up with is that the first is the image of a high pressure compressor plate, which looks nothing like the photo in question. The high pressure compressor plates are mounted one to another, and would not separate with a piece of shaft stuck out of one of them. And the second image is said to be a picture of what the diffuser case should look like, but is only compared on the site with inaccurate non-technical diagrams, not the blueprint diagrams the conspiracy kids are comparing the photo with.
 
Calabrio said:
"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

Some apparently didn't

brokenwindows.jpg
 
Dominus said:
You are mistaken. The planes are all made of the same materials. The fuel i very similar.

No sir they are not made the same, the material is different and lean more towards armor plating. The fuel is similar but not the same because thrusters of an F-16 burn different than a turbine.


Dominus said:
Because those vids may contain the faces of government agents as wel as terrorists involved in the Pentagon attack.

At the range that the highway cam, gas station cam, and the hotel cam are much further away from the Pentagon then the video of the one released so I doubt you can even see anyone’s face from there

Dominus said:
Mark Ecko's video of spray painting AF1 is a fake. He admits it, and several workers at San Bernadino came forward that they were hired to paint a 747 to look like AF1.

It’s amazing how people change their stories once big brother gets involved. I’m sure once the video hit the net or other places he and the others were paid a visit from the government and given an ultimatum just like how so many others changed their story about other facts regarding 9/11

SORRY TO SAY BUT THINGS JUST DON"T ADD UP! And everyone has something to say to contradict each other. One more note if the government can relocate witnesses and give them different identities then what makes everyone think they can't make up people's names and such to make it look like there were people on the planes if they weren't. so when I or other people start to point things out they call us conspiracy theorists when we just simply have question that would need further answers than just a general answer to quiet down the press . I love this country and would do anything to protect it but don’t take us for idiots or simple minded.
 
JoeyGood said:
No sir they are not made the same, the material is different and lean more towards armor plating. The fuel is similar but not the same because thrusters of an F-16 burn different than a turbine.

USAF aircraft and civialian turbine aircraft use the same fuel...JP-8 (a mixture of diesel fuel and kerosene). It burns the same cause it is the same. Now, the primary metal in an F-16, F-15, C-130, KC-135, C-5, C-141 etc is aluminum. The primary metal in 757's as well as all other types of commercial passenger aircraft is...ready for it...ALUMINUM.



JoeyGood said:
It’s amazing how people change their stories once big brother gets involved. I’m sure once the video hit the net or other places he and the others were paid a visit from the government and given an ultimatum just like how so many others changed their story about other facts regarding 9/11

If you're referring to the Marc Ecko incident. Well, I have personally provided security at three Air Force Bases. I have stood watch over many aircraft to include the VC-25 Known as Air Force One and the C-32A Known as Air Force Two both of which had personnel on board at ALL times. It is a priority one asset in Security Forces (MP) lingo. Therefore there is a two man team walking around the airplane at all times. Not to mention camera's, mobile patrols, Military Working Dog units, Secret Service agents, etc. So feel free to come on down to your local Air Force Base or civilian airport when AF1 is in town. Walk your butt on the flight line and smash your face into the asphalt about twenty times...save us the work before we lock you in a room without a view.

Oh and before you question me I should tell you this. I have over 11 years experience in the USAF. I have 10 years experience in aircraft maintenance, 6 years experience in Global Air Mobility Operations to include Mobile Command and Control, and 8 years experience in Force Protection. Now, I ask you Sir...from where do you gather your vast experience?

SORRY TO SAY BUT THINGS JUST DON"T ADD UP! And everyone blah, blah, blah, blah......
 
raVeneyes said:
Some apparently didn't

Your statement and photo would better refute Geno's statement rather than Calabrio's.

OOPS! Or should I say, DEE DEE DEE!!!

ONEBADMK8 said:
Either way you look at it I still want to know WHY the windows and ALL areas of the Pentagon were in TACT!

You conspiracy hawks are losing ground and contradicting each other. This is really amusing.
 

Members online

Back
Top