NEW 9 11 VIDEO MISSILE STRIKE PENTAGON Video is it real?

seannash

uprising2 wrote: »

That building has been completely stripped of its face prior to demolition.

Thats not what i asked.

You posted the video and said that there was no light flashes prior to the explosion.

In the video you posted the lights were clearly visible.

Im simply asking if you now accept that you made a mistake.
Thats all.
We all make mistakes but its when someone refuses to acknowlege there mistakes inspite of glaring evidence on the contrary that there viewpoint cant be taken seriously.

You sidestepped it at every opportunity to own up and say you were wrong in this particular instance.

This admission doesnt automatically squash your beliefs but its does show you how blinkered your stance is when you cant admit you made a mistake

The only reaction to this post will be to admit that the video you posted showed light flashes.

seannash

uprising2 wrote: »

''I just cried,'' said Won-Young Kim, the scientist in charge of monitoring quakes in the Northeast, knowing that the sensors were registering more than just the force of falling concrete.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0912FC395C0C718DDDA00894D9404482

Ahem

The two scientists in question made this statement

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers,""That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

But again lets use misquotes as a basis of our evidence.:rolleyes:

meglome

uprising2 wrote: »

Ok then what force has thrown the debris UP and AWAY from the building if all the pressure is downward?

I dunno the huge section of building falling down on top of it might seems the obvious answer.

uprising2 wrote: »

Does the downward pressure travel faster than the pieces of debris falling through the air (ie faster than gravity itself).

Why would it need to do that. It's air pressure, the buildings are 95% air. The air is being forced down on more air which then needs somewhere to go. No mystery.

uprising2 wrote: »

Your post brings up more questions than it answers, the downward force you talk about cannot throw steel many meters away from the collapse, more evidence for explosives.

What size explosion would you think we'd need to toss 30 foot long steel girders away? I don't know the answer to that but I do know it would be incredibly noisy and would be distinctly audible over everything else. But there is no sound of these explosions. So without the sound of these explosives then we're back to the obvious reason, a large section of building falling on the rest of the building.

uprising2 wrote: »

The amount of energy needed to break the beams of steel alone would not show on seismographs.

''I just cried,'' said Won-Young Kim, the scientist in charge of monitoring quakes in the Northeast, knowing that the sensors were registering more than just the force of falling concrete.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0912FC395C0C718DDDA00894D9404482

well seismographs are very sensitive but they don't show explosions. Since you are happy to beleive this guy with the out of context quote. Are you also gonna believe him now that you've seen he absolutely does not think there were explosions.

RGDATA!

uprising2 wrote: »

''I just cried,'' said Won-Young Kim, the scientist in charge of monitoring quakes in the Northeast, knowing that the sensors were registering more than just the force of falling concrete.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0912FC395C0C718DDDA00894D9404482

that's really weak. quote something out of context, put it in bold and bump up the font size.
make it look like he means something completely different than what he really means.
propaganda.
it's obvious what these words mean when put in context, i guess at least you provided a link, but this kind of argument really sucks.

uprising2

Getting back to the Pentagon for a minute..

Pentagon Tracked Deadly Jet but Found No Way to Stop It
By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: September 15, 2001

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — During the hour or so that American Airlines Flight 77 was under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in a command center on the east side of the building were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do.
But despite elaborate plans that link civilian and military efforts to control the nation's airspace in defense of the country, and despite two other jetliners' having already hit the World Trade Center in New York, the fighter planes that scrambled into protective orbits around Washington did not arrive until 15 minutes after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Even if they had been there sooner, it is not clear what they would have done to thwart the attack.
The Federal Aviation Administration has officially refused to discuss its procedures or the sequence of events on Tuesday morning, saying these are part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's inquiry. But controllers in New England knew about 8:20 a.m. that American Airlines Flight 11, bound from Boston to Los Angeles, had probably been hijacked. When the first news report was made at 8:48 a.m. that a plane might have hit the World Trade Center, they knew it was Flight 11.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/15/national/15CONT.html


Scrambling the jets

While the Air Force puts more fighters on alert, questions linger over the FAA's air-control delays

By Stacey Schultz
Posted 9/30/01

Red flag. The longest delay--24 minutes--occurred in the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which took off from Dulles International Airport. That flight, heading west, did two very unusual things. Over Kentucky, at about 8:55 a.m., it began a 180-degree turn. And at 9:00, the plane's transponder was turned off.
Turning off a transponder deprives controllers of critical information about a plane's flight number, speed, and altitude. The plane can be tracked on what's called primary radar--a cruder system. It appears that by 9:10, controllers had a track on Flight 77, now over West Virginia and headed back to Washington. By that time, the first two planes had hit the World Trade Center, the second at 9:03. Still, the FAA didn't notify NORAD about Flight 77 until 9:24. (The FAA had notified NORAD about the two Boston flights more than 40 minutes earlier.) By 9:30, two F-16 fighters from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 120 miles away, were airborne. But the airliner hit the Pentagon at 9:37. The two fighters were still 12 minutes away.
Neither the controllers who handled the airplane nor the FAA would comment on the day's events. "What we did or may not have done is all part of the investigation. It's not something that I can talk about," said FAA spokesman William Shumann. But experts say that an airliner making a 180-degree turn followed by a transponder turnoff should have been a red flag to controllers. "The fact that the transponder went off, they should have picked up on that immediately," said Robert Cauble, a 20-year veteran of Navy air-traffic control. "Everyone should have been on alert about what was going on."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/011008/archive_008671.htm

bonkey

Its worth noting that those two articles are from the immediate aftermath - both from September 2001. In both cases, people make it clear that they can't say much because of the ongoing investigation.

Since then the full and complete timeline has been made available, as well as analysis and explanations for any/all of the delays.

Why is the argument of delay based on incomplete and out-ouf-date information?

Duiske

seannash wrote: »

Just to go back to this.
Because you skimmed through it he is using this report to show why there was a white aircraft spotted in the air after the crash at the pentagon

He then says "might have been a god idea to look at that report" because this explains the "unidentified airplane" that Loose Change says the goverment never explained

But you know the whole skimming over it probably meant that you missed that

Quote:
56:15...."This is what the 9/11 commission report stated:
"Reagan national controllers then vectored an unarmed national guard c130h cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to minnesota, to identify and follow the suspicious aircraft.

"The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower:"looks like that aircraft crashed into the pentagon sir"

"Might not have been a bad idea to read that report, eh, guys?"
Now pardon my ignorance, but what the fukk is that about?

Was there a third plane, because the plane I have seen in photos of what is called the "Unidentified airplane" looks nothing like a C-130H.

National Guard C-130H



"Unidentified airplane" over Washington.



Infact, the unidentified airplane looks pretty similar like this.... an E-4B

GizAGoOfYerGee

Why would the US Governemt allow this to happen?

It´s not like the US colluded with the Brits to overthrow Mossadeq so they could gain control of Iraqi Oil fields. Operation Boot

It´s not like the US blamed Cuba for a Terrorist attack in order to get a pretext for 'justified' War of aggression. Operation Northwoods

Whatever about conspiracy theories, one certain way to take control of the oil fields of Iraq is to allow mass terrorism on American soil - Then you have 300 million people behind you and you can attack the countries that have the resources that you need.

The US is in Afghanistan and Iraq to control their resources.

If you think they are there to "fight terrorism", I would LOVE to hear your reasons for believing so. :rolleyes::pac:

Dude111

I saved the image and opened it in WMP where i turned the brightness WAY UP and i dont know if its real,BUT THAT LOOKS LIKE A MISSILE HEADED TOWARDS THE BLDG!! (Like we have been assuming all along!)

uprising2 wrote:

The senator let slip that his govt are a pack of lying scumbags as this video shows.

Yup and most people here BELIEVE EVERY WORD THEY SAY!! (Which is quite sad)

Overheal

Dude111 wrote: »

I saved the image and opened it in WMP where i turned the brightness WAY UP and i dont know if its real,BUT THAT LOOKS LIKE A MISSILE HEADED TOWARDS THE BLDG!! (Like we have been assuming all along!)

If it is in fact a missile tell me what type of missile.

We have CTs on this forum who can spot the difference between an E-4B and an F-16 and an FA-18 but I haven't really seen much in the way of people identifying what missile had this profile? A BMG-109 Tomohawk is 20ft long and has a <3ft diameter. Simply not large enough to fit the profile: Thats smaller than 2 sedans bumber-to-bumber. A MOAB wasn't even around at that point in time. And even assuming it was it's a Dumb-Drop bomb that needs to be shat out the tail end of a Hercules. A launch of anything bigger (such as an ICBM) would have triggered off states of Nuclear readiness across the globe. So again, what missile?

Sham_Lad

I can put this one to bed.

I was in Washington DC on 11 September attending a conference and staying in a high floor hotel room across the street from the White House. While I was on the phone to my wife in Galway about the jets crashing into the two towers, she heard me say "Oh my god! Here comes one this way."

I watched as the jet was coming in with smoke billowing hard out of the engines as it was flying low over the tree tops. I assumed it was at full throttle and heading towards the White House.

As I was watching it close it, while describing it to my wife, it dropped below my line of sight to the left of my hotel. A couple seconds later, a huge black smoke cloud began rising.

I didn't know it had hit the Pentagon at that time.

It was not a missle, it was a jet. There were more than one smoke trail on either side of the body of the plane indicating more than one engine. I can't recall now if there were two engines or four.

When CNN interviewed me, I said that the plane was a white plane. I found afterwards that it was an American Airlines plane that would have been unpainted metal. I can only assume that it looked white to me due to the sun reflecting off of it.

It didn't take long for the sky to fill with fully armed fighter jets and the nearby rooftops that I could see topped with snipers (Really!).

Son Of A Vidic

Well that was a nice story, but it don't cut it with me. I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but it certainly wasn't an AA plane. No tail section, wing section or fusealge was found outside at the impact site. Are we expected to believe that everything folded nicely in on it's self at impact? Any crash debris found outside on the Pentagon lawn was small enough to be picked up by hand. It probably is the first airplane crash in history were parts of the plane were not sheared off upon impact.

meglome

medicman2009 wrote: »

Well that was a nice story, but it don't cut it with me. I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but it certainly wasn't an AA plane. No tail section, wing section or fusealge was found outside at the impact site. Are we expected to believe that everything folded nicely in on it's self at impact? Any crash debris found outside on the Pentagon lawn was small enough to be picked up by hand. It probably is the first airplane crash in history were parts of the plane were not sheared off upon impact.

So once we ignore the many eyewitness accounts (including the one above), the plane bits strewn around the lawn, the plane parts found inside the building, the body parts which were DNA tested and from the missing passengers, the personal effects from the passengers etc etc. Once we do that it wasn't a plane, right?

How many jets exactly have been rammed intentionally into a reinforced concrete building at high speed?

From a ct site... http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/introduction.html

I almost find it funny that this part of 911 which is very easily proved is still such a big CT. If you can explain all the stuff in the link I'll take your opinion seriously.

Divorce Referendum

medicman2009 wrote: »

Well that was a nice story, but it don't cut it with me. I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but it certainly wasn't an AA plane. No tail section, wing section or fusealge was found outside at the impact site. Are we expected to believe that everything folded nicely in on it's self at impact? Any crash debris found outside on the Pentagon lawn was small enough to be picked up by hand. It probably is the first airplane crash in history were parts of the plane were not sheared off upon impact.

A guy from Ireland telling you it was a plane is some form of evidence from the point of view of a witness report. Yet you have no evidence and just say there should be more debris because well you think so. You dont have another case of a jet being deliberately being flown into a building to compare apart from WTC1 and WTC2. To be honest there would hardly be much crash debris on the lawn as most of it was in the building that the plane hit and that building was on fire.

Pixel8

Man, i cant believe people are still debating the 911 issue... it was obviously an inside job financed by rogue government members with the help of the banks, as its the international bankers who finance ALL wars.

Stop looking at 911 and look at all the other documentaries out there about how we're enslaved an who's doing the enslaving. It's the banks, everything goes back to the banks. They're the only ones with enough money to carry something like this out.

Max Igan sums up the big picture nicely:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3287351200059366862&hl=en#

meglome

Pixel8 wrote: »

Man, i cant believe people are still debating the 911 issue... it was obviously an inside job financed by rogue government members with the help of the banks, as its the international bankers who finance ALL wars.

Stop looking at 911 and look at all the other documentaries out there about how we're enslaved an who's doing the enslaving. It's the banks, everything goes back to the banks. They're the only ones with enough money to carry something like this out.

Max Igan sums up the big picture nicely:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3287351200059366862&hl=en#

Now if only you could prove that to people who don't already assume it to be true.

Pixel8

meglome wrote: »

Now if only you could prove that to people who don't already assume it to be true.

Now if only those people you tell what to watch and research would go out an do what they're told, they would learn the same things.

People are lazy when it comes to their beliefs, and would rather debate their current beliefs with you on boards.ie than go out and learn different information...

Plus, there is a lot of information which needs to be sifted through in order to reach these conclusions. Luckily, the info is out there so its just a matter of time before everyone eventually comes across it... It's taken me over 8 years of research to come to the conclusions ive reached about all of this stuff and im absolutely positive that everyone out there will eventually reach the same conclusions.

seannash

Pixel8 wrote: »

Now if only those people you tell what to watch and research would go out an do what they're told, they would learn the same things.

People are lazy when it comes to their beliefs, and would rather debate their current beliefs with you on boards.ie than go out and learn different information...

Plus, there is a lot of information which needs to be sifted through in order to reach these conclusions. Luckily, the info is out there so its just a matter of time before everyone eventually comes across it... It's taken me over 8 years of research to come to the conclusions ive reached about all of this stuff and im absolutely positive that everyone out there will eventually reach the same conclusions.

I feel ive researched this subject enough so id like to ask you for the best evidence you have that it was an inside job.

Or are you simply saying that it happens how the report says but was financed by america?

Pixel8

I've already said all im going to say about 911 a couple of years ago in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055303560&page=10

there are more important things to be researching these days

try this site, lots of good info: www.theopensource.tv

happy researching

seannash

Pixel8 wrote: »

I've already said all im going to say about 911 a couple of years ago in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055303560&page=10

there are more important things to be researching these days

try this site, lots of good info: www.theopensource.tv

happy researching

Like i said ive researched this far enough to satisfy me that it wasnt an inside job.

I dont want to discuss the video linked because it seems off topic and quite frankly i dont enjoy discussing those sort of endless debates where its just people posting endless amounts of reports and documents which splinter into something else.

Thats why i dont post in the NWO threads and that video seems to be along the same lines of that

Soooo
As i asked could you tell me what you believe happened at the pentagon and the twin towers
Was it a missile or a plane?
The page linked didnt contain your answer.It was more demonstating your belief about the american goverment

meglome

Pixel8 wrote: »

Now if only those people you tell what to watch and research would go out an do what they're told, they would learn the same things.

People are lazy when it comes to their beliefs, and would rather debate their current beliefs with you on boards.ie than go out and learn different information...

Plus, there is a lot of information which needs to be sifted through in order to reach these conclusions. Luckily, the info is out there so its just a matter of time before everyone eventually comes across it... It's taken me over 8 years of research to come to the conclusions ive reached about all of this stuff and im absolutely positive that everyone out there will eventually reach the same conclusions.

You seem to be saying the American Government = Bad, therefore American Government = Guilty. It's possible this is true but we need to use logic and evidence to actually prove it. I see plenty of innuendo and misdirection on 'truth' sites, i see misquoting and misrepresentation too. So I'm choosing to believe neither unless it can be proven to me within reason, which is why I mostly believe the NIST report.