Originally posted by Koala MeatPieFirst of all pause the second video down 24 seconds in to it, you can make out the nose of a plane/ what looks like to me a small passanger plane before the explosion. And if cops had a response time of 3 minutes or less the world would be a much better place.
How does an extra 3 minutes (spread before and after) Proove anythign?Notice how there is Almost no debri? Like, justbits of scrap metal in the first vid, nothing else.
Alos note the responce time. A "plane" just freaking crashed in the damned Pentagon! No cop cars or anything.
That's not the nose of a small passenger plane. Thast's the front end of a missle. And beyond that, be it a small passenger plane or a jumbo jwt, there would still be wrefckage. Not to mention that a small passenger plane would penetrate the fifth ring, leaving only small holes in the last few. No, this was a missle.
Those cunning bastards!
Wreckage be damned, are you people nuts? Where was the wreckage of the planes that hit the Trade centre? Vapourised, obviously!
Besides which, you CAN see some plane wreckage in other photos of the scene at the time. Not much- enough to be consistent with, say, a small jet plane slamming into a building at high speed.
There is nothing at all suspicious about the wreckage.
And hit the fifth ring???!! Do you know how well armoured that side of the Pentagon was? Not to mention that the plane actually hit the ground just in front of the Pentagon first. It damaged all five rings; what more do you want?
We've all heard the names of the passengers aboard the WTC planes and the Pennsylvania plane but what about the Pentagon plane? Does anyone know anyone who was on it? I remember listening to the radio at work on 9/11 and they quickly denied the pentagon had been hit and then retracted their
statement. I'm not a conspiracy buff by any means but there's something fishy going on here.
And KMP... are you saying that the cops didn't bother to turn up BECAUSE it wasn't a plane?
It makes absolutely no sense. Something blows up the side of the Pentagon, the police aren't going to care what it is; they are not going to show up only if it is a plane.. Whatever the reason, the cops got there when they did.
As it is, they were rather more interested in getting the firefighters there first.
doctor evil: yes, because we have "laser beams" which will shoot down any missile.
trivialise the theory all you wish. laugh at it. whatever.
all i know is that it looks like a missile, impacted like a missile, and all footage besides those two clips which were always available were confiscated and never released. what have they to hide? or perhaps the government feels we cant handle the trauma of seeing it? yet we can all see the planes impact the wtc from every concievable angle. but for some reason our tender eyes and hearts just cant deal with seeing the pentagon attack.
logical question: why are they still hiding the videos? ignore the rest of my post if you must, but answer me that one question.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It didn't impact like a missile. What on earth makes you say that?I don't give a damn why they are not releasing them. The concept is too preposterous to entertain without evidence.
the evidence of possible conspiracy is in their hiding of the footage. if you cant see that then what more do we have to discuss?
Originally posted by BackFire
"It's a missile because they're hiding footage."Makes perfect sense now, I can't believe more people don't blindly accept this. There couldn't possibly be more reasons for hiding the footage other than the object being a missile. Well, I'm convinced.
dont mix my own admitted speculation with suspicion that there is a truth being covered up. i mean, its cute and all, the way you put it, and made me chuckle a bit, but a useless response none the less.
That is completely retarded logic. Whatever the reason for not releasing the footage, the fact that the footage is not released does not change anything in the slightest. Everything we have indicates that the plane hit it- from the fact that Flight 77 sure as hell went somewhere, to the fact that there was plane wreckage around, along with burning aviation fuel, and the fact that people saw the damn plane!
What cameras AREN'T showing isn't proof of anything at all.
There is no evidence. As a standard of evidence, saying some footage is not available is a pile of crap that would be kicked out of a court of law in an instant.
Originally posted by PVS
doctor evil: yes, because we have "laser beams" which will shoot down any missile.trivialise the theory all you wish. laugh at it. whatever.
all i know is that it looks like a missile, impacted like a missile, and all footage besides those two clips which were always available were confiscated and never released. what have they to hide? or perhaps the government feels we cant handle the trauma of seeing it? yet we can all see the planes impact the wtc from every concievable angle. but for some reason our tender eyes and hearts just cant deal with seeing the pentagon attack.logical question: why are they still hiding the videos? ignore the rest of my post if you must, but answer me that one question.
The question I'd like to answered, is the videos, (which you are right, have always been available) not one of them show a JUMBO JET hitting the building. I believe the official story is that flight 77..a JUMBO JET...hit the pentagon. And you can't tell me that if a Jumbo Jet hit the pentagon....which isn't a 100 story tall skyscrapper that swallowed those two planes...there wouldn't be visible wreckage all over the groud. And if this tiny JUMBO jet bounced off the groud, then there would be damage to the lawn...and there isn't.
It's a 757, not an enormous King Kong plane.
The camera frames are too slow to capture the plane before impact, is all.
And yes, I am telling you there would be very little wreckage. You are simply incredibly wrong to think there would be. It got vapourised, aside from those bits that got flung backwards on initial impact. Those bits are actually visible in photographs at the time.
And... err... there WAS damage at the point where it impacted.
Originally posted by The Omega
Ok, let's say it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.
Who fired it? From where? And for WHAT reason??
ok fine, what made me suspicious of a coverup:
"why are they hiding the footage?"
"why are no passengers killed aboard this supposed airliner identified?"
"why is the whole event just a black whole in the overly extensive media coverage of 9/11"
this is why i say that i believe a truth is being covered up.
-------------- THICK LINE --------------
now for my speculation: a missile attack.
the reason i feel that a missile attack would be covered up is to
prevent panic. even after we were attacked, we still feel invulnerable to
any type of attack not involving hijacking. but to know that we were actually hit by a missile would beg the question "whats preventing them from firing another with a tactical nuclear warhead? panic. thats the only reason i would see for a cover up.