9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...

The explosion is not fully captured.

cobb wrote: Yes, Tony, but look at the image in the original. Don't you see that the white blur is too small to be a commercial airliner. Plus, you see in the explosion how many frames per second were taken by the camera. Where are the missing frames? Do these clearly show a missile impacting the Pentagon?

There are no missing frames. Whatever the technical term for the type of CCTV used it wasnt up to capturing an object moving at over 500 mph.

Yes, Tony, but look at the image in the original. Don't you see that the white blur is too small to be a commercial airliner. Plus, you see in the explosion how many frames per second were taken by the camera. Where are the missing frames? Do these clearly show a missile impacting the Pentagon?

Here's an excellent reconstruction of what we should have seen on the released video if the official story was true.

Please note, this is not actual footage, but a well made version of what you should have seen. So what was the tiny white streak on the offical released video?
    http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/13233/What_the_Pentagon_Video_Should_Have_Shown

Edited by cobb - May 19 2006 at 18:45

Fitzcarraldo wrote: In the interests of informed debate, there is a point-by-point rebuttal of the above-mentioned '911 Loose Change' documentary, posted at the following Web site:   http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc

Peter Rideout wrote: maani wrote: Tony:   That link doesn't work.  Says there is no page there.   Peace.   Aha!   Conspiracy????     Hello, Maani!

Edited by Peter Rideout - May 19 2006 at 14:09

Let me add a little more fuel to the fire.

 

There is an extraordinary video called "Mohammed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus," created by an award-winning investigative journalist in Florida.  Immediately after 9/11, he decided to see if he could get more information on the flight training that the hijackers were supposed to have had.  Here are just some of the interesting facts that he found out:

 

1.  Atta and three of his cronies were trained at two flight schools in Venice, Florida.

2.  Less than three months prior to the beginning of their training, both of these flight schools were purchased by Dutch nationals.

3.  Both of these Dutch nationals either worked for or with the CIA station in The Netherlands.

4.  Both of the flight schools were sold by these Dutch nationals within a few months after 9/11.

5.  Venice has a large community created especially for the families of CIA agents.  At least two of the hijackers were staying at the homes of these families.

6.  During their stay in Venice, Atta and his friends were "living it up" - drinking, smoking, doing cocaine, getting lap dances - all of which are proscribed by Islamic law.  Yet we are told that the hijackers were all "seriously committed radical Islamic fundamentalists!"  If so, they had to know that by doing what they were doing in Florida, they would be forfeiting their "72 virgins in paradise."

 

There is also the fact that someone in the U.S. wired $100,000 to Atta in Germany just before he got here.  And that between 5 and 11 of the hijackers were seen with their families over a year after 9/11.

 

Finally, add one indisputable fact to all this: that on 9/11, the U.S. Government had no clue as to who was responsible for the attacks.  Yet less than 72 hours later, they were able to come up with the names and photographs of "all 19" hijackers - despite the fact that none of their names appeared on the passenger manifests for the hijacked flights (nor was there any indication that they were using aliases)!  (Which begs the question: how, exactly, did they get on board the planes?)  Since we know that the CIA and FBI are direct descendants of the Keystone Kops, this would have had to be an unusually, almost unbelievably productive moment for them.

 

My guess?  Atta, and many if not most or all of the others, were CIA operatives or otherwise working with the CIA.  This would explain why they were training at CIA-owned flight schools in a CIA family town (staying with CIA families), and how they got on the planes without appearing on the passenger manifests - i.e., escorted on by government officials or otherwise "permitted" on via some sort of credentials.  It would also explain the discrepancy between the "19" names and faces shown on 9/14 and the fact that many of them were seen over a year later: they simply chose not to go through with the plan, and left at the last minute; since the government would not have known this, they would have presumed all 19 to have been on the planes, which is why they confidently released the names and photos of "all 19" hijackers.

 

Finally, let's not forget that Osama bin Laden was a CIA-controlled leader of the mahujadeen during the skirmish with the Russians.  And that the U.S. was backing him financially and with arms and materiel.  And that the Bush and bin Laden families have been friends and business partners for at least 15 years (Osama's claimed "ostracization" notwithstanding).

 

In a court of law, individual pieces of "circumstantial" evidence may mean little or nothing.  But when an attorney provides a wealth of "circumstantial evidence" that clearly points to a particular storyline, then the jury may accept that storyline as a legitimate possibility and use it in their deliberations.

 

I believe that all of the above "circumstantial" facts create such a storyline.

 

Peace.

maani wrote: Tony:   That link doesn't work.  Says there is no page there.   Peace.

Edited by Peter Rideout - May 19 2006 at 13:37

Some statements from witnesses who saw the plane that hit The Pentagon:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm


Hmm.


Edited by Tony R - May 19 2006 at 13:58

Bob Greece wrote: ^^^^^   As you know Andy, I agree with most of what you say. Whatever USA does the future of the world's economy lies in China, India and South East Asia. The thing that troubles me is whether could Bush and Chenney could really be so stupid and evil to think that attacking their own country and others could help maintain their economic wealth .... erm .... yes I think they could.   Better to be a cynical b&stard than a money-grabbing murdering b&stard.

I cant help feeling that we've got our balls to the wall now, that there is no alternative to war, if we want to control the oil and natural gas in the world. Of course we can not sell that idea to our electorate, so instead we create or at least exagerate a terrorist threat to justify the wars we wage.

Look at it this way. Briatin will be almost entirely dependant on the ME and Russia for its oil and gas within 20 years. An acceptable situation? Blair is going on about a new generation of nuclear power stations, but the cost is crippling and the opposition is rabid. In the interim, renewable forms of energy will probably not be enough to fill the gap. We MUST get our hands on that oil at whatever cost!!

I'm worried that's where we are right now..