9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...

maani wrote: GeckO:   Re evacuation, that depends.  Remember that the wing of the building which was hit by the plane was undergoing renovations, so there were very few people in that wing at the time to evacuate.  It may well be that evacuation was occurring out of other wings that the c/c camera does not show.  (Though one could ask where the tapes from those cameras are!).  So, no, one wouldn't necessarily see evacuation activities on this particular tape.   Haven't heard about the woman in the car.   You bring up a good point about emergency services, one which I don't think has actually been raised with any rigor: wouldn't the Pentagon have on-site emergency services?  As it was, the first fire department trucks did respond within 2-3 minutes, according to witnesses at the site.  (Though how credible those witnesses are is anyone's guess...).   Cobb:   Thank you for posting that site.  It is one of the main sites for the 9/11 truth movement.  The organization I work most closely with is the New York affiliate, whose site is at:   http://www.ny911truth.org/   Peace.

I'm too tired to go over this myself and not to mention my memory is shot after 18 years since I worked there. But this is the procedure guide that all security personnel like myself had to go by in case you're interested. You need an Adobe for it.


cpol.army.mil/library/emergency/docs/SecEmerg.pdf

If this link doesn't work, just do a google on Pentagon Security.

Ugh...I've watched about half an hour of Loose Change 2, and it's interesting (especially because I love conspiracy theories), but is it REALLY necessary to show all that 9/11 footage? Pictures of the Pentagon wreckage are not so bad, but I really do not need to see the Twin Towers collapsing AGAIN.

Edited by Ghandi 2 - May 19 2006 at 00:58

Geck0 wrote: Here's those two quotes I mentioned: "Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed," Owens said. "The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon. The impact was deafening. The fuselage hit the ground and blew up," Mary Ann Owens - Delaware Online (9/12/01) "Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon," Mary Ann Owens - Local London (9/11/02)

Just to quote myself for a moment...

I believe the above quotes are referring to the main road that the aircraft would have passed over, rather than a car park, so apologies for the misinformation!



The road on the left, by the helipad.  This photograph has been rotated, the original satellite image shows the road to the north.


Edited by Geck0 - May 19 2006 at 02:11

She also saw a lot whilst driving, unless of course she was stationary at the time.

But of course, you are correct, the car would have been at least blown off the road and I doubt she'd have survived, or she'd have at least been injured.

The problem I have, is that Wikipedia is not supposed to show a particular side, but this article (and another one I read), to me, seems to be very judgemental and anti-conspiracy.  Surely it should just lay down the facts?

Oh I was looking at the comments and I saw comments by someone called M@x... coincidence?

Bob Greece wrote: The conspiracy theories don't add up. There are too many inconsistencies. How can the USA have just let the attacks happens AND be involved in controlled explosions of the WTC? Obviously at least some of the conspiracy theorists aren't telling the truth either.

Bob, would you say the 'official story' adds up?
    

Bob Greece wrote: Blacksword wrote: Bob Greece wrote: The conspiracy theories don't add up. There are too many inconsistencies. How can the USA have just let the attacks happens AND be involved in controlled explosions of the WTC? Obviously at least some of the conspiracy theorists aren't telling the truth either. Bob, would you say the 'official story' adds up?        Generally yes. I think if you examine anything in detail you get some inconsistencies. 911 has been examined very thoroughly so obviously some strange things came up.   Having said that, I am not saying that George Bush and his mates have clean hands. They are doing a lot of very dubious things. But I wouldn't think even they would stoop so low as to aid a terrorist attack on their own country.   The attacks were deeply embarassing for USA. They lost a lot more than they gained. You can see that the attacks damaged the USA because they are now building a sky scraper taller than the WTC just to show they won't be beaten.

The official line may yet prove to be right - although I suspect that nothing will ever be 'proven' as such.

I come at this from a different angle. Unpalatable and unbelievable though it may seem, I DO believe that a government could be complicit in terrorist attacks to further their own agendas. Politics is all about power and control, and power will ultimately corrupt at least a number of elements within any political administration; whether it's shagging your secretary, selling arms to rogue states, or dodgy share dealing. Individual politicians may pay a high price for the above, but if the lie is so huge and so unbelievable, then sure enough, no one will ever believe it. That, IN THEORY, makes it inevitable that any government complicit in something this huge is bound to get away with it.

I'm not buying into the idea of remote control planes etc, but you need to look at the world we live in and how the balance of power is shifting economically. There you will find the POSSIBLE motivation for inside complicity in these attacks. We invaded Iraq, on a pretext that later proved to be false. Both MI5 and the CIA have stated on record that they were pressured to 'enhance' their evidence to bolster a case for war. There was no firm evidence of a WMD program in Iraq, and there was also no evidence in Iraqi complicity in the 9/11 attacks - as confirmed by the OFFICIAL 9/11 commission. Strangely though, many people, especially in the US chose to ignore this published reality, and still made the 9/11 Iraq connection. The psychological framework for this pursuasion was already in place. With Saddam overthrown, the US gained control - or ultimately will have full control - of Iraqs Oil. Halliburton, the company Dick Cheney has a major stake in, has done very well out of the re-construction contracts in Iraq also.

Next up is Iran of course. Another oil rich country, which has had a nuclear program in place since the mid 1970's. Why has it suddenly become an issue? Is it to do with the fact that natural resources are said to running low? Is it because Iran is planning to trade its oil in Euros rather than US dollars; a move which do a great deal of economic damage to the US? Maybe. Then, what of China. Another 'Axis of Evil' nation - much to their shock suprise and disgust. Their economy is growing at lightening speed, and it's speculated quite convincingly by many economists that within a century they could be the biggest superpower, with us in the poor house, basically swapping economies. India may not be far behind. IF this is the case, will the west sit back and allow this to happen, or will we take action to maintain the current balance of power in the world?? If so what form does that action take? Wars to gain control of natural resources? Sounds logical to me.

I'm expressing opinions here, Bob. Nothing more. I respect your opinions and that of everyone else here, and I like to think that I'm not insanely paranoid. In the fullness of time I hope I am proved wrong, and that I'm just a cynical b&stard who sees the bad in people before the good.


    

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..


      

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

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