What actually hit the Pentagon: an old stone apparently left unturned

[iks83]

Same with WTA800 where hundreds of wittnesses saw a missile shooting down the plane... nope they all have been declared mad... some mass illusion... move along nothing to see. Whenever wittnesses are being discredited those who discredit them are on the wrong side.

[Kilika]

As difficult as the government is making it, the Pentagon issue doesn't even need the witnesses to prove what happened. Eye-witness testamony has been valid in the courts since there has been questions about a person's actions, but history has shown that witnesses cannot be trusted as much as hard evidence, thus a case is far better off with cold hard facts such as proving part numbers, at least showing what they claim all those camaeras did see even if nothing is shown in said security camera videos, etc. Let's see the official evidence. ALL of it. Yet the government continues to withhold evidence.

Obviously a witness can help, and even close a case, but without solid forensic evidence, it's a hard case to close. We all know that both governments and individuals have ben caught planting evidence at a crime scene, so that's why any evidence needs to be fully exposed and proven to be valid. But wait, this isn't a criminal case. My bad! It's a case of military action, thus they call it terrorism, thus putting the rules of evidence and forensic investigation under a whole different set of rules. While arguably circumstantial, I believe that in itself is evidence of something fishy is going on.

The only reason a military hides stuff is to protect itself from the enemy, which is part of a military's intent of gaining the advantage over the enemy, to take control of a situation. Other than agreed-upon Rules of Engagement, a military has no obligation to tell the truth about anything really, other than maybe the general spending of it's budget. Besides, that kind of stuff a military is better served by operating on a "need to know" basis, for national security reasons of course, and they use that to their advantage, which is exactly what the government I think did on 9/11.

They never intended to make 9/11 a criminal case because of the rule of law, in my opinion. A police action requires them to answer the public and the courts. Civilians have no particular right to info the military has, so it's not something the public can demand through say a FOIA request, because all the military does is claim "national security" reasons and redact the info as desired, thus protecting whatever they want. And if that isn't good enough, the military has it's own propaganda department that purposefully puts out false information, and the government allows it. The government has a vested interest in keeping this whole deal a military matter. Terrorism is not only good for their business, but it serves to cover their illegal activities and agendas as well.

What I think could be done is for a group of citizens to press charges against those that the government claims were involved. I don't know of any law that prevents citizens from pressing charges in a situation like this, regardless of the government's actions. And the charges could be a whole host of crimes that obviously took place that day. And quite frankly, it's not just the "highjackers" that are guilty of crimes, so they aren't the only one's that can be charged. Consider how they offered up on a silver platter the monetary settlement deal. Classic salesman tactic, to get a person to sign something as soon as possible. That's a hard sell close that among others, the insurance industry is notorious for doing. Speaking of insurance, somebody made off with a ton of cash out of the deal. Hmm. Can you say motive?

The government itself has already laid out the basic case and details. All that has been done, more than enough to get a case rolling big time. The big hitch is that while one can press charges, it is up to the government via a given AG to decide whether to actually charge somebody with a crime. It's not like a law suit where basically anybody can sue anybody. In a criminal case, it requires the attorney general to take the case on behalf of a victim, thus the complainant becomes the state.

And in this case, the federal government has interjected itself over the matter, making itself "the decider" of how to handle it. Just like the same mentality that Hollywood projects on the public where a crime happens in a movie or tv show, and the local sherrif is under-manned, and the big bad FBI shows up and takes control of the case, pushing out the local cop. And in these movies and tv shows, they defiantly give the public the finger by having cop show after cop show where the characters brake the law, not to mention repeated violations of HIPPA laws in medical shows.

So they openly admit, and over time with repeated lies(where have we seen that tactic before?), convince the public that government is corrupt, and tell the public deal with it. They present it as "that's just how life is", when in reality that is how they have made it. It doesn't have to be that way for any one individual, yet the public as individuals has allowed the government to decide how it will be. Which in the end is prophecy fulfilled, that governments of the world are corrupt. So the irony is that they are right in a way, it is how life is in the world without God.

Are we seeing a potential conflict? If it went criminal, the state would end up proving it's own guilt! Now we can see why the government isn't cooperating with the public.

[agentbluescreen]

I totally agree that the government propagated "no plane" theory rests partly on discrediting hundreds of witnesses. This is a fact, no doubt. Just as the government propagated "no bombs" theory rests partly on discrediting hundreds of witnesses.

Saying that witness testimony is not credible as a matter of generalization basically denies over 5,000 years of judicial process.

I think it exposes how weak the no planer argument is, but I do agree that it is absolutely necessary to do in order to continue no-planning into la la land.

Then how do you explain the clear perjury and contempt of the law that US government agents committed by criminally doctoring the two Judicial Watch videos ordered released in their true forms by the Courts?

These videos are already proved counterfeits by each other, there is no way two cameras and recorders could have both so conveniently failed to have seen and rendered that same driveway road ramp until "after the supposed 'plane' had conveniently gone by" just to affect the resulting evidence of those two critical seconds alone.

Every other visibly-unobstructed moment of every video produced at that parking booth shows that ramp and horizon path clearly all the time, 24 / 7, every day - save these two for those particular 0:27 or 1:27 seconds ALONE?

Unlike the ones they seek to cover up we are all "witnesses" to this one!

Try and sell me your other new bridge...

[agentbluescreen]

I'm now strongly convinced that we can prove a superimposition of these frames was made over a single doctored background-corner above the pentagon parking lot roadway. On close examination one can even see the superimposition-rectangle line-scan line-flash pixelation remnants even on the youtube copy.

Only four of these phony background photo frames were used generally to produce these two counterfeits. One plain one and four with the darker "tail" shading added and the others with the car trunk sized "plane" cone, smoke and curly smoke frames, then, after the explosion, the videos (Clumsily and foolishly) return to showing the normal view of the whole background.

In doing that, they have hoist themselves with their own petard, Nobody would have any reason to question two videos that showed no road, they could just say 'the cameras never show it" (and move them to do so later if needed) but this proves they criminally altered and counterfeited the videos at exactly that spot.

The 'problem' has to be a lot more than just issues with poles 4 and 5... That very entire corner of both videos is counterfeit.

[agentbluescreen]

The only reason I ever even noticed this myself is because I was researching perspective issues in response to iks83.

I sought to find another further and more precise confirmatory distance-size perspective measurement visually by using the size of the Crown Vic's trunk to compare it with the 'plane' at that parking lot ramps distance from the cameras.  I was just play pausing to seek frames on youtube and then noticed "WTF Happens With the Road?"

Do miniature Boeing 757's flying at the altitude of John Deere tractors also lay roads?

Boeing should add these new, formerly undocumented technical features of their aircraft onto their product pages

[Dig]

Then how do you explain the clear perjury and contempt of the law that US government agents committed by criminally doctoring the two Judicial Watch videos ordered released in their true forms by the Courts?

These videos are already proved counterfeits by each other, there is no way two cameras and recorders could have both so conveniently failed to have seen and rendered that same driveway road ramp until "after the supposed 'plane' had conveniently gone by" just to affect the resulting evidence of those two critical seconds alone.

Every other visibly-unobstructed moment of every video produced at that parking booth shows that ramp and horizon path clearly all the time, 24 / 7, every day - save these two for those particular 0:27 or 1:27 seconds ALONE?

Unlike the ones they seek to cover up we are all "witnesses" to this one!

Try and sell me your other new bridge...

I'm now strongly convinced that we can prove a superimposition of these frames was made over a single doctored background-corner above the pentagon parking lot roadway. On close examination one can even see the superimposition-rectangle line-scan line-flash pixelation remnants even on the youtube copy.

Only four of these phony background photo frames were used generally to produce these two counterfeits. One plain one and four with the darker "tail" shading added and the others with the car trunk sized "plane" cone, smoke and curly smoke frames, then, after the explosion, the videos (Clumsily and foolishly) return to showing the normal view of the whole background.

In doing that, they have hoist themselves with their own petard, Nobody would have any reason to question two videos that showed no road, they could just say 'the cameras never show it" (and move them to do so later if needed) but this proves they criminally altered and counterfeited the videos at exactly that spot.

The 'problem' has to be a lot more than just issues with poles 4 and 5... That very entire corner of both videos is counterfeit.

The only reason I ever even noticed this myself is because I was researching perspective issues in response to iks83.

I sought to find another further and more precise confirmatory distance-size perspective measurement visually by using the size of the Crown Vic's trunk to compare it with the 'plane' at that parking lot ramps distance from the cameras.  I was just play pausing to seek frames on youtube and then noticed "WTF Happens With the Road?"

Do miniature Boeing 757's flying at the altitude of John Deere tractors also lay roads?

Boeing should add these new, formerly undocumented technical features of their aircraft onto their product pages

I am not sure I quite understand. You are saying that because the "doctored" videos show no missile, that it must have been a missile? The "doctored" videos also showed no plane, so by your rules of logic...it must have also been a plane.

You know what...the "doctored" videos also showed no 1,000 foot bronze statue of Evelyn de Rothschild giving a reach around to Henry Kissinger, so again by your rules of logic...it must have also been a 1,000 foot bronze statue of Evelyn de Rothschild giving a reach around to Henry Kissinger.

Try and sell me your 100th new bridge...

[agentbluescreen]

I am not sure I quite understand. You are saying that because the "doctored" videos show no missile, that it must have been a missile? The "doctored" videos also showed no plane, so by your rules of logic...it must have also been a plane.

It's simple. Please don't act so silly, do you ever even listen to Alex Jones? If there was a Boeing 757 there is no possible reason whatsoever to doctor, modify, classify, refuse to release, edit nor hide anything. But what these doctored videos show nonetheless is something that could only have been a missile, because they cannot be showing anything like a plane of such size.

500 mph = 733 feet per second. The horizontal width of the field of view of the Pentagon Guardhouse cameras is approximately 260 feet at a distance over the flightpath that varies from 650 feet (at east) to 472 feet (at west) from the camera. At that distance this means that there must be between 7 and 14 frames (due to half field width in motion) showing in at least a quarter of them (3 to 6 frames) one whole, entire 155 foot long airplane moving by slowly an average of 500 feet away from the camera on any scanned NTSC standard video. The rest would have partial plane images, taken every 33 thousandth of a second.

EXCERPT:
Controversy Surrounding the Pentagon 911 Surveillance Camera Video Footage

The actual NTSC video frame rate is 59.97/2, giving us 29.98 completed frames of video/second. This is why when you look at something off to the side of a CRT-based television screen you can perceive a slight flicker. The peripheral vision of the retina in your eye has a higher frequency response than at the center of the retina. Therefore, you can perceive the video frame rate.
 
PROOF WHY A PLANE WILL BE SEEN ON VIDEO IF PRESENT
  
No one that I know of has attempted to analyze this issue purely from a video frame rate perspective. A video camera can be thought of as a crude stroboscopic still camera capturing 60 individual still fields (NOT frames) per second when played back on a recorder or computer, with a pause or still frame capability that can display the individual fields. We will be concentrating on the camera's horizontal viewing distance, since this is the expected path of the plane at ground level.
  
Standard NTSC video is still used in many low cost surveillance cameras. It does not create the jerky, slow motion video one sees from a web or computer network camera running at 1 to 5 frames/sec. using considerable compression. With NTSC video, no compression is involved. (The actual NTSC spec. predates all forms of computer video compression by many decades.)
  
With two interlaced fields per NTSC image frame, each complete frame requires 0.0333 seconds (33 milliseconds) for a complete video frame. For our point of reference, let's consider an outdoor camera that could easily cover approximately 500ft. or more of horizontal distance. This could easily be the situation with a camera at the gas station across the street from the pentagon. It will probably cover an even wider field, since any camera's field of view is an infinitely widening cone (although the focus of the camera's lens and resolution drop off with distance.)
  
With all that said, let's do some numbers to see if the plane will be captured by an ordinary NTSC video camera. Some readers may see this as the long way to calculate it, but this will clearly illustrate my point:
  
1. First, let's convert the plane's distance it travels into feet so it can be compared to the horizontal view of a video camera. A plane traveling at 500MPH (500MPH x 5,280ft (or 1 mile) travels 2,640,000 ft. in one hour.
  
2. There are 3600 seconds in one hour. 2,640,000ft. per hour/3600 seconds = 733.333. Therefore, our missing plane travels at 733.333ft. per second, which is slightly more than twice as fast as a Formula 1 race car. Although this is fast it won't be invisible.
  
3. As stated earlier, we will assume that a typical surveillance camera conservatively covers about 500ft on the horizontal axis (from left to right.) This will equate to 68% of the 733ft. our plane travels in one second. Of course, this would require an unobstructed field of view. Many outdoor cameras have the focus set to infinity (or near infinity) to capture everything in the camera's field of view. Therefore, the length of time that the camera will capture images of the plane will be considerable longer.
  
4. Let's return to our video calculations above. Every 33 THOUSANDTHS OF A SECOND we have a completed, interlaced video field which covers about 500ft. of horizontal space. If we take 68% (from step 3 above) of 29.98 complete frames/second, we are left with 20.386 usable frames/sec.
  
Conservatively, this means that some or all of an aircraft will be visible in AT LEAST 20 FRAMES (or 40 FIELDS) OF VIDEO.
  
And even though it will be blurred, an aircraft will be visible. We will NOT see any background buildings or trees in the distance wherever the body of the plane is in any video frame.
  
Consider a race car at the track covered by today's NTSC video cameras. Even when the car zips past a fixed track-side camera only a dozen or so feet away from the lens at more than 200MPH, one can still see something in the video image. If the same car was moving at 500MPH twice the distance away from the same camera, the effect would be about the same. The farther an object is from a camera, the slower it will appear to move. When you look up in the sky at a jet traveling at 550MPH just a few miles above you, it appears to move very slowly simply because of the distance. When watching planes land at a nearby airport, one may not imagine that the aircraft land at speeds around 100MPH.
  
From this analysis we have been able to prove that not just one frame, but that 20 frames or more will show any aircraft in the distance. And if the camera ran at a slower video rate, such as 15 full frames per second? Then we would see the image of the plane in at least 10.2 frames.

So right now I am getting measuring and scaling old aerial photography of the Pentagon. Just you wait. This is just the first pic I have come across to establish some background.


Now in this Mike Wilson cartoon there are several obvious big flaws.

The ramp in the foreground down below us, below the plane is only 12' wide. This cartoon's miniature 155 foot Boeing aircraft is only 3 X the depth of the road, so it is shown here as an airplane closer to us than the ground that looks (to be generous) around 70 feet long. Mike's 757 magically shrinks even further as it gets closer to the Pentagon, out a few frames back it's portrayed directly over the ramp at about 72 feet long.

Look off in the distance from us at the 75 foot deep (to the building) back parking lot and the 170 foot deep (to the building) combined helicopter/parking pavements. Even though the 170 foot "lot plus helipad" are much further away, (about 400 feet further from us than the tiny plane) they appear to be the same size as it is, close to us. The same error applies to the 75 foot deep lot in the distance, the tiny plane in the foreground is only twice as long as the small 75 foot lot 200 more feet away in the background...

Here is a scaleable satellite image of the Pentagon as it looked before they moved and tore down the guardhouse, took out the roads, and re-landscaped and buried all the evidence of 9/11 and put up their "emergency memorial'. You can see the blue dot of the guardhouse and measure all the other points of interest in the Judicial Watch vids to the 82 foot helipad.

[agentbluescreen]

In the satellite image in the post below, the distance between (but not including) the two white marks on the footpath is almost exactly the 155 foot length of the Boeing aircraft

[agentbluescreen]

Let me try to put the video issue more simply.

At 733 feet per second a 733 foot long "plane" passes your nose in second.

If the "plane" is only 160 feet long, it passes by your nose in a fifth of a second.

In NTSC video there are 30 frames every second so 1/5th of them is 6 frames of airplane IF it was right in front of the camera (one foot distant).

500 feet away panning across a field of 250 feet there must be 20 of them, with at least 5 blurred, full frames of whole plane or it's not a 160 foot long airplane..

Now if it was only 20 feet long that would explain everything.

[mr anderson]

If there was a Boeing 757 there is no possible reason whatsoever to doctor, modify, classify, refuse to release, edit nor hide anything. But what these doctored videos show nonetheless is something that could only have been a missile, because they cannot be showing anything like a plane of such size.

Does it NOT escape AgentBlueScreen that the reason why they haven't released the tape of the obviousness that it was a plane is that people create their own conjecture and theories? Thereby negating the need to actively "doctor" such videos?

All they need to do is deny the public the clear evidence and watch useful idiots & disinformation mould their theories around the absence of evidence.

With the videos (84 of them at least!) There'd be no CIT, no fly-over theory, no missile theory, no passengers offloaded and shot theory, no feds planted evidence theory! How many theories does it take to see that omission of evidence is purposeful?? It's a honeypot.

[agentbluescreen]

I don't know about you wimps who are too afraid to challenge the evidence and obey our law to find and bring ALL the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. You moan and complain and worry that "SHHUUHSH - they'll shut us down" is we dare openly discuss the glaring inconsistencies, falsehoods and contradictions in the ridiculous non-explanations spoon-fed us for their deliberate, malicious and bloodthirsty 9/11 crimes.

Let me tell you something here and now, once and for all.

The purpose of the info war is to expose our enemies and their crimes for all to see before it's too late for us all to finally resolve to do something about them. We cannot and dare not permit ourselves to ever be the least bit concerned about them stealing our printing press nor vilifying us. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

The day they close down prisonplanet and infowars will be the day after it doesn't matter anymore.

[citizenx]

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/44286/NEW_9_11_VIDEO_MISSILE_STRIKE_PENTAGON/

[mr anderson]

I don't know about you wimps who are too afraid to challenge the evidence and obey our law to find and bring ALL the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. You moan and complain and worry that "SHHUUHSH - they'll shut us down" is we dare openly discuss the glaring inconsistencies, falsehoods and contradictions in the ridiculous non-explanations spoon-fed us for their deliberate, malicious and bloodthirsty 9/11 crimes.

Let me tell you something here and now, once and for all.

The purpose of the info war is to expose our enemies and their crimes for all to see before it's too late for us all to finally resolve to do something about them. We cannot and dare not permit ourselves to ever be the least bit concerned about them stealing our printing press nor vilifying us. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

The day they close down prisonplanet and infowars will be the day after it doesn't matter anymore.

So you have the 84 surveillance tapes? Evidence that could directly contradict or prove theories.

[agentbluescreen]

So you have the 84 surveillance tapes? Evidence that could directly contradict or prove theories.

No but every minute we waste not meticulously, exhaustively and thoroughly analyzing those we do have is a waste of precious time.

They had to edit out the black roadway because only a black missile wouldn't have shown up against it. A 757 at five cop cars thick in its fattest part would be the vertical size of the entire treeline. Whatever went across that horizon could have been no more than a foot and a half high.

[iks83]

Let me try to put the video issue more simply.

At 733 feet per second a 733 foot long "plane" passes your nose in second.

If the "plane" is only 160 feet long, it passes by your nose in a fifth of a second.

In NTSC video there are 30 frames every second so 1/5th of them is 6 frames of airplane IF it was right in front of the camera (one foot distant).

500 feet away panning across a field of 250 feet there must be 20 of them, with at least 5 blurred, full frames of whole plane or it's not a 160 foot long airplane..

Now if it was only 20 feet long that would explain everything.

Right there it shows your ignorance and stupidity. Yes NTSC is 30 frames per second (actually its 29,97) but surveilance cams dont record at that speed. Maybe 2 fps or so or you tell me. How many fps runs that tape at? You should know. Tell me.

[mr anderson]

So you have the 84 surveillance tapes? Evidence that could directly contradict or prove theories.

No but every minute we waste not meticulously, exhaustively and thoroughly analyzing those we do have is a waste of precious time.

They had to edit out the black roadway because only a black missile wouldn't have shown up against it. A 757 at five cop cars thick in its fattest part would be the vertical size of the entire treeline. Whatever went across that horizon could have been no more than a foot and a half high.

And what do we have, 3 frames?

Hardly something that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

All I hear is assumptions & theories that befit a pre-supposed conclusion; a missile.

The jury is still out on what happened due to the purposeful omission of the 84 surviellance tapes that could possibly conclusively prove one way or another. Until such time speculative theories are nothing but damaging and counterproductive. Theories produce theories etc., until such time that the entire body of research on the Pentagon is discredited completely. All of which was by design... This theorising rose from the omission of the Government and Commission to properly examine and release these tapes.

In my personal opinion, in regards to the Pentagon- we should stick to the; missing $2.3trillion, that nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies a stand down order existed, as
appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission & that the authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not.

Defense argues for a continuance, your honour.

[ghost hacked]

agentbluescreen I wont discuss stuff with you where you dont have a single clue about. Cameras and perspectives seem to be beyond your understanding. Ok keep believing your no plane BS. If crappy surveilance cams and photos is the only thing you can build your theory on then im sorry for you. We have wittnesses, wreckage, bodies, even the flight recorder data seems to fit now, damage to the facade that fits a plane, etc.

I really do hate you conspiracy creationists.

This is the first I hear of bodies being pulled from the Pentagon attack. If the whole plane folded on itself and vaporized, leaving little plane being, what makes you think any thing else would survive?

[agentbluescreen]

And what do we have, 3 frames?

Hardly something that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

All I hear is assumptions & theories that befit a pre-supposed conclusion; a missile.

The jury is still out on what happened due to the purposeful omission of the 84 surviellance tapes that could possibly conclusively prove one way or another. Until such time speculative theories are nothing but damaging and counterproductive. Theories produce theories etc., until such time that the entire body of research on the Pentagon is discredited completely. All of which was by design... This theorising rose from the omission of the Government and Commission to properly examine and release these tapes.

In my personal opinion, in regards to the Pentagon- we should stick to the; missing $2.3trillion, that nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies a stand down order existed, as
appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission & that the authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not.

Defense argues for a continuance, your honour.

And that (endlessly granted) continuance is beginning to look more and more like a further deliberate obstruction of justice.

Yet me explain to you my background, FYI I have never ever been a "no planer" my interest in these obviously domestically engineered 9/11 crimes however began the week of the events over something grotesquely suspicious to me which was the Murder of Bob Stevens, the famous Bruno Magli photo editor of American Media and the convenient pre-planned, 'phony state of emergency' assault and seizure by the unaccountable, corrupt FBI/CIA Mafias and the Florida Bush Mafia on those offices and records of the largest private intelligence gathering enterprise in the world, within hours of them releasing the supposed identities and supposed photos of their own MI6-Saudi Sunni-Monarchist so-called hijackers.

Nobody fighting for any form rights or morality would think of or even dare attacking America to "get even" with it's fascist established religious Likudnik mass murderer masters that threaten all life and peace on this planet.

I was further deeply insulted and outraged of that criminal rat-eared CIA/Bush PNAC mob boss Woolsey trying to pin his Anthrax murder wraps on, of all people on earth, Saddam Hussein, the ruthlessly authoritarian maintainer of peace and liberty in Iraq and unsuccessful liberator of criminal Kuwait Duchy, who had already been severely beaten, totally shaken down, reduced to pestilence, sanctimonious mass murderous poverty and rendered totally harmless, and whose nation continued to suffer horribly at the hands of the PNAC ZioNAZIs for having dared to overthrow the noble BP Oil Cabal's corrupt criminal-monarchist tyranny there.

You can read my entire take on the attacks that I've held for many years (and still do) here: http://www.angelfire.com/ny/syzergy/

In fact up until I joined this forum, I was quite happy to ignore the "third horn of the Ram" Pentagon Attack just like Jim Hoffman, and simply accept the Republicrat/Demoblican ZioNAZI Rothschild "party line" propaganda issued and dispensed to us about the Pentagon. The reasoning for this blind acquiescence is simply "why wouldn't the deliberate, long awaited "fascist-prophesied" Daniel Chapter 8 Show false flag attack there have also been staged as an air crash, consistent with all the other parts of their plans?" . The only things that then troubled me about this deliberate oversight was the queer fate of Barbara Olsen who would certainly be a ZioNAZI insider, suspicious as hell, why had Flight 77 gotten lost for nearly an hour?

I have never subscribed to "no planes", mini-nuke or energy weapons, holograms, staged MSM network theatrics or any of the other ludicrous 'theories' out there, but just like it has later been proven that there was nano-Thermate®  found in all the demolished WTC buildings, some of these unimaginably violent criminal things take time to uncover.

The Judicial Watch videos conclusively show that it could not have been a 757

[agentbluescreen]

The problem with them using a plane to attack their own headquarters is the simple question:

What if the plane was properly flown, and the planned flight path had been intelligently, carefully and correctly slope-targeted so that it crashed downwards through an outer ring roof?

Only two badly damaged wings would have remained standing

[Kilika]

I remember it being bragged during the Gulf War that they could fly a cruise missle launched from a ship literally through the window of a building hundreds of miles inland.

[citizenx]

Yup.  I remember a service guy (navy?) bragging about that to me, too, around that time.

[agentbluescreen]

I remember it being bragged during the Gulf War that they could fly a cruise missle launched from a ship literally through the window of a building hundreds of miles inland.

ANd speaking further of technology and the fraudulent, falsified tampered with, photoshopped Judicial Watch tapes have a look at the midpoint of this Italian TV Investigation where they line up the smoke swirls in Video ONE and Video TWO and then step the frames backwards in time to show the missing, deliberately edited-out and stolen frames (That could not have been showing the supposed "plane") maliciously edited-out from each camera!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhkQDXlSdMY

 UNBELIEVABLE ZioNAZI CRIMINALITY:

The introductory part of this report is fairly innocuous, and they do show some creative montages for the purpose of illustrating the narrative, but scan to the halfway point 3:25 for the frame tests.

When one runs the frames forward using the cop car as the reference they go out of sync (visible by the smoke patterns) BUT WHEn you line up the smoke patterns and then run back with the proper offset you are distinctly missing frames of missile from each camera (an object hidden too small to be a jet)

[agentbluescreen]

So I confess I was wrong about the "missing road" it could well be just the shadow of the smoke, but what about the missing frames?  You'd think they'd be smart enough to add in a few plain frames between the cop and the explosion to make up for the ones they clipped out, but no, we're all even dumber than they are.

[agentbluescreen]

So back to the frame rate discussion we'll recall that a 160 foot "jet airliner" at 733 feet per second passes by your nose at 1/5th of a second which, in NTSC @ 30 frames per second, means you get 6 frames of it. Now a 20 ft missile passes your nose at 1/36th which means you wouldn't get a whole frame of it, just 1.1 field-blurs shared by two fields.

Now we back that up to a distance of 240 feet which slows things down again (spatial persistence in the wider scene) and we end up with 3-4 full frames of moving-blur missile, exactly the number of frames stolen by the "government" from the Judicial Watch releases.

  We would have 7 or 14 frames of 160 foot long moving-blur "airplane"

[Tsul777]

So back to the frame rate discussion we'll recall that a 160 foot "jet airliner" at 733 feet per second passes by your nose at 1/5th of a second which, in NTSC @ 30 frames per second, means you get 6 frames of it. Now a 20 ft missile passes your nose at 1/36th which means you wouldn't get a whole frame of it, just 1.1 field-blurs shared by two fields.

Now we back that up to a distance of 240 feet which slows things down again (spatial persistence in the wider scene) and we end up with 3-4 full frames of moving-blur missile, exactly the number of frames stolen by the "government" from the Judicial Watch releases.

  We would have 7 or 14 frames of 160 foot long moving-blur "airplane"

Excuse my ignorance and not trying to shit on your theory, but would the same hold true if the missle was travelling at say 1850 mph?
There has been a missile in development since the late '80's named Fasthawk that had bunker-busting capabilities and designed to be lauched from many different platforms. Just throwing it out there.
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Equipment/Fasthawk.htm

Now for all those who will automatically jump and label me a no-planer, I just have this to say:

Why is it that certain members on this board profess that their "theory" is the lock, stock and barrel true one and others that are "digging" to find out more or propose alterate theories are bashed and called names not worthy of mention? This has always bothered me. Mistakes have been made and even admitted to on this very forum from some pretty big players. Certain theories have even risen to true hero worship which is dangerous in any occassion. Some have suggested that we "leave this alone because it's distracting to the movement and paints us as crazies and that we should concentrate elsewhere." Nothing should be left out in this whole shlamozzle because no one knows what really went down at the pentagon that day except the perps of the crime. These same no-planer bashers are the some that preach about divide and conquer tactics. D&C is alive and flourishing in this thread to be sure.

I'll gladly listen to anyone who has an alternate proposition and decimate that info before jumping in their face and calling them down. We are all in this together whether we like it or not. The Pentagon false flag has been planned with almost every contingency war-gamed in. But there is a hole in every story. The trick is to find it.

I think we all agree that they did this on purpose to distract us but don't let them win by dividing us.

[PeaceAndFreedom]

Why is it that certain members on this board profess that their "theory" is the lock, stock and barrel true one and others that are "digging" to find out more or propose alterate theories are bashed and called names not worthy of mention? This has always bothered me. Mistakes have been made and even admitted to on this very forum from some pretty big players. Certain theories have even risen to true hero worship which is dangerous in any occassion. Some have suggested that we "leave this alone because it's distracting to the movement and paints us as crazies and that we should concentrate elsewhere." Nothing should be left out in this whole shlamozzle because no one knows what really went down at the pentagon that day except the perps of the crime. These same no-planer bashers are the some that preach about divide and conquer tactics. D&C is alive and flourishing in this thread to be sure.

Amen. This is the heart, or at least one heart of the matter. The absolutist fury and belligerent rhetoric employed by the bashers against anyone who has questions what hit the Pentagon is highly reminescent of the tactics of 911 truth debunkers. Only "their" interpretations of facts is solid, contentiously attack every single point of the other side, employ the same exact attack phrases, accept the government's meager disclosed data as sufficient, disparage or demean the motives of everybody the other side, or else call them dupes of the disinfo forces. If they are pro-truth and pro-unity, why do they use such divisive debunker tactics?

The truth is, many of us (like me) became truthers largely based on the Pentagon questions. The truth is, some of us have used a search engine to find out what issue debunkers actually bring up when attacking 911 truth, and it turns out they mainly go after the WTC issues, NOT the Pentagon no-plane questions (check Google yourself on this, use search term "debunking 911 truth"). The truth is, the missing titanium plane debris (which would have not have vaporized) and the impossible physics of the plane turn into the Pentagon, et al, are legitimate issues, period. On the 10th anniversary of the false flag, all unresolved issues should be pursued to their proper conclusion, be they about the WTC or the Pentagon.

[agentbluescreen]

To illustrate the field-frame rate problem of NTSC (the Pentagon Guardhouse cameras) consider this rather poorly apertured vertically dropped missile video. The camera looks about 400 ft away (At least too close for it to get the action with it's lens) and the vertical aperture (field of view) at that distance is only about 50 ft down at the target at half a frame height.

In this case the "1/36 of a second 20 foot thing" is easily illustrated, even though the frame strobe effect is far worse because the missile only appears at one synced series render point in alternate vertical interval fields of one vertical frame lineset rather than along a series of horizontal lines being sampled/scanned faster.  *If the missile came in horizontally it would be fully visible in different positions in 3 whole frames at a 400 foot deep X 1/2 of 500 ft wide (250 foot) aperture (half the screens width) along a faster scanning "band" of horizontal lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m_u00Kz_Qo

You will notice the horizontal points in the alternate fields clearly outlining the missile once in 50 feet are visible in neither frame beside it. You only see the missile only once across two interlaced fields when it's playing, this is like "wagon wheel strobe" in old western movies,

[citizenx]

"If it doesn't fit..."

[mr anderson]

Amen. This is the heart, or at least one heart of the matter. The absolutist fury and belligerent rhetoric employed by the bashers against anyone who has questions what hit the Pentagon is highly reminescent of the tactics of 911 truth debunkers. Only "their" interpretations of facts is solid, contentiously attack every single point of the other side, employ the same exact attack phrases, accept the government's meager disclosed data as sufficient, disparage or demean the motives of everybody the other side, or else call them dupes of the disinfo forces. If they are pro-truth and pro-unity, why do they use such divisive debunker tactics?

The truth is, many of us (like me) became truthers largely based on the Pentagon questions. The truth is, some of us have used a search engine to find out what issue debunkers actually bring up when attacking 911 truth, and it turns out they mainly go after the WTC issues, NOT the Pentagon no-plane questions (check Google yourself on this, use search term "debunking 911 truth"). The truth is, the missing titanium plane debris (which would have not have vaporized) and the impossible physics of the plane turn into the Pentagon, et al, are legitimate issues, period. On the 10th anniversary of the false flag, all unresolved issues should be pursued to their proper conclusion, be they about the WTC or the Pentagon.

You know why debunkers don't go after the Pentagon as much, we're discrediting ourselves enough.

Nobody is bashing anyone for asking questions... I don't see strict constructive criticism as "bashing". "Bashing" is a term described by someone so vehemently for a theory that can't handle criticism contrary to the stubbornly held view that omission of evidence is admission of guilt.

Omission of evidence, when it comes to the Pentagon, is a catalyst in creating a honeypot of an abundance of theories all competing for attention. Assumptions, speculation on what little evidence is present does not equate to truth. You cannot have truth without full disclosure of evidence and until such time we need to focus on the areas that are being intentionally being ignored by both debunkers and "truthers"*

Where's the $2.3trillion? Why was the Pentagon hit in the first place? Why was there a stand-down order? Why hasn't the 84 surveillance tapes been released?

You hardly hear these questions... Simply because the omission of the tapes is KEY. It has created the Pentagon theories and a whole raft of diversionary debate of our own making. These perpetrators needn't even lift a finger to push disinformation out. Withold the key evidence, steal $2.3 Trillion and watch as we fall over each other trying to walk on water proving theories that can never be 100% proven with the current evidence available.

It's like shouting out "Defense rests" with a trial 3 days into a 15 day sitting. You haven't heard all of the evidence, you cannot overextend and assume you know the "truth" from what little you have.

And if certain individuals are right in their limited conclusions then that's just pot luck. I'm resting my judgement until I've heard all the evidence. And it's quite a cop-out, somewhat, to say "We'll never see such evidence, ever". Perhaps so, but we are only doing ourselves disservice by assumingly knowing the truth with so little information and even that information is muddied by people saying there were / weren't no bodies, no plane parts etc.

Such disinformation spreads fast amongst the 'conspiracy' community that believes in everything under the sun, that they'd believe anything.

[agentbluescreen]

Well while everybody has been moaning about if we should, can or might be allowed to think of and delve further into more disturbing issues about just what sort of a horn of the Ram brake in four and went down to the pleasant lands to the south and the east and struck down some of the (auditing) host of the stars at the Pentagon, I have been studying penetrator missiles. Now that I am contented that the Judicial Watch videos when analyzed scientifically most certainly show nothing other than that a missile must have struck the structure as some of the witnesses did declare. But I'll make one point perfectly clear, I am going to pass on all "no planes" theories entirely, because I am sure that at least three if not more planes were involved in the Pentagon attack.

And yes, there were at least some plane parts strewn about somehow at the Pentagon too.

Even though a plane may have fired this missile, it seems very unlikely, since none with such capabilities were in the area. This leaves four other ways to deliver one. A naval or sub launch which are equally unlikely considering the NOC was part of the target, and this same logic also leaves out the navy's coastal defense Boeing Harpoon truck launched missiles which though suitable are not as intelligent nor BROACH AUP warhead equipped.

Indeed, problems manning such a traitorous operation leaves us only with the old tried and true "Honest John"-flavor, air dropped launch tactic using a much newer, more sophisticated variant of such with modern "cruise"-class guided missile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpJeyiDLPXA&NR=1

Departing from that for now, Im getting some photos ready for my next big issue with those who might still say "no way - no missile". This will be a study of what happens to limestone in a normal outdoor diesel and kerosene fire that is (of course) promptly attended to with plenty of handy nearby water and foam.

I'll be back.

[Dig]

It's simple. Please don't act so silly, do you ever even listen to Alex Jones? If there was a Boeing 757 there is no possible reason whatsoever to doctor, modify, classify, refuse to release, edit nor hide anything. But what these doctored videos show nonetheless is something that could only have been a missile, because they cannot be showing anything like a plane of such size.

500 mph = 733 feet per second. The horizontal width of the field of view of the Pentagon Guardhouse cameras is approximately 260 feet at a distance over the flightpath that varies from 650 feet (at east) to 472 feet (at west) from the camera. At that distance this means that there must be between 7 and 14 frames (due to half field width in motion) showing in at least a quarter of them (3 to 6 frames) one whole, entire 155 foot long airplane moving by slowly an average of 500 feet away from the camera on any scanned NTSC standard video. The rest would have partial plane images, taken every 33 thousandth of a second.

EXCERPT:
Controversy Surrounding the Pentagon 911 Surveillance Camera Video Footage

So right now I am getting measuring and scaling old aerial photography of the Pentagon. Just you wait. This is just the first pic I have come across to establish some background.


Now in this Mike Wilson cartoon there are several obvious big flaws.

The ramp in the foreground down below us, below the plane is only 12' wide. This cartoon's miniature 155 foot Boeing aircraft is only 3 X the depth of the road, so it is shown here as an airplane closer to us than the ground that looks (to be generous) around 70 feet long. Mike's 757 magically shrinks even further as it gets closer to the Pentagon, out a few frames back it's portrayed directly over the ramp at about 72 feet long.

Look off in the distance from us at the 75 foot deep (to the building) back parking lot and the 170 foot deep (to the building) combined helicopter/parking pavements. Even though the 170 foot "lot plus helipad" are much further away, (about 400 feet further from us than the tiny plane) they appear to be the same size as it is, close to us. The same error applies to the 75 foot deep lot in the distance, the tiny plane in the foreground is only twice as long as the small 75 foot lot 200 more feet away in the background...

Here is a scaleable satellite image of the Pentagon as it looked before they moved and tore down the guardhouse, took out the roads, and re-landscaped and buried all the evidence of 9/11 and put up their "emergency memorial'. You can see the blue dot of the guardhouse and measure all the other points of interest in the Judicial Watch vids to the 82 foot helipad.

Now you are saying that since a Boeing 757 was not seen then it must have been a missile. What if it was a 737, a 727, an f-16, etc. etc. dozens on record saw a plane. No one saw a missile. But again, you are saying because a 757 was not on a video tape it must have been a missile. I find your logical analysis weak.

[Dig]

I don't know about you wimps who are too afraid to challenge the evidence and obey our law to find and bring ALL the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. You moan and complain and worry that "SHHUUHSH - they'll shut us down" is we dare openly discuss the glaring inconsistencies, falsehoods and contradictions in the ridiculous non-explanations spoon-fed us for their deliberate, malicious and bloodthirsty 9/11 crimes.

That argument makes absolutely no sense. You are the one who refuses to investigate the actual witness statements. You are the one who is failing to examine all of the evidence. You are the continually offering baseless scenarios that lack evidence. Since JFK...witness statements have been the key to unraveling the illuminati false flags. To deny them is to deny an actual attempt to expose the truth.

Let me tell you something here and now, once and for all.

The purpose of the info war is to expose our enemies and their crimes for all to see before it's too late for us all to finally resolve to do something about them. We cannot and dare not permit ourselves to ever be the least bit concerned about them stealing our printing press nor vilifying us. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

The day they close down prisonplanet and infowars will be the day after it doesn't matter anymore.

We are doing that and no one here gives a crap about bad publicity. We do give a crap about poor logic and research skills.

[Dig]

The problem with them using a plane to attack their own headquarters is the simple question:

What if the plane was properly flown, and the planned flight path had been intelligently, carefully and correctly slope-targeted so that it crashed downwards through an outer ring roof?

Only two badly damaged wings would have remained standing

why did the plane have to be flown? it likely was not flown by a pilot in the cockpit ans no pilot is able to make that maneuver (least of all hani).

[Kilika]

People claim they saw what looked like a plane. That does not mean that is what they saw.

If it's got wings people call it a plane, but a cruise missle has wings but is no plane! Besides, an object moving that fast, nobody got a good look at it. Just stand at a drag strip and try to keep you eye focused on that car as it passes a 300mph. Then think how difficult it would be to do that with something moving at nearly double that speed. Same with NASCAR racing. Stand at the fence and try to read what's on the side of the cars as they pass by. It's just a blur. And if youattention was elsewhere when it showed up, you wouldn't be able to tell what it was outisde of maybe it was light colored or something and it's basic shape, but you couldn't tell what make or model it was, and that is at only 200mph.

The dumbed-down and unattentive see what they are told to see. If your attention is elsewhere, it takes time for the person to notice the object and then try to make sense of what it is that they just saw pass by at a high rate of speed. The massive explosion is enough to distract people for several seconds. No sooner than the witness sees a blur speed by, there's a huge explosion. That takes the person time to make sense of it all.

More credit is being given to the "eye witnesses" than should be. It's so suspect, that it should only be circumstantial at best. The case is better served by focusing on the hard evidence that was at the site and not found at the site. We've moved way beyond the witness testamony. Now it's time to show the actual physical evidence to back or disprove what they claim to have seen.

[lamourlady]

OR they could just release every video capture of the freaking event.     This is a frustrating as the Obama birth certificate. 

[Kilika]

OR they could just release every video capture of the freaking event.     This is a frustrating as the Obama birth certificate. 

And frustrating is exactly how they want it I suspect.

[phasma]

How many times do we have to have this discussion !
They wont release video because they dont have any!
If they did they would - just like the twin towers being hit over and over and over
And collapsing over and over and over
Repeated horror is a strong tool in their ammo box . . . if they had it they would use it - and the fact that it was the pentagon and they dont have it should tell you all you need to know on the matter.

[Kilika]

That's one heck of a stretch to say they don't have footage or they would show it. They have video footage, just not of what they claim happened. If they show it, all it will show is they have been lying all along. But I conceed, technically, they may not have any footage, but I'd say that is because they destroyed it, just like the CIA did with the interrogation tapes, even after the courts said to not destroy them.

[agentbluescreen]

How many times do we have to have this discussion !
They wont release video because they dont have any!
If they did they would - just like the twin towers being hit over and over and over
And collapsing over and over and over
Repeated horror is a strong tool in their ammo box . . . if they had it they would use it - and the fact that it was the pentagon and they dont have it should tell you all you need to know on the matter.

Now you are saying that since a Boeing 757 was not seen then it must have been a missile. What if it was a 737, a 727, an f-16, etc. etc. dozens on record saw a plane. No one saw a missile. But again, you are saying because a 757 was not on a video tape it must have been a missile. I find your logical analysis weak.

It appears that you kids never had any children to teach about not lying.

If they have all the other videos that show a plane, show them to us, we want to stop bothering them.
If they have all the other videos that show no plane, show them all to us, we will stop bothering them.

If they have any other reason not to show us the evidence they are lying sacks of crap, and they must have something to hide.

I'm proving to you scientifically that the only thing that they could have been hiding in the (recorded time-distance apertures of) missing frames of those Judicial Watch videos is a 20 foot long 500 mph "757" (if that's what you prefer to call it).

Also, the approaching 44 foot tall tail of a real 757 would have been, in the left hand height of the horizontal bandwidth of the frames, as tall as (actually taller than) the 55 foot tall back top corner of the building twice as far away, Even if the tail was that small at a distance (it's not) it could not disappear at the camera's dazzlingly fast horizontal line scanning bandwidth speeds,

Refresh rates only strobe motions up and down in TV

[lamourlady]

How many times do we have to have this discussion !
They wont release video because they dont have any!
If they did they would - just like the twin towers being hit over and over and over
And collapsing over and over and over
Repeated horror is a strong tool in their ammo box . . . if they had it they would use it - and the fact that it was the pentagon and they dont have it should tell you all you need to know on the matter.

Phasma, as many as it takes to get the truth.