rare 9/11 footage, how was this unseen for so long?

[Colossus_1986]

This goes right along with what I mean, though, as far as the narrative or a version of explanation to be found in words and pictures when a person looks.  A massive obstacle of persistently false information, like so few things I've seen in life.

For example: over and again, this will be represented as "the" hole to look at.






When in fact the exterior wall was broken like this:








^That existed as you see it, until the structural loss caused this to happen:




As far as what's detailed in this post, what do you say?

Very well illustrated post. Yes this is exactly what causes a problem, the damage to the building prior to collapse is very inconsistent to a plane crashing into it. Even the WTC had a giant gash in the BOTH towers, matching the fuselage and wingspan of the plane. This is totally inconsistent here at the pentagon. Anyone with a brain would compute that if the wings didn't slice through the building (as we see, they did not) then they would be ripped off and on the ground near the "fuselage" opening (and they are not)

Then the best kicker of all is Rumsfeld on the lawn helping with the cleanup of those 6 aluminum shards hahaha

[OzmO]

Very well illustrated post. Yes this is exactly what causes a problem, the damage to the building prior to collapse is very inconsistent to a plane crashing into it. Even the WTC had a giant gash in the BOTH towers, matching the fuselage and wingspan of the plane. This is totally inconsistent here at the pentagon. Anyone with a brain would compute that if the wings didn't slice through the building (as we see, they did not) then they would be ripped off and on the ground near the "fuselage" opening (and they are not)

Then the best kicker of all is Rumsfeld on the lawn helping with the cleanup of those 6 aluminum shards hahaha

Again, ignoring reality.

The wings (which hold the fuel)  along with the rest of the fuselage burned up or disintegrated from the impact, and explosion.  just like many other crashes (not all because of different conditions.)

[Colossus_1986]

Again, ignoring reality.

The wings (which hold the fuel)  along with the rest of the fuselage burned up or disintegrated from the impact, and explosion.  just like many other crashes (not all because of different conditions.)

Please show me the damaged wall from the wing impacting it? (Let alone the insanely heavy Jet engine under the wing)

Unless you're suggesting that the wing exploded prior to touching the pentagon building and everything disintegrated in an instant?

[OzmO]

Please show me the damaged wall from the wing impacting it? (Let alone the insanely heavy Jet engine under the wing)

Material in the engines and Material in the landing gear are the hardest on on the plane.    Remember a while back on youtube there was vid going around that showed an airliner landing with a skewed front wheel?

The rest of it is mostly  aluminum and hollow.  So there isn't the density for a very damaging impact on concrete.  

That's why when crash at high speed they seems to disintegrate.  

Where as the landing gear combined with the force impact of the fuselage created the hole.

If there was a plane like hole in the building, you would see many main stream scientists questioning it.  

[OzmO]

Unless you're suggesting that the wing exploded prior to touching the pentagon building and everything disintegrated in an instant?

I think it might have hit the ground first right next to the building and its forward energy had it continuing on.

[OzmO]

Smart missile or phony poles?

[Las Vegas]

Very well illustrated post. Yes this is exactly what causes a problem, the damage to the building prior to collapse is very inconsistent to a plane crashing into it. Even the WTC had a giant gash in the BOTH towers, matching the fuselage and wingspan of the plane. This is totally inconsistent here at the pentagon. Anyone with a brain would compute that if the wings didn't slice through the building (as we see, they did not) then they would be ripped off and on the ground near the "fuselage" opening (and they are not)

But wouldn't you say it is very consistent with what we'd expect to see, in that the strongest part of the wing forced the columns to fail while the weakest part of the wing was broken?

Then the best kicker of all is Rumsfeld on the lawn helping with the cleanup of those 6 aluminum shards hahaha

Yes, very hard to disagree with that.

[Las Vegas]

Do you think it is possible that conspirators may find some reason, incentive, benefit, etc. to have such a large percentage of individuals believing something such as that a missile hit, if reality could show that it did not?

There's real effort being put into building false stories on this one, and imo it is directly related to the strength of the evidence showing a plane.

When people say such-and-such could be done "if they want to shut-up" the CTers -- said mostly by CTers themselves -- I can't help but think it's how it was planned.

So when you see a production of 9/11 CT material, you can be almost guaranteed it is going to be misdirected or even outright fake.  Just by the numbers, you will find that to be overwhelmingly so.

[Las Vegas]

The people responsible, have the highest incentive to see to a rampant spread of false CTs.  Of course.  As a matter of fact, you could take it directly to the bank, it is so sure.  Meaning that the place has been flooded with oceans of false information, and not a bit less than that could be expected.  To a legitimate CTer, I would ask how else could this have possibly been planned, if not to include that.

So if you are opposed to the official story, and you honestly seek truth, then no way can you escape from forcing yourself to recognize that.  You need to check it, hard.

[Colossus_1986]

But wouldn't you say it is very consistent with what we'd expect to see, in that the strongest part of the wing forced the columns to fail while the weakest part of the wing was broken?

Yes, very hard to disagree with that.

No. It is not consistent with that we'd expect to see.

Columns intact (and buckling outward)



1 Tiny impact zone (accounting only for what is supposed to be the fuselage) Nothing showing the 2 engines which were by far the heaviest and most dense parts of the plane)


Inconsistent damage (aside from lack of debris) Assuming the plane hit while skimming the ground and making impact at the 2nd storey and below... I don't think so


The surveillance footage is bogus. A small white blur ain't going to cut it.


Pentagon hit is something out of a looney tunes cartoon

[OzmO]

No. It is not consistent with that we'd expect to see.

Columns intact (and buckling outward)

Again, ignoring reality.

Why would you expect to see that?

F-4 flying into brick wall,  notice how it disintegrates half way in.



Building hit by c-130 in 2005





Planes are essentially hollow aluminum shells.  


________________________ ___________________

another part of reality you are ignoring:

The surveillance footage is bogus. A small white blur ain't going to cut it.

Frame rates and resulution on security cams in 2001 aimed at a driveway aren't going to give you the image you think it should

[Colossus_1986]

Again, ignoring reality.

Why would you expect to see that?

F-4 flying into brick wall,  notice how it disintegrates half way in.



Building hit by c-130 in 2005





Planes are essentially hollow aluminum shells.  


________________________ ___________________

another part of reality you are ignoring:

Frame rates and resulution on security cams in 2001 aimed at a driveway aren't going to give you the image you think it should

Why don't you show the OTHER pictures of that crash?
The ones that show it didn't disintegrate as easily as you claim planes are supposed to ...

[OzmO]

Why don't you show the OTHER pictures of that crash?
The ones that show it didn't disintegrate as easily as you claim planes are supposed to ...

It doesn't change the point.  Planes do sometimes disintegrate.  With the c-130 the pic shows how the building stayed in tact. (answering why there wasn't a plane like hole in the pentagon) On top of that the c-130 is a turbo prop not a jet turbine.  Just like the concrete wall with f-4 and you can see it disintegrating.   The factors at play here are:  Speed, mass, fuel, angel, type of plane etc.  And there was wreckage of flight 77.















That's why when you see some crashes much of the plane stays in tact because the pilot was slowing the plane down and trying to keep in tact.  With flight 77, the pilot was going around 480 mph fully fueled.    Same as the WTC 1-2 where the plane looked like it vanished right into the building.    

[Ropo]

Wow somebody is angry...

If you're going to teach an imbecile child anything, stop rambling and learn better English.
Secondly, You contradict yourself when talking about the security footage at the pentagon. Talking about missiles going at mach 5?

I thought you were on the side of the "official" story, in which a plane hit the pentagon. If that's the case then you would want those videos
released because they would have proof of the plane. Also, saying the pentagon is just an office building with papers in it, and questioning the level of security
within those grounds... I feel like i'm dealing with the imbecile child. Please refrain from speaking. You are incapable of debating on these topics.

What make you think that I am angry? Did I scare you, little child? Fact is that I am mostly laughing to the overwhelming stupidity of these foil hat morons, not angry at all. What comes to your comment, I am on the side of the truth, no matter who present it, and the official investigation seem to be closest to that. At least they have some evidence which proves what happen, while foil hats have just bullshit. What comes to Pentagon, foil hat morons tend to exaggerate the importance of the security cams around the pentagon, while there isn't any mystery in it. It is a fucking office building,  there isn't any kind of real threat what would create a need to have dozens of security cameras. They watch doorways and gates, because there wasn't any need for more security, until 9/11. Mach 5 was understatement, Russian middle class ballistic missile fly at the speed of 3530 m/s = Mach 10.3, so you doesn't see even a flash at the security tape. As I said confiscating the security cameras from the area around the pentagon is basic crime scene practice, and police do it as we speak at the Orlando, just like they do with any other crime scene. If the tapes from the area of the Pentagon didn't reveal anything new, why publish them? As I said, there is thousand of hours of videos about he people taking care of their business, buying stuff etc., and nothing about the Pentagon, because those cameras were from shops etc. Why it is so hard to understand, while you see these kind of security tapes every day in news? What makes the 9/11 attack any special? Because foil hat morons say it is, and they are lying as always. Only reason to be puzzled about these simple things is the tales of the foil hat morons, and your lack of ability to think yourself.  

[Ropo]

Once again ignoring reality.

Well, that is only way their theories work. What is quite amazing is the level of ignorance of these morons, because these brats doesn't really know shit about anything. Missiles just make holes to the walls...but in the name of holy fuck, how? Doesn't these brats know what the missiles are made for, what are they made from, and how they work? No, in fact they doesn't have a brains to figure it out, so they have to trust in that crap what they find from the foil hat sites, and say it is "thinking with their own brains". For example, how it is possible that tiny, only about 5 meter long and relatively light missile make holes to multiple concrete walls, when the Boeing 757 is inadequate to do so much destruction there were? There wasn't any explosion in the Pentagon, because photos prove the fact that nothing came out from the building. There isn't even one chair, not even one brick on the lawn which would indicate that something has exploded inside the building, so what kind of missile they used? Some kind of battering ram tanker missile, which has wings and which can carry 12000 tons of kerosene? How stupid man has to be to believe something like that? For real?

[Ropo]

No. It is not consistent with that we'd expect to see.

Columns intact (and buckling outward)



1 Tiny impact zone (accounting only for what is supposed to be the fuselage) Nothing showing the 2 engines which were by far the heaviest and most dense parts of the plane)


Inconsistent damage (aside from lack of debris) Assuming the plane hit while skimming the ground and making impact at the 2nd storey and below... I don't think so


The surveillance footage is bogus. A small white blur ain't going to cut it.


Pentagon hit is something out of a looney tunes cartoon

But the real question is how do you have anything which you would expect to see, while this was a first of it's kind of an attack? You see, this is the part where you foil hat guys always stumbled. If there isn't any previous happening to compare this, only thing you have is your imagination, and that is worthless. You are overestimating the value of your imagination, because that piece of crap has no value at all. It doesn't prove anything, and you haven't anything else. Not even single evidence about the whole 9/11 attack, but that doesn't slow you a bit. I have to ask how it feels to live with no brains at all? I mean even the mentally handicapped morons have some kind of brains, but you? How the hell that happen?

[Colossus_1986]

But the real question is how do you have anything which you would expect to see, while this was a first of it's kind of an attack? You see, this is the part where you foil hat guys always stumbled. If there isn't any previous happening to compare this, only thing you have is your imagination, and that is worthless. You are overestimating the value of your imagination, because that piece of crap has no value at all. It doesn't prove anything, and you haven't anything else. Not even single evidence about the whole 9/11 attack, but that doesn't slow you a bit. I have to ask how it feels to live with no brains at all? I mean even the mentally handicapped morons have some kind of brains, but you? How the hell that happen?

Spoken like a true scholar You must win all the arguments with your fellow pupils in the 4th grade

[Las Vegas]

I appreciate your views, Colossus.  We're on the same page when it comes to the most important question about 9/11, and absolutely no disrespect intended over anything else that we may not fully agree on.

No. It is not consistent with that we'd expect to see.

Columns intact (and buckling outward)

From what I see, the columns have been broken into pieces and are hanging off heavily twisted rebar, which itself had lost considerable anchor and function.

If those are angled outward (I can't tell, but will try to find out) then is this the reason for suspicion: that the reinforcement bar should be expected to be pushed in by the plane and stay that way, regardless of the state of anchoring and regardless of the outward force of energy from the combustion?  IDK but that is an interesting point that's good to look at.

1 Tiny impact zone (accounting only for what is supposed to be the fuselage) Nothing showing the 2 engines which were by far the heaviest and most dense parts of the plane)

I'm trying to figure out what you mean about this part.  If you look at the overhead view of the scene and you consider the building height of 77 feet, you can gauge the proportions.

Inconsistent damage (aside from lack of debris) Assuming the plane hit while skimming the ground and making impact at the 2nd storey and below... I don't think so

The plane was moving at 520 mph upon impact, though, and hitting something of far greater integrity than what the WTC structure held.

One thing I will say, is that if the plane did what it did while under direction of a person in the cockpit, then it must've been one of the most incredible displays of stupid luck in the history of moving objects.  But at the same time, I wouldn't automatically say it's impossible.  Either way, that question can only lead so far if someone wants to rely just on it.

The surveillance footage is bogus. A small white blur ain't going to cut it.


Pentagon hit is something out of a looney tunes cartoon

Remember, though, the white blur is being emitted by the plane and no one tries to rightly claim it's the plane.  The actual plane can be seen very slightly above and to the left of the white blur and there's no question it is an image of that.  If you consider this as a matter of pixels, which it is, then that means literally thousands of individual spots visually coincide precisely with that of a plane.  And at that point in time and space, doing what it is doing: what else could it be?  That's very powerful.

The only way around it, is to make a claim saying that the image was added to the footage (requiring removal of whatever it's supposed to be replacing, I suppose, under a theory like that) but then the resulting questions couldn't be answered with any seriousness. From the matter of flight documentation to the matter of physical damage, the mountain of things to overcome in order to stage such a story would have to be associated with some overwhelmingly attractive benefit to justify the risk and difficulty in doing that, and I cannot imagine what it could be.  It doesn't exist imo.  But I'd entertain anything to say otherwise.