Rare Pentagon 9-11 Surveillance Camera Video of Impact
Rare Pentagon 9-11 Surveilence Camera Video of Impact. Does not seem to indicate a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Doesn’t show much of anything. Why won’t they show us a 757 hitting the Pentagon?
This video was made by nufffrespects
Duration : 0:1:14
[youtube paWiZ2Y8fRg]
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
The problem here …
The problem here though, is that you are distorting what is said to fit your argument. Again, it is not a matter of it being the only result. But a note that it DOES exist and can be documented. Again though, your conjecture has nothing to do with my original statement except to say I did not consider that when my comment never alluded to such reasoning.I only asserted that such a condition exists and is able to be replicated.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
That is a …
That is a possibility. I can and will concede that. However, my contention that the explosion itself contains no hallmark of a weapons grade explosive (As the sole cause) still stands. The fact that there is a fireball of this caliber shows that the agent was in aerosol form at some point (Which can come from the rupturing of a tank) Again though, I ask you to perform this test by taking even a small quantity of fuel and documenting combustion.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Pardon me but you …
Pardon me but you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. Please, go out and replicate this. You have good points but it has been shown that oxygen starved fires do produce black smoke. However, this continues to be a detraction from my original statement that high grade (Any explosive used on a missile) cannot produce this kind of explosion. Heck watch the mythbusters blow up that kids car and you see the hollywood explosion vs actual explosives. That should be telling.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
its just because …
its just because the camera was a peice of crap, it was a plane eye witnesses saw it, just because ur cameras caught this doesnt mean thats not what happened
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
If the American …
If the American government wanted to create panic by staging a “false-flag” terrorist attack, wouldn’t it have been easier to use a carbon-copy of the Boeing 757 used by AA on their Flight 77, rather than painting a AGM-86 or BGM-109 in AA livery.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
this video is a …
this video is a joke. 4 seconds in and it is wrong. the pentagon is NOT the most guarded building on earth. this statement is so stupid, how can you take anything that the source claims seriously? only if you WANT to believe the CT.
the pentagon’s front door is 900 YARDS from the runway at a major airport (Reagan National).
900 YARDS FROM A RUNWAY, truthtards! how can that POSSIBLY be the most guarded building on earth?
give it up truthtards. let it go.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
havent you opend a …
havent you opend a bullet and burned off the gunpowder?
same thing — you have to restrict the expanction — so the room to expand x restraint the better, please take a look at coloum 14aa ? , blown out and still intacked , , The windows in first floor , not smashed , plane size made it imposible to fly low over 320 knots , ect ect
the list is endless , Stop the hidden goverment that on the usa JFK said it and Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us all
they didnt change the forth Ammend
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
@StephenMaturinMD ” …
@StephenMaturinMD “No-one that I’ve heard of reported a strong smell of aviation fuel or were doused in it.”
really? no one doused in jet fuel reported a strong smell of aviation fuel? fascinating!
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
@VendettasD
” …
@VendettasD
“Evidence supporting this?”
I’ve seen several forest fires burning out of control, whipped up by winds (not starving for oxygen), and blowing black smoke.
chemical and plastics can make black smoke when they burn. carpet and desks, too.
there is no direct cause-effect with black smoke and an oxygen-starved fire. it isn’t binary.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Go to: Ae911Truth( …
Go to: Ae911Truth(dot)org — This is THE best 9/11 truth site on the internet — The government doesn’t want you to know about it. Watch the 2 hour video lecture “9/11: Blueprint for Truth” and sign the petition!
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Agreed many …
Agreed many staffers were strategists and clerks, etc. but some were former active service personnel who were well aware of what explosives smell like and feel like. Could it have been a combined fuel/high X explosion? Enough fuel to create the fireball but not enough to drench the entire site in jet fuel.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“Not what I’ve read …
“Not what I’ve read on here” I have a problem with this statement.
“The people reporting were military and knew what the smell was like.”
Most personnel who work in the pentagon are strategic. The cordite claims have also been refuted. See testimony.
All I am saying is the explosion carries no tell tale signs of high explosives being used. A flame signature like is seen would not be produced by a high explosive. AT-4 missile strike as evidence.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Evidence supporting …
Evidence supporting this? I am simply stating that a fire does produce black smoke when it becomes oxygen starved. You can test this too.
And this is not perpetuating either side. this is a common occurrence of which evidence exists and can be replicated.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Google, ‘cordite …
Google, ‘cordite smell at the pentagon’
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Not what I’ve read …
Not what I’ve read on here. Several witnesses inside the Pentangle reported smelling ‘cordite’, which is rather strange as it is rather old fashioned. The people reporting were military and knew what the smell was like. No-one that I’ve heard of reported a strong smell of aviation fuel or were doused in it.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
@VendettasD
“Note …
@VendettasD
“Note the color change to dark smoke signifying a lack of high burning elements”
note that that little brown nugget of bullshit, perpetuated by the fully discredited 9/11 Mysteries docudrama, is a little brown nugget of bullshit.
dark smoke does not mean the fire is starving, whether from a lack of things to burn or a lack of oxygen.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
@StephenMaturinMD
…
@StephenMaturinMD
moving the goalposts? how truthtard of you. rather than address your new and improved position, why don’t you find an expert who will agree with you that “a fuel explosion has almost no shockwave.” good luck with that.
“the lack of fuel smell and the lovely aroma of explosives”
who said this? what do they know about the subject? how many people know what explosives smell like? or jet fuel, for that matter?
when truthers extrapolate, humans laugh.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
To be frank on that …
To be frank on that, I wonder. Do not take me as a mainline story believer, but I doubt a number of those claims are to be trustworthy. Keep in mind, in a court of law, the witness account is typically seen as the most unreliable. Which means one must also consider the perspective of other sides. Being that the video evidence of the impact is insufficient, one must look to other pieces of evidence to put together what really happened, thus my position that the explosion is fuel derived.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Unfortunately, your …
Unfortunately, your comment is not backed up by previous examples. numerous plane crashes with fire from the fuel burning off. Plus WTC themselves. You will notice that (No position, being objective here) the majority of the fuel had burned off (Note the color change to dark smoke signifying a lack of high burning elements at that point).
Those are valid issues to be taken up.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Wrong, …
Wrong, unfortunately, Witnesses are notedly mute on the smell present that day. Fuel, when combusted does produce a shockwave. Furthermore, high explosive charges (Ref AT-4, Claymore mine, Hand grenades, packed powder explosives, Nitroglycerin, Cruise missile impacts) do not produce a flame rich explosion. try it for yourself though. Get 5 gallons kerosene, get a large clear area, set up a delayed fuse to the tank, set up igniter and GTFO 200 or more feet back.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Nope, not a retard, …
Nope, not a retard, not an explosion expert either but I’m willing to believe other people who are experts and say that there is no comparison between a fuel explosion and high explosives. Please correct me if that is not the case.
Also, please address the lack of fuel smell and the lovely aroma of explosives at the site.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Bedwetta has never …
Bedwetta has never heard of sarcasm. There are plenty of strange people on both sides of this argument, (BrainlessMonkeyDung?)
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
glass windows are …
glass windows are well known for their ability to withstand an impact with something the size of a house made of metal , weighing several tons and travelling at 400mph+.
Not only that but they can also make the wreckage disappear.
Any fool who suggests otherwise is unpatriotic.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Why do we have to …
Why do we have to wait 30 years to be told what we already know, it was an inside job, as inside as the JFK assassination.
on December 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
@andarks They all …
@andarks They all evaporated into thin air, I think.