9/11 Tape to be Released

In May of 2001 Dick Cheney was placed directly in charge of managing the "seamless integration" of all training exercises throughout the federal government and military agencies by presidential mandate.

The morning of 9/11 began with multiple training exercises of war games and terror drills which Cheney, as mandated by the president, was placed in charge of managing.

War games & terror drills included live-fly exercises with military aircraft posing as hijacked aircraft over the United States, as well as simulated exercises that placed "false blips" (radar injects indicating virtual planes) on FAA radar screens. One exercise titled NORTHERN VIGILANCE pulled Air Force fighters up into Canada simulating a Russian air attack, so there were very few fighters remaining on the east coast to respond. All of this paralyzed Air Force response ensuring that fighter jocks couldn't stop 9/11.

An unknown individual or command center referred to by Major Don Arias of NORAD as the "maestro" coordinated the war games. It is possible there was more than one maestro, but no one will name names. Investigators have asked this question of everyone in relevant government and military positions, to no avail. Investigation has found the maestro was either Dick Cheney, General Ralph "Ed" Eberhart, or both.

Whoever was coordinating the Air Force war games was under the management and direction of Dick Cheney, who was also in charge of managing a terror drill being set up on the West Side of downtown New York on 9/11 titled Tripod 2. This exercise set up a command and control center on 9/11 that was configured exactly like the one lost that morning in WTC 7. It was the perfect command center to respond to the crisis, and it was under Dick Cheney's management before the hijackings occurred. How convenient.

Dick Cheney was one of the main government officials deciding that such extensive war games would take place on 9/11. This was when American intelligence had collected dozens of warnings from governments and intelligence agencies indicating that terrorists were planning to hijack civilian aircraft and crash them into American targets on the ground during the week of September 9th, 2001.
 
Last edited:
Locrian said:
Wasnt there some other footage or something from a petral station or other buildings around they area, have they been released yet? If not why not? Freedom of information my rear.
The other footage will have to be accessed through another FOI request.

I don't want anything free about your rear either. ;)
 
Werewolf said:
Personally I give the member who saw the Pentagon crash from the cemetary a lot more credence than the conspiracy theorists.
Funny, I don't give them any "credence" whatsoever having asked them further about the event but then again I've heard from someone who, while they didn't actually see the impact, saw the results immediately afterwards and refuse to believe it was a plane that managed to fly in horizontally.

I remember the old description of hard drive technology, that the distance between the drive heads and the speed of the platters could be compared to a passenger jet flying at hundreds of miles an hour only a few inches off the ground. Well apparently that possibility is getting ever closer I guess ;)

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the US directed a missile into the Pentagon, but I do believe that there are lots of questions that remain unanswered and I do believe that a lot of these questions and the resulting speculation could have been avoided by the US Government coming clean on all the evidence they had, in a more timely manner. Right now, I do not believe the Pentagon crash has been adequately explained, and like any right-thinking individual, until I have it clear in my own head, I remain undecided as to what actually happened. Having said this, just because I don't necessarily accept anyone's word for what happened (even or should I say especially when someone just so happened to be right there - how convenient is that?), it doesn't make me into some sort of coveniently dismissable CT.
 
phykell said:
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the US directed a missile into the Pentagon, but I do believe that there are lots of questions that remain unanswered and I do believe that a lot of these questions and the resulting speculation could have been avoided by the US Government coming clean on all the evidence they had, in a more timely manner.

If they came clean about all the evidence they had then it would be clear that the attacks should never have been able to happen. It's nonsence like the missile that keeps people looking the wrong way.
 
MookJong said:
If they came clean about all the evidence they had then it would be clear that the attacks should never have been able to happen. It's nonsence like the missile that keeps people looking the wrong way.
Apparently, there may even be a CT around that, that the Pentagon "missile" is actually some sort of honey pot - imagine that! :)
 
my question is why did the pilot fly the plane so low in order to hit the pentagon on the side risking to just crash the plane without completing his mission? The pentagon is so big why couldnt he just take an inclined route and hit the pentagon from above? It seems easier for a missile to take the course shown on the video and also easier for a plane to hit the "terrace" of the pentagon...

big pentagon:
pentagon-757.jpg
 
Remember the guys flying the planes were apparently pretty poor pilots, and it's much easier to to try and line up well in advance so you're on course and don't have to worry about height (other than to avoid hitting the ground), than it would be to judge when to drop down as you're going over the target.


Almost any fool can probably fly a modern aircraft on a relatively level course, with minimal instruction, but things like working the correct angle of decent to hit a relatively small target (considering the speeds involved) requires a lot more skill.
Hence the method they used, as long as they could avoid hitting the ground they had a pretty good chance of hitting their target.
 
Werewolf said:
Remember the guys flying the planes were apparently pretty poor pilots, and it's much easier to to try and line up well in advance so you're on course and don't have to worry about height (other than to avoid hitting the ground), than it would be to judge when to drop down as you're going over the target.


Almost any fool can probably fly a modern aircraft on a relatively level course, with minimal instruction, but things like working the correct angle of decent to hit a relatively small target (considering the speeds involved) requires a lot more skill.
Hence the method they used, as long as they could avoid hitting the ground they had a pretty good chance of hitting their target.


thats my point... what is considered easy.. fly a stable course just above the ground (dont forget if that was a plane the pilot approached from a HIGH altitude then leveled with the ground and then hit the target - that requires skill) or just see the target below you from some good distance and start "landing" the plane until some point where you just dive on a huge building like the pentagon... I mean try in a flying simulator to land a plane properly (level it and so on) and then try to just crash it on the runway from some altitude... as long as you can see the "target" it is not that difficult to come from above.
 
Conspiracy theorists, do me a favour, and answer just this one question.

If there are many many reliable people, who say they saw an aeroplane fly into the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, why would they lie about this. Also consider, that many of these people gave this eye-witness account on that day, not three to five years later.
 
N9ne said:
Conspiracy theorists, do me a favour, and answer just this one question.

If there are many many reliable people, who say they saw an aeroplane fly into the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, why would they lie about this. Also consider, that many of these people gave this eye-witness account on that day, not three to five years later.

I am not a conspiracy theorist but I think having several witnesses on a scene can be "arranged" by a goverment. If the goverment can erase you from the face of the earth dont you think they could have a trained "witness squad"?

One thing I know for sure ..If I had lost a friend or a relative on that incident I would like to see a lot more than what that video shows.

I cannot tell if it is a plane or missile that hit the pentagon. The missile approach seems as an almost impossible act from a terrorist group - so the goverment did it ..on the other hand the place approach is not backed up by enough evidence.

They say they found the black boxes and they dont publish them not to hurt peoples feelings. Personally I would like to hear the tapes if I had lost someone in the crash. Especially 5 years later - time is a healer remember?
 
N9ne said:
Conspiracy theorists, do me a favour, and answer just this one question.

If there are many many reliable people, who say they saw an aeroplane fly into the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, why would they lie about this. Also consider, that many of these people gave this eye-witness account on that day, not three to five years later.

They might of thought they saw a plane.

eye witness " yeah looked like a plane, it was low and fast"
eye witness 2 " err, yeah it was a plane"

Would you believe 5 angles of video footage or 5 witnesses.
 
cheets64 said:
Its not written very well, the layout is confusing and the pictures arent even labeled. It holds no validation, just a few pictures of the "crash" and some guy just saying LOOK LOOK SEE A WHEEL.

This is what you sound like.
I posted it before and ill post it again

/People that dont believe us mode

Video evedence of the place flying low over washington and into the pentagone.

/People that dont believe us mode off.


/People that believe what i do mode

Here is your video, I told you it wasnt fake.

/People that believe what i do mode off


/People that dont believe us mode

That video is clearly made up and fake done by the govenment to get us believe what they tell us.

/People that dont believe us mode off

It might not be video everdence but its the closest thing you will prbably get to it
 
Last edited:
Zip said:
That video is clearly made up and fake done by the govenment to get us believe what they tell us.

/People that dont believe us mode off

It might not be video everdence but its the closest thing you will prbably get to it

Its my choice, I dont want to believe it the evidence.
 
Nobody willing to maybe concede that there was a decoy aircraft but also a missile too ...... accounts of both from eye witnesses; just because they see and hear a plane that's low flying doesn't mean that there isn't a missile too, does it?

Zip, please stop trying to be an "agent provocateur" (troll), you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else but do try to come up with a cogent supported argument rather than your previous type of post.
 
singist said:
Nobody willing to maybe concede that there was a decoy aircraft but also a missile too ...... accounts of both from eye witnesses; just because they see and hear a plane that's low flying doesn't mean that there isn't a missile too, does it?

Zip, please stop trying to be an "agent provocateur" (troll), you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else but do try to come up with a cogent supported argument rather than your previous type of post.

Ive had many posts in this thread about certain types of things that would have been informative.
I was the only one saying the CT was all BS and giving my reasons to why i think so at one stage.
I was asleep for the last 1 or 2 pages of this thread though so thats why it probably looks like ive come out of no where with that post
 
Back
Top Bottom