Looks and sounds more like anti-aircraft fire.

Uh... WTF? Have you seriously never heard of the Dresden and Hamburg firebombings? In the Hamburg case the U.S. actually set up a fake German village as a test run just to see how many houses they could burn down. The fact that entire mock village was destroyed was seen as a massive success, not a reason to go back and figure out a more humane way to do it.

As far as Japan goes, even today a large part of Japan's economy depends upon small to mid-sized businesses that often double as people's homes. The government didn't "place" them there, these were people's day-jobs. Just like in the U.S., factories that once produced consumer goods were forced to make military materials to support the war effort.

The U.S. used firebombs for two reasons: first, firebombing meant precision bombing wasn't needed so the planes could fly at a high altitude out of shot of anti-aircraft fire and second, they knew damn well they'd be roasting Japanese people alive. Nobody cared. The war had gone on for so long that the U.S. was willing to do anything to end it quickly, particularly when they saw Russian swooping in to consolidate Eastern Europe. After Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, the bitter island fighting in the Pacific, the kamikaze attacks, and the stories of escaped or freed POWs, it's pretty safe to say the American military wasn't looking at the Japanese people as humans anymore, just enemies to be defeated by any means necessary--including nuclear weapons.

Would have made an ideal cheap export weapon for our then "friends" to use in counter-insurgency.

Low countermeasures, not bulletproofed, one engine---anywhere where the pilots were a relatively cheap commodity, it would have been a useful add on.

Anywhere else, for US Forces, given the cost of training pilots---
Probably not really economical.

If the Army was allowed to have fixed wing aircraft (it's not; that's part of the deal with having the Air Force)---then I bet they'd would have wanted it for a counter-insurgency role, where the other guy had no airplanes and no SAMS/heavy anti aircraft---but that doesn't describe the world of the 1980s and the Fulda Gap very accurately lol

Your video, Russian anti-aircraft gun turns into full-auto nightmare, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 14 Badge!

At a recent gun amnesty (which is similar to these gun buybacks) in sweden someone turned in an anti aircraft cannon.

And for the record that AT-4 is not an RPG it's technically a recoilless grenade launcher

I want a mission where I'm part of an Anti-aircraft battery. You have to hit the wing suited spec-ops guys as they fly in. If you miss a dog near you laughs before running out in to the field and neuters them before they can do anything.

Just to clarify this is actually a Swedish Bofors anti-aircraft gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun
http://www.robertsarmory.com/40mm.htm

links from here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/hi5md/the_40mm_machine_gun/c1vm9y7

-- Gunshots fired into #bahrain protesters, injured have fallen as they try to enter pearl square
-- Army firing live ammo from anti-aircraft guns from APC's at protesters #bahrain
-- Protesters were carrying flowers saying they wanted to deliver it to police. Were shot instead. Blood on street now #bahrain
-- @AP photg saw at least 4 injured and 1 dead. V bloody #bahrain
-- Protesters reached the #lulu square, sat down and army shot into them again #bahrain

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Mosquito, Shhot, Laser, Nathan Myhrvold' to 'Mosquito, Shot, Shoot, Down, Laser, Anti Aircraft, Nathan Myhrvold' - edited by calvados

>> ^bmacs27:
Did the Pentagon, the nerve center of the US military, really have no missile or anti-aircraft defenses?

oh, come on.. are you seriously calling for shooting down a civilian aircraft filled with civilians that might or might not be under hostile control with no confirmed flightpath?

most of those 'questions' are due to chance, chaos and panic
nothing like this had ever happened on mainland US (while it's everyday life in the middle-eastern countries.. which was the whole point of the attack)
there is very little anyone could have done once the planes are in the air
bush should be fried for negligence though.. sitting on his ass, mesmerized by a children's story while people burned
inexcusable

I think this site provides a good debunking of this video. What I like about it specifically is that it's from a known figure within the "truther" movement. What he's insinuating is that the "magic show" theorists such as CIT are likely paid to discredit any call for more information, and provide a distraction from more pressing questions about more plausible scenarios.

Specifically he asks:
* How was it possible that the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began?

* Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just over 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation’s capital?

* Why did F-16s fail to protect Washington on 9/11? Was the Langley emergency response sabotaged?

* Why did Flight 77 hit a part of the building opposite from the high command and mostly empty and under renovation, with majority of victims being civilian accountants?

* Why were Pentagon workers not evacuated or warned that Flight 77 was approaching, despite those in the bunker tracking the attack plane as it closed the final 50 miles to the Pentagon?

* How could Flight 77 have been piloted through its extreme aerobatic final maneuvers by Hani Hanjour, a failed Cessna pilot who had never flown a jet?

* Why did the flight instructor who certified Hani Hanjour, a former Israeli paratrooper, disappear a few days after his 9/11 Commission interview?

* Why was a war game drill used to vacate the National Reconnaissance Office for the duration of the attack?

* How was a C-130 pilot able to intercept the plane incoming to the Pentagon while NORAD was not?

* Did the Pentagon, the nerve center of the US military, really have no missile or anti-aircraft defenses?

* What were Vice-president Cheney’s orders when Norman Mineta described him speaking to a young man in the presidential bunker as the plane approached, saying, “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?“

For a conspiracy moderate like myself, these questions deserve addressing. Particularly questions about how a plane was allowed to reach the pentagon in the first place. Any politician claiming to be "tough on security" ought to be able to answer for how, on his watch, a commercial airliner piloted by an untrained pilot was able to strike the nerve center of the US military almost an hour after we had already been attacked.

If nothing more nefarious, Dick Cheney should have been indicted for gross negligence on that day.

I found a source.

October 16, 2001 - New York Times

U.S. Sent Guns to bin Laden in 1980s

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than a decade ago, the U.S. government sent 25 high-powered
sniper rifles to a group of Muslim fighters in Afghanistan that included Osama bin Laden, according to
court testimony and the guns' maker.

The rifles, made by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. of Murfreesboro, Tenn., and paid for by the
government, were shipped during the collaboration between the United States and Muslims then
fighting to drive the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.

Experts doubt the weapons could still be used, but the transaction further accentuates how Americans
are fighting an enemy that U.S. officials once supported and liberally armed.

In a trial early this year of suspects in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, Essam Al-Ridi,
identified as a former pilot for bin Laden, said he shipped the weapons in 1989 to Sheik Abdallah
Azzam, bin Laden's ideological mentor. The weapons had range-finding equipment and night-vision
scopes.

During the late 1980s, the United States supplied arms worth $500 million a year to anti-Soviet
fighters including Afghanistan's current Taliban rulers, bin Laden and others. The supplies included a
range of weapons from small arms to shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.

Al-Ridi, an American citizen born in Egypt, testified that Azzam liked the rifles because they could be
``carried by individuals so it's made in such a way where you could have a heavy cannon but mobile
by an individual.''

While in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Al-Ridi said he saw bin Laden several times with Azzam.

Ronnie Barrett, president of Barrett Firearms, likened sale of the .50-caliber armor-piercing rifles to
the supply of the Stinger surface-to-air missiles given to anti-Soviet guerrillas in Afghanistan.

``Barrett rifles were picked up by U.S. government trucks, shipped to U.S. government bases and
shipped to those Afghan freedom fighters,'' Barrett said.

The sale was publicized by the Violence Policy Center, gun-control advocates who want for more
restrictions on the sale of high-powered weapons such as the specialized Barrett exports.

``These .50-caliber sniper rifles are ideal tools for terror and assassination,'' VPC analyst Tom Diaz said.

Firearms expert Charles Cutshaw of Jane's Information Group said he was more worried about the
Stingers than long-range sniper rifles.

``It seems to me that there are easier ways for a terrorist to get at a high-value target than this,''
Cutshaw said. ``If they wanted to bring down an aircraft, the best way would be to bring it down with
a Stinger.'' Guerrillas using Stingers were credited with shooting down more than 270 Soviet aircraft.

Cutshaw said the sniper rifles are ``sort of overkill'' for shooting people; more appropriate targets
would be vehicles or fuel tanks. But the Irish Republican Army used the weapon to kill 10 British
soldiers and policemen patrolling the Northern Ireland border in the 1990s.

The rifles could be used only with U.S.-made ammunition, but such ammunition can be obtained in
neighboring Pakistan, Cutshaw said.

The Barrett rifles sold for $5,000 to $6,000 each, and both Barrett and Cutshaw had doubts they
would still work due to dust and a lack of spare parts.

But the rifles could be functional if they have been kept in storage since the purchase, Barrett said.
The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan months after the rifles were sold.

``If it's not used, it could work,'' Barrett said. ``Age will not bother the gun, just usage.''

---

So Bin laden may have received weapons from the CIA in 1989. But his first attack on US targets was in 1992. He was hardly notorious in 1989.

Looks like of like tracer fire from an anti-aircraft cannon.

interesting site, Mr. Rick.

I can pick apart different details about their various "debunking" of 9/11, but it looks like they're using just straight civ sources for their information - like the Pentagon's anti-aircraft weaponry. It's quite well known, within the military, and especially to those who frequent Fort Meade often, that the Pentagon has it's own anti-aircraft system, but yes, like they state - it IS quite classified, and for good reason, too. Various officials in the Pentagon even deny it's existence, and also - for good reason.

While I agree that Alex Jones is as much of a tool as Bush, I can't help but think that all of the bickering we see on various websites is also just that - tools. Nobody is really doing anything about this - there are way too many odd "coincidences" surrounding 9/11 for the story that various government agencies and the single "independent" investigation into 9/11 provided to be entirely true, but nobody has any solid facts - neither the 9/11 Commission Report nor the NIST report tried to apply basic principles of physics to what happened on 9/11.

I'm still awaiting an explanation on WTC7 - if you actually read through the whole document at the debunking911 website, you too should be able to come up with a couple questions on your own. For instance - if the southwest corner of the building was as damaged as the site says it was, why did the east side fall first?(by their own admission, even)

I have a number of questions for the people who made this website, just reading through all of the documents on the website(and printing them out), but like I stated above - the very fact that there are no solid facts about what happened on 9/11 ought to give some credence to both the 9/11 "Conspiracy Theorists" AND the "Official Story Conspiracy Theorists," as both "sides" may have various points that they are correct about. Ultimately, I think this type of discussion should be welcomed, but unfortunately is not, and I think that people should start to actually take action, rather than just bicker like we do on the various forums online.

By taking action, I suggest petitioning for a new, independent, investigation into the physical facts, and financial information known about 9/11. Why did the towers fall so fast? Why did X amount of Y stocks have large amounts of put options placed on them in the days prior to 9/11(apparently 95% of which was from an unnamed single source, as per the 9/11 Commission Report)? Why did WTC7 fall, even though so many other buildings closer to the towers, that were much more damaged than WTC7, did not fall? If it is claimed to have fallen as a result of fire, what caused the fire when no other buildings in the area caught fire as a result of the debris from the WTC 1/2 collapses?

There are too many questions concerning 9/11, and that has bothered me right from the start. If the questions were small and not noteworthy, well, that's one thing, but the amount of questions concerning 9/11 tends to grow as more information is known, even when the information is meant to answer other questions.